Packet

OFFICIAL NOTICE AND AGENDA Notice is hereby given that the Community Affairs/Council Policy Committee of the City of Stoughton, Wisconsin will hold a regular or special meeting as indicated on the date, time and location given below. Date/Time: Tuesday September 1, 2026 at 6:00pm Location: The meeting of the CA/CP will be held as a hybrid meeting (virtually and in person). In Person: City Hall Conference Room, 207 S. Forrest Street, Stoughton, WI Virtual: Join with Teams Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/220194675259824? p=3odSf922YyOFWetZMX Meeting ID: 220 194 675 259 824 Passcode: kp3ps98i Need help? | System reference Dial in by phone +1 929-352-2678,,210168980# United States, New York City Find a local number Phone conference ID: 210 168 980# Members: Jonathan Schroerlucke, Adrienne Nienow, Greg Jenson, Mike Vinneau, Mark Sinnott, John Otterson, and Mayor Tim Swadley (ex officio) Call To Order Roll Call And Verification Of Quorum Certification Of Compliance With Open Meetings Law Communications Approve August 4, 2026 CACP Minutes CACP MINUTES 8.4.2026.PDF Presentation: The Community Group Will Give A 5-Minute Presentation 6A CACP PRESENTATION.PDF 6B ALPR TECH - HOW THEY COMPARE.PDF 6C LIST OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS STOUGHTON.PDF 6D CACP PUBLIC COMMENTS.PDF 6E CACP WORKING TIMELINE.PDF Discussion: Purchasing Policy CITY OF STOUGHTON CIP PURCHASING MANUAL.PDF PURCHASING POLICY.PDF Discussion: Creating A Policy For The Procurement, Evaluation, And Oversight Of ALPR And/Or Other Surveillance Technologies l Establishing a preliminary outline for the policy creation process. l Establishing a preliminary draft of the committee's purpose for the policy. l Establishing a preliminary scope and definition that the policy will cover l (If time allows) Establishing a preliminary outline of the desired process for acquiring, deploying, or upgrading the defined technology. A - ACLU MODEL BILL.PDF B - DANE COUNTY RFP.PDF C - POLICY CREATION PROCESS OUTLINE DRAFT.PDF D - 09 01 26 ALPR DISCUSSION GUIDE.PDF IT/Media Policy Changes CELL PHONE POLICY DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF COMMON COUNCIL COMPUTER POLICY DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF WEBSITE DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF WSTO DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF Adjournment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Documents: 6. Documents: 7. Documents: 8. Documents: 9. Documents: 10. OFFICIAL NOTICE AND AGENDA Notice is hereby given that the Community Affairs/Council Policy Committee of the City of Stoughton, Wisconsin will hold a regular or special meeting as indicated on the date, time and location given below. Date/Time: Tuesday September 1, 2026 at 6:00pm Location: The meeting of the CA/CP will be held as a hybrid meeting (virtually and in person). In Person: City Hall Conference Room, 207 S. Forrest Street, Stoughton, WI Virtual: Join with Teams Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/220194675259824? p=3odSf922YyOFWetZMX Meeting ID: 220 194 675 259 824 Passcode: kp3ps98i Need help? | System reference Dial in by phone +1 929-352-2678,,210168980# United States, New York City Find a local number Phone conference ID: 210 168 980# Members: Jonathan Schroerlucke, Adrienne Nienow, Greg Jenson, Mike Vinneau, Mark Sinnott, John Otterson, and Mayor Tim Swadley (ex officio) Call To Order Roll Call And Verification Of Quorum Certification Of Compliance With Open Meetings Law Communications Approve August 4, 2026 CACP Minutes CACP MINUTES 8.4.2026.PDF Presentation: The Community Group Will Give A 5-Minute Presentation 6A CACP PRESENTATION.PDF 6B ALPR TECH - HOW THEY COMPARE.PDF 6C LIST OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS STOUGHTON.PDF 6D CACP PUBLIC COMMENTS.PDF 6E CACP WORKING TIMELINE.PDF Discussion: Purchasing Policy CITY OF STOUGHTON CIP PURCHASING MANUAL.PDF PURCHASING POLICY.PDF Discussion: Creating A Policy For The Procurement, Evaluation, And Oversight Of ALPR And/Or Other Surveillance Technologies l Establishing a preliminary outline for the policy creation process. l Establishing a preliminary draft of the committee's purpose for the policy. l Establishing a preliminary scope and definition that the policy will cover l (If time allows) Establishing a preliminary outline of the desired process for acquiring, deploying, or upgrading the defined technology. A - ACLU MODEL BILL.PDF B - DANE COUNTY RFP.PDF C - POLICY CREATION PROCESS OUTLINE DRAFT.PDF D - 09 01 26 ALPR DISCUSSION GUIDE.PDF IT/Media Policy Changes CELL PHONE POLICY DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF COMMON COUNCIL COMPUTER POLICY DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF WEBSITE DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF WSTO DRAFT - CLEAN.PDF Adjournment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Documents: 6. Documents: 7. Documents: 8. Documents: 9. Documents: 10. MINUTES COMMUNITY AFFAIRS/COUNCIL POLICY OF THE CITY OF STOUGHTON Tuesday, August 4 , 202 6 @ 6:00 p.m. The meeting of the CA/CP was held as a hybrid meeting (in person and virtually). A t 321 S. Fo urth St. and Microsoft Teams 1. Call to Order : The meeting of the Community Affairs/Council Policy Committee was called to order by Chair Nienow at 5 :59 pm 2. Roll Call Present : Adrienne Nienow, Greg Je nson, Mike Vinneau, Jonathan Schroerlucke, John Otterson , Mayor Tim Swadley (ex officio) , Chief Hill , John Montgomery Absent : Mark Sinnot Guests : Cindy McGlynn, Laura Trotter, Mike Heger Communication- None Approval of June, 2, 2026 Minutes Motion: Moved by Jens on , seconded by Vinneau , to approve the minutes of the June 2 , 202 6 , meeting. Vote: Motion carried unanimously ( 5 – 0). 3. Annual Seniors in Need Presentation - Cindy McGlynn introduced Laura Trotter as the incoming Senior Center Director as Cindy McGlynn is retiring on August 28, 2026. Cindy gave an overview of 2025 donations taken in $31,000 and funds allocated were $30,000. Most funds allocated are for housing and crisis management. 4. Annual Commission on Aging - Cindy McGlynn gave an overview of Commission on Aging . The Comm ission focuses on advocacy and oversight. 5. Annual Food Pantry Presentation - Mike Heger presented annual numbers for the food pantry. YTD numbers of participants is almost the same as last year. Monetary donations for last year held steady and the food pantry is currently in a good place. Donations of food from TFAP, Second Harvest (purchased at a discount), Kwik Trip and Pick and Save. Food drives supplement the food pantry. Approximately 35 active volunteers to run the pantry. 6. Social Media Policy Changes - IT updated policy to reflect current status of vendors and committees and cleaned up language to make formatting consistent. IT is moving toward consistency of posting and branding for Social Media Site. John will clean IT /Media Policy Changes document and forward it on to Rick to look over. 7. Discussion Regarding FLOCK Resolution- Discussion encompasses AI usage, ALPR, Vendor Contract Procedures and Purchasing Poli cies. FLOCK cameras have been removed and the contract terminated. Going forward work will happen around building goals and alignment. Three main committees that would have recommendations were identified: CACP, Finance and Public Safety . Next Steps: Review purchasing /vendor policy with an eye toward public transparency and oversight . What does our current process look like? Review the step-by-step process. Brainstorm community engagement ideas. The committee w ould like a streamlined process of how ideas/input from the public come in to committee members. Jean Ligocki posed this question: Has anyone looked at League of Wisconsin Municipalities for example , templates guidance? There is information on their website. Jean Ligocki also recognized the committee for their work and input with a Thank you. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Jenson , second by Schr oerlucke to adjourn the meeting. Vote: Motion carried unanimously ( 5 -0) Time: The meeting adjourned at 7 :38 pm The Quiet, Incremental Creep of Automated Surveillance AI-powered technology is enabling law enforcement to erode our privacy How Did We Get Here? The History of ALPR Technology in Stoughton • 2018/2019: Stoughton joins the Wisconsin ALPR Association's BOSS system • 2025: BOSS system and the Wisconsin ALPR Association ceases to exist • April 2025: T argeted Flock marketing emails begin arriving in the inboxes of city officials and police department • October 2025: Flock offers to coach city officials with specific strategies to overcome budget obstacles • December 2025: Stoughton Police Department enters partnership with Flock with the knowledge of a select few city officials • January 2026: Stoughton Police Department gains access to Flock’s nationwide database • May 2026: Flock Cameras installed and operational 2019 2025 For more detailed timeline, see the document, “CACP Working Timeline.pdf” How Has ALPR Technology Changed? For more detailed breakdown see the document “ ALPR Tech – How They Compare.pdf” The Evolution From Local or State Networks to Massive AI-driven National Networks How Has ALPR Technology Changed? Regional Network Versus National AI-powered Network • Civil liberties are being eroded; everyone is watched • No probable cause, no warrant needed. Just this month, high-risk situation in Wisconsin involves mistaken identity of a vehicle. Multiple officers respond with guns drawn. Brookfield, August 6, 2026 • Big corporations are controlling data – data is what is valuable to mass surveillance companies and police departments • Federal agencies and access to national networks If the government has to spy on everyone to preserve itself, it’s no longer defending people from threats. It has become the threat people need defending from. Impact – Loss of Public Trust Mass Surveillance Without Mass Consent • Flock coached the Stoughton Police Department and attempted to influence the City Council vote • No community discussion on surveillance of everyone • SPD prioritized video camera placement to watch Cascade Falls apartment complex and parts of Stoughton High School • Who is looking out for the community as a whole? • City officials and employees did not question the impact of deploying Flock cameras, DESPITE the use and abuse of Flock and other surveillance tech being negatively portrayed in national and local news • Flock coached the Stoughton Police Department on their June 23, 2026 presentation to the City Council The question is this: Should a system that automatically photographs and logs every driver— with no suspicion and no warrant— be the starting condition of driving in a free country? A Different Way to Think About Safe Communities What the Evidence Shows • Workforce development and summer job programs reduced youth involvement in violence by 35 to 45%. • Arrests for violent crimes declined by 51% among people receiving temporary financial assistance. • Access to housing reduced the probability of committing crime by 80% percent and reduced the number of jail days by 130%. • Home repairs in low -income, predominantly Black neighborhoods were associated with a 21.9% reduction in total crime. • Efforts to clean up vacant lots in high -poverty neighborhoods led to a 29% reduction in violent crime. • The presence of street lighting, painted sidewalks, public transportation, and parks is associated with at least 76% decreased odds of homicide. Where Do We Go From Here? Tonight we are calling on CA/CP to: • Document the commitment made July 28, 2026 • Consider a moratorium on signing new contracts • Prioritize mass surveillance ordinance and policies and emphasize public oversight using the People’s Resolution as a whole • Think beyond surveillance to solutions that create a strong community—a strong community is a safe community • Mental health support • Access to healthcare • Free school lunches • Stable, affordable housing • Community empowerment Privacy is an essential human right. It is the bedrock of freedom. Without privacy, our creativity, our exploration, and our very development as individuals is denied. Looking Forward AI-Powered Surveillance Is Turning the United States into a Digital Police State. Now is the Time to Stop It. ACLU.org - February 12, 2026 Their Cities Dropped Flock Surveillance Cameras. They’re Still Being Watched The Guardian - Aug 20 2026 America’s Surveillance Problem Is Much Bigger than Flock Governing.com - August 26, 2026 Beware of Other License Plate Surveillance Companies Besides Flock ACLU.org - August 25, 2026 ICE has spun a massive surveillance web. We talked to people caught in it. NPR.org - March 25, 2026 The Private Companies Quietly Building a Police State CampaignZero.org – October 2, 2025 To Achieve Public Safety, Invest in Strong Communities Center for Justice Innovation – November 5, 2025 Milwaukee’s Flock contract originally "was attached to MPD’s intelligence-focused fusion centerknown as the Southeastern Threat Analysis Center (STAC), [which] partners with the FBI Joint T errorism Task Force and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and shares information between local police departmentsacross eight counties in southeastern Wisconsin. ” [Wisconsin Examiner investigation] "The Flock contract was later modified to cover the entire police department. ” [Wisconsin Examiner investigation] Additional Resources More About Milwaukee’s Flock Contract and fusion centers PIPS/Neology ALPR (circa 2018–2019) vs. Flock Falcon ALPR (circa 2025– 2026) Capability PIPS/Neology, circa 2018–2019Flock Falcon, circa 2025–2026 Primary function Automatic license-plate recognition serving a particular agency or closed network. Automatic license-plate recognition plus AI-based identification and broad data sharing/searches. Plate OCR (plate-reading software) Software could read license plates and convert letters and numbers into machine- readable text. Automated plate recognition is integrated with machine-learning analysis of the entire vehicle. Vehicle image Could capture a color overview image in addition to the plate image. Vehicle imagery is a core component of each searchable detection. Make/model/color recognition or other distinguishing features Only available through additional software.A core part of Flock’s vehicle-identification system Search without knowing the plate # Possible depending on software, but not a central feature. A central capability: Users can search by vehicle characteristics even when the plate # is unknown. Missing, obscured, or temporary plates Primarily designed around recognition of license plates. Specifically designed to produce useful detection even when a plate is unavailable or unreadable. Role of AI AI vehicle classification was an emerging add-on capability. Machine learning is fundamental to the Flock platform. Typical deployment modelGenerally deployed as infrastructure belonging to a particular police department, municipality, or consortium. Designed from the outset as nodes in a common cloud-based platform used by many agencies and organizations. Where the data livesData was typically stored in the agency’s or consortium’s own environment. Data is managed through Flock’s cloud platform. Interagency sharingSharing was possible, but generally had to be established between particular agencies, systems, or regional networks. Sharing is built into the platform architecture. Network architectureFundamentally local/regional and installation-specific: cameras were components of a particular customer's ALPR system. Fundamentally cloud-networked and scalable: individual Flock cameras function as nodes within a much larger Flock ecosystem. Geographic search potentialOrdinarily limited to cameras/data available to the agency or consortium using that particular system. A user can search far beyond the agency’s own cameras, across data made available by other Flock customers. Installation requirementsMore conventional fixed ALPR infrastructure, commonly involving dedicated power and communications planning. Cellular connectivity and solar/battery configurations allow rapid roadside deployment with minimal fixed infrastructure. Overall concept A camera system for capturing license plate numbers, with data stored by and accessible to a particular agency or closed network. A camera feeding an AI-enabled, cloud- based network in which a vast array of data can be searched and shared across jurisdictions. LIST SECURITY/SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN USE BY THE CITY OF STOUGHTON: Public Records Request Sent to City Clerk and Description of Request - Aug 22, 2026 Requesting a comprehensive list of security/surveillance cameras used on any city property, including parks, schools, city buildings, public roadways etc. Please provide: • Specific location for each camera • Type of camera (fixed dome, bullet camera, PTZ, fixed video, motion activated etc.) at each location • How data is collected, reviewed • Who reviews collected data • Retention and deletion protocol for collected data Reply from Brandon Hill, Stoughton PD - August 23 • A PDF list of 149 cameras in city buildings (see subsequent pages) • A jpg with list of cameras with not explanation. Some are labeled NVR (networked video camera) See the attached list of all City Cameras. In addition to that list the PD has 2 fixed traffic cameras one at 51 and CTN and one at Gjertson and Main st. All are fixed cameras. I did not ask Stoughton Utilities since they are kinda a weird mix of private and public owned. If you want to know if they have cameras I suggest you ask them directly. We don’t maintain school district records so you will have to ask them about their cameras. We don’t have any other records responsive to your request. Brandon Hill Chief Of Police Stoughton Police Department 321 S 4th St Stoughton Wi 53589 (608)873-3374 • Did not answer questions about the type of camera other than to say they are “fixed” • Did not answer questions about how data is collected or reviewed • Did not reply to questions regarding protocols for retention and deletion Sent follow up questions to Chief Hill, August 25, 2026 • Are all the building cameras listed in City Building Cameras.PDF , recording video? • Are all cameras owned by the city and PD connected via Wi-Fi or some other type of network to a central location? • Do video cameras record 24 hrs a day? • Do these cameras, record audio, as well as video? • Is there live monitoring of any cameras? • Who monitors or reviews data? • Do you have policies regarding data retention and deletion? Is so please include in your reply. As of August 27, have not received a reply to my questions. 161 video cameras 16 in the library, 22 in the senior center, 25 in the youth center! sZ Wϭ WϮ >ŝďƌĂƌLJEsZ &ƵůůEsZ EŽƌĚŝĐZŝĚŐĞ ĂƐƚ^ŝĚĞWĂƌŬ ZĂĐĞƚƌĂĐŬWĂƌŬ sŝƌŐŝŶ>ĂŬĞWĂƌŬ EŽƌƐĞWĂƌŬ ũŽŝŶWĂƌŬ dƌŽůůĞĂĐŚ EŽƌƐĞWĂƌŬ PUBLIC COMMENTS An incomplete listing of public comments delivered to the Stoughton City Council and Public Safety Committee, regarding mass surveillance Public Comments to City Council, 8/25/26 Good evening. My name is Lorrie Forde Hurckes. If Stoughton wants to be exceptional, be exceptional in what you choose to invest in. Look at Cascade Falls. We’ve been told it is one of Stoughton's highest-call-volume areas. It's also a low-income, racially diverse complex with an unresponsive out-of-town owner, where residents struggle to get basic things like locks, doors and lights repaired. You chose to point a surveillance camera at it. You again have a choice. You can continue surveilling a community already disproportionately affected by policing and experience further erosion of trust and compound existing racial disparities. Or invest in actually making people safer. Research shows that repairing low-income homes can reduce crime by 22%. Improving street lighting can reduce it by 14%. And offering young people summer jobs results in 43% fewer violent-crime arrests. Fix the locks. Fix the lights. Employ the teenagers. Feed people. Keep people housed. That's public safety. ALPRs aren't the endpoint. They're infrastructure for what comes next. Systems are already being developed that can associate vehicles with signals from our phones, while AI can increasingly track vehicles by their movements without even needing a license plate. This technology is evolving incredibly fast, with very little regulation. And as we learn more about its costs, communities are saying, this simply isn't worth the risk. Vermilion, Ohio, is moving to prohibit ALPRs. Santa Cruz, California, banned predictive policing over concerns about racial bias. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, put a moratorium on facial recognition, saying “the public trust is far more valuable.” Page of 138 And Medford, Massachusetts, put ALPRs, biometrics and predictive policing under community control, describing these technologies as “rapidly-evolving, severely under- regulated” and aggressively marketed to cities. Twenty-six jurisdictions, covering nearly 18 million people, have adopted Community Control Over Police Surveillance laws. It's the same principle behind the People's Resolution: the people who live here should have the power to make decisions about surveillance. Just because a technology is available doesn’t mean it’s good for us. If we're still learning what these technologies can do, we shouldn't sign contracts first and understand the consequences later. When uncertainty and community concern are this substantial, restraint is a legitimate public-safety decision. Stoughton can lead. What if protecting people's freedom, taking care of each other, and setting our kids up for success became what distinguishes us? That's the kind of community that will attract people to Stoughton. Real safety is built long before harm happens: when people have enough food, safe and stable housing, good jobs, healthcare and education; when young people have opportunities; and when everyone has a real sense of belonging and connection. Surveillance doesn't create any of that. The measure of a safe community isn't how much it knows about its residents. It's how well it takes care of them. That's a community people want to be part of, and one Stoughton can be proud to lead. You don't have to find a better surveillance company. You can make a better choice. Be exceptional. Build safety, not surveillance. Adopt the People's Resolution. Choose to protect our civil liberties. Public Comments to City Council, 8/25/26 When Flock suddenly appeared in Stoughton and many community voices expressed opposition, you heard us and decided that Flock and its sketchy practices raised enough red flags to end the contract and remove the cameras immediately. That was a victory for the people of Stoughton, and we thank you for swift action. But this is not the end of the story, and not the end of our concerns about surveillance in our city. We've heard on multiple occasions that the plan is to wait and see what everyone else does—meaning Dane County Sheriff and surrounding municipalities. But this does not resolve the issues that we've laid out over the past few months in our comments— Page of 238 issues that won't go away by simply replacing one national surveillance giant with another that has a different color camera. All of the major players in this industry offer essentially the same type of technology, with the same systemic risks tied to Flock: warrantless surveillance of everyone, data privacy vulnerabilities, system errors, potential misconduct and abuse by officials, and data-sharing with federal agencies such as DHS and ICE, to name just a few. The singular goal of the private companies behind these systems is to rake in billion-dollar profits by convincing local governments that more surveillance automatically means more public safety. Flock alternatives, and competitors—particularly Axon, Motorola, Rekor, Verkada and Genetec—are positioning themselves to take Flock's place. Many of these companies are tied to weapons technology and have contracts with the federal government. The concerns we've expressed are not company specific, but stem from the technology and company associations. The emerging consensus among privacy advocates is that Flock's rivals may offer different software, policies or governance features, but they don't eliminate the core concerns surrounding ALPR technology. The broader public debate in our city should be, do we really need to participate in large-scale surveillance networks? What justifies the use of the surveillance of everyone in our city? Let's NOT go along with what everyone else is doing. Stoughton should be a leader rather than a follower. Let's find real, community-based solutions and build public trust rather than eroding it. I ask you to carefully consider what makes a city truly safe, and then ask yourself if signing on with another surveillance company is the answer. Public Comments to City Council, 8/25/26 Good evening, my name is Carrie Kilman, and I live in District 1. Since late June, many of us have submitted public records requests to the City and Police Department regarding Flock or mass surveillance. I would like to give you a quick status update. At least 22 requests have been submitted. Of these: One or two were successfully fulfilled. Three or four were partially fulfilled. Page of 338 A handful received email replies acknowledging the request and, at times, explaining why the request could not be fulfilled. More than half have simply received no response at all. When a request was made for records related to camera placement and how those locations were chosen, Chief Hill responded that no such documentation existed because those decisions were based on “verbal discussions.” However, documents obtained through a separate request show this isn’t true: By December 5 of last year, Stoughton PD and Flock had devised a draft “deployment map” of proposed camera locations. And in an email to Flock on June 2, Detective Sargent wrote that "the location [on Jackson Street] was specifically chosen [for a video camera] as we could cover parts of the school, apartment complex, and roadway and move back and forth." When a request was made for email correspondence between Flock and Stoughton PD, only those emails sent by Flock were provided—not the emails sent to Flock by Police Department staff. Additional requests for these missing emails have gone unanswered. When a request was made for email correspondence between Mayor Swadley and the Dane County Sheriff pertaining to “Flock,” “Axon,” or “ALPRs,” the City Clerk responded that it would cost more than $2600 to receive the records, because the keyword search had resulted in 17,550 hits. It is unclear whether the search was correctly filtered by sender and recipient, but it’s notable that so many messages about mass surveillance appear to exist within the City’s inboxes, regardless of who wrote them. (As a side note, here is a fun fact: Municipal Code 2-684, which covers public access to records, states that, "The cost of photocopying shall be as set by the council.” So, if this body would like to make it more affordable for residents to access public documents, it is within your power to do so.) Finally, as you may recall, before joining Flock, Stoughton PD belonged to a regional ALPR network hosted by the Greenfield Police Department. Chief Hill has told us this network ended last fall when the company behind it "went out of business.” When a community member requested records pertaining to this network, she was told the contract could not be found, in part because most of the staff who were involved "have since retired”—this, despite the fact that the law requires that certain records be retained for seven years even after an employee has left. Notably, questions regarding how and why this network ended have been consistently ignored. Page of 438 This is notable because of something we learned not from a records request, but from a Google search. Last November, while a Flock account executive was busy sending direct appeals to the City’s IT director and Mayor Swadley, and lining up sales calls with our Police Department, the Greenfield Police Chief, Jay Johnson, was busy in court, facing felony misconduct charges after allegedly ordering the installation of a department-owned surveillance camera outside his home while in the midst of divorce proceedings with his wife. For many of us, concerns about Flock have given way to even bigger questions. Please, engage in these questions with the curiosity and importance they deserve. Pass the People’s Resolution and bring community oversight to Stoughton. This is what we all deserve. Thank you. Public Comments to City Council, 8/11/26 Good evening. I want to thank the Mayor and this council for taking relatively swift action by ending the Flock contract and ensuring the cameras were disabled in short time. Alder Jenson thank you for making a motion to recommend a resolution in the Public Safety Committee and Alder Tilleson, thank you for your amendment to cover the cameras within 48 hours – your comedic suggestion to set them on fire may not be recorded in the minutes – but will be remembered. Those of us publicly opposing Flock are aware that making statements like that and taking any action against the corporation comes with risk, especially --- with all due respect -- for anyone who is not a white male in a position of power. Flock’s CEO called anti-Flock activists terrorists and we live under an administration that has redefined domestic terrorism to include anti-capitalists and people who disagree with the administration on issues related to immigration, race and gender. Knowing you will take a risk with us by making a remark like that is no joke and it matters. You may or may not know that Flock officials watched the City Council meeting on June 23rd . We learned this through a public records request. In an email dated June 24th a Flock representative wrote to the Police Department and said he and his director had "tuned in" to watch the meeting. The email resulted in a scheduled call to discuss strategy for protecting the contract. Page of 538 Chief Hill, I have heard you report staffing issues and that these records requests have been taxing. And, I know you are now hiring, primarily from your activity on Facebook. In fact, just days after Corey Ruiz was murdered by a Madison Police Officer, Stoughton Police Department announced its open application by posting a picture that says “Feel The Love." And below it: “Are you an officer not feeling the love from the community you work for? Stoughton PD is hiring and “velkommens” you to apply as a lateral transfer. Use the link below to’ escape’ to Stoughton”. Was this sarcasm? Was this part of some kind of “Blue Code?” Was this the true sentiment our police department was willing to put on public display – days after the world watched MPD respond to a call reporting non-violent “suspicious” behavior of a Black man on a bike -- with dangerous and deadly violence? As a friend said “they may as well just say, catching some heat after shooting someone in the street? No worries, we got you.” This post was removed from Facebook assumingly because someone noted just how offensive it was. The City of Stoughton has some reckoning to do. The live feed camera pointing directly at the Cascade Falls entrance and exit was plenty of evidence that our leadership is not considering the history and impact of over policing on communities of color since policing began in our country. The content of this FB post was insensitive at best. Horrifying at worst. Racial disparities in policing is documented everywhere. Harmful culture, including white supremacy, within police networks and departments is also highly documented. We are clearly no exception. I want to know what our City will do to ask the hard questions, ensure proper oversight, and begin building a culture of reconciliation. Public Comments to City Council, 8/11/26 Good evening. My name is Lorrie Forde Hurckes, and I live in District 3. Thank you for ending the Flock contract. I’d like to address a few things I’ve witnessed through this process. We’ve heard how overwhelming the emails, testimony, research, and open-records requests have become. But I hope you’ll ask why residents are using every avenue available to us. There is no meaningful public-engagement process for this issue. We’re deeply concerned, we’ve learned important things, and we have nowhere else to work Page of 638 through them with you. Three minutes at a microphone is not meaningful public engagement on an issue this connected to our privacy and freedom. I don’t want residents blamed for taking your time. I want you to be curious about what we’ve learned and what we’re continuing to uncover. I need you to make space to hear from us. Did you know that while Chief Hill was researching options for Council, he told Flock his goal was to keep the cameras? That Flock representatives monitored our meetings and offered to help SPD “win the vote” and keep the contract? That Flock provided talking points and a strategy to Chief Hill that included an offer to contact alderpersons directly, to respond to residents, and to “source advocates” to influence your decision? This wasn’t simply technical support. The department advocating for the technology and the company selling it were working toward a preferred outcome while Council relied on them for information and recommendations. That is hugely problematic and exactly why independent information and oversight matter. The records also show SPD was still learning fundamental things about this system after the cameras were installed and went online mid May. On June 2, while watching a training video, SPD discovered the Jackson Street camera wasn’t even the kind of camera they thought they had. Two days later, they asked Flock how to stop outside agencies from viewing their live-video feeds. These aren’t minor details. Camera capabilities and external data access are fundamental things an agency should understand before activating public surveillance. SPD put this technology online before it fully understood either, putting residents’ privacy at risk. And surveillance doesn’t stand still. Once the infrastructure exists, its capabilities and uses can expand faster than our understanding and oversight. We saw that happening here. At essentially the same time SPD was figuring out who else could see what its camera captured, it was trying to expand what the camera itself could see. SPD wrote that it had “specifically chosen” the Jackson Street location so a PTZ camera could monitor parts of the school, Cascade Falls, and the roadway. Was the School Board aware? Were families? Who gets to make decisions like this, and with what oversight? Public trust isn’t damaged because residents ask questions. It’s damaged when residents have to investigate their own government to get answers. If residents have Page of 738 uncovered information Council hasn’t fully examined, you should want to hear from us. And independent experts should be part of this process. Police departments and surveillance vendors cannot be the only experts informing decisions about police surveillance. That’s mind-boggling. I’m also concerned by how often we hear, “Let’s see what Dane County does.” Dane County gets to decide what’s right for Dane County. Stoughton needs to decide what’s right for Stoughton. Waiting to see which vendor the County chooses ignores what residents have been saying all along: we don’t want mass surveillance. Flock itself told Chief Hill that competitors have federal contracts, including with ICE and DHS. Are we independently researching those relationships and their implications before even considering another system? And I want you to remember this: residents haven’t just identified problems. We’ve given you a framework designed to address them. The People’s Resolution was carefully crafted because of what we learned. It addresses what went wrong, what should have happened, the lack of transparency and public involvement, and the concentration and misuse of power that adequate oversight should have prevented. Every piece is intentional, and the pieces were designed to work together. That is what gets lost when the People’s Resolution becomes a punch list. Breaking an integrated framework across multiple committees separates the interconnected checks and balances, it risks separating the protections from the failures they were designed to address, and it moves decisions into spaces where the public has little or no opportunity to participate. Not all of these committees even involve public comment. Don’t dismantle the solution before you’ve fully understood the problems it was designed to solve. Adopt the People’s Resolution as a whole. And remember what it preserves that the original process never gave us: the ability to say no. If this community doesn’t want to be watched, we shouldn’t be watched. Listen to the community, that’s how you build trust as our elected representatives. Thank you. Page of 838 Public Comments to City Council, 7/28 Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Carrie Kilman, and I live in District 1. Before my partner and I moved to Stoughton, we drove around the city, looking for rainbow Pride flags. We are a two-mom family, and we wanted to make sure that we and our child would feel welcome here. I am thrilled to let you know that the number of Pride flags we saw in Stoughton rivaled that of Madison's near-east side. The flags themselves do not guarantee our safety, but they do say something important about this community and its values. What you see when you drive around can tell you a lot about a place. If we were considering whether to move here today, the sight of Flock cameras would give us pause. By design, cameras like these are ominous and unwelcoming. They make people feel like criminals. Being surveilled by your government tells you a lot about what your government thinks about you and your worth and your potential. I love this town. I truly believe it is special. But I also believe we cannot be a community that is welcoming and inclusive and respects people's rights AND be a community that deploys AI mass surveillance. These two things are mutually exclusive. We have to choose--and if you look around, I think you'll see that the people have already chosen. Everywhere you look in Stoughton, you see people choosing to spend their time engaged in civic life. The volunteers stocking shelves at the personal essentials pantry. The neighbors prepping the community garden at the start of spring. The retired couple painting yard signs encouraging everyone to vote. The book club that fills the entire back half of the Old Firehouse Lounge. The people of all ages, gathered inside a church, learning how to protect the rights of their immigrant neighbors. The volunteers who plan Juneteenth. The creative entrepreneurs who dream of film festivals and community-centered roller skating rinks and pay-what-you-can cafes. The librarians. The moms giving hugs at Stoughton Pride. The volunteer marshals at protests and parades. The bookstore owner who opens early once a month so people looking for connection can have a place to gather. The drivers who deliver Meals on Wheels. The kids who paint rocks with hopeful messages and leave them on porches and park benches. The dozens of people who have filled this room over the past few weeks, waiting for their turn at this microphone. These are just a few of countless examples. Page of 938 Through all of these actions, we are saying something important about what kind of community we want to build together--a community that is welcoming, vibrant, creative, and connected, where everyone has what they need to live a life with dignity. What keeps our community safe is not--and will never be--mass surveillance cameras. What keeps our community safe are the connections we have with one another, the investments we make in one another, the green spaces, the working street lights, the safe places to live and play, the free after-school programs, the jobs that pay a decent wage, the expectation that we belong and that our voices matter. A community that invests in these things will always be safer than a community that does not. I urge you to listen to what the people are saying. Thank you. Public Comments to City Council, 7/28 As the Stoughton city council considers the question of the Flock contract for ALPR mass surveillance in policing in our community, I would like to address an argument advanced by those who may consider this technology to be just “business as usual.” We have been told that automated license plate readers, or “ALPRs,” have been around a long time, with the suggestion that the Flock cameras in use now are equivalent to what has been approved in the past for use in Stoughton. This assertion is inaccurate and disingenuous. The landscape we are all living in has shifted dramatically in recent years, in terms of technology, surveillance capabilities, artificial intelligence, surveillance hardware and software available, the political climate, and the federal government investing billions of dollars to militarize and integrate with local communities nationwide. Today we have for-profit tech and surveillance companies contracting directly with local police departments, and a concerted effort to “corporatize” policing in the United States. The city council must have a thorough understanding of this new landscape, which is the context for its decision making today. The reality is that the technological and surveillance products and services being marketed and sold today as “ALPRs” have functionality, reach, and implications far beyond what we have seen in the past. Page of 1038 In June 2026, the American Civil Liberties Union released a new report about the central role that surveillance and tech companies are playing in American police departments, and how these partnerships threaten to give private, for-profit companies unlimited access to sensitive data on Americans. The report details the companies involved and ways that collected information can be exploited and access to it abused. And importantly, it includes recommendations for how local governmental bodies can protect their communities. The biggest surveillance technology companies operating in the U.S. today, including Flock, Axon, and Motorola, gather, analyze, and use data collected by body cameras, drones, dash cams, and fixed surveillance cameras, including ALPRs and live video feeds. All day, every day, these systems gather information about Americans going about their daily lives. And this is a big, big business. The wealthy and powerful in our country, all the way up to the President of the United States, are cashing in. President Donald Trump disclosed buying between $1 million and $5 million in Axon Enterprise stock on Feb. 10. A few weeks later, the federal ICE agency sent out a procurement request for $220 million worth of products that Axon produces. Of particular concern for both Flock and Axon is the business model of providing “operating systems” for local police departments, similar to operating systems on our phones and computers. These systems can see and control all of the data in the system. And this threatens the civil rights and civil liberties of everyone who is captured by one of these devices. Americans going about their private lives often have no idea they are being watched and recorded – and that this information can be used to track them and that it can be shared far beyond their home community. Finally, we need a transparent discussion of the use of AI in policing in Stoughton. AI is bearing down on individuals and communities on all sides, often with little to no consideration or discussion of moral, ethical, or civil liberties implications of its use. I am asking the city council to discontinue the Flock contract and remove the cameras and take a step back before further decisions are made. The city council must understand the technology in question and how it is used, shared, and accessed. Before any move to another mass surveillance company, we need a robust process of public engagement and input. These issues affect all of us, and we expect to be included in decisions about them. I also ask that my comments be included in the public record of this meeting. Thank you. Page of 1138 Public Comments to City Council, 7/28 During his presentation on Flock technology, Chief Hill said, “This is the world we live in.” That phrase has stayed with me — because it suggests we simply accept the world as it is, rather than recognize that the world is something we interact with. We shape it. We have agency. We have choice. In On Tyranny, the author warns against “complying in advance” — the pattern of civic leaders handing over civil liberties passively, even willingly, in the name of diplomacy or “public safety,” trusting that powerful institutions will never use those tools against them. As my partner Lorrie wrote in a letter to the editor recently, history shows that surveillance is disproportionately used against Black, Brown, LGBTQIA communities and political dissidents. I expect to hear that Stoughton is different. But surveillance practices are not different — they follow the same patterns everywhere, and today’s tools are more powerful than ever. An AI-powered ALPR system feeding a private national database — accessible to agencies across the country — does not make me feel safe as a queer person with multiracial family and community who publicly opposes federal policies. A police department prioritizing Walmart — a multibillion-dollar corporation with a documented history of wage theft — does not make me feel safe. A camera pointed at poorly maintained low-income housing does not make me feel safe. What makes me feel safe is a community that invests in affordable housing, clean water, healthy food, livable income, and places of belonging. Stoughton can choose to invest in the infrastructure our city’s predecessors built — and expand it — to create real safety for all residents. We are here again tonight because we believe in community and democracy — and because public comment is the one formal mechanism we have to participate in dialogue that will shape our city’s future. And as Jefferson said, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” We ask this council to join us in that vigilance. Public Comments to Public Safety Committee, 7/22/26 Good evening. My name is Lorrie Forde Hurckes, and I live in District 3. Page of 1238 Every time these cameras are described as public-safety tools my heart sinks. Because calling surveillance “public safety” assumes that watching people makes them safer. It does not. If our idea of safety begins and ends with police, then every problem becomes a reason to give police more power, more information, and more technology. But policing is not the same thing as public safety. Real safety is created when people have housing, healthcare, education, economic stability, strong relationships, and places where they know they belong. It means preventing harm where we can, responding with the people best equipped to help, and providing accountability and repair when harm occurs. Police may play a role in that system. But they are not the system itself. Somewhere along the way, we’ve confused responding to harm with creating safety. Responding to harm is not the same as preventing it. Investigating harm is not the same as repairing it. Watching people is not the same as protecting them. That matters because surveillance is being sold to us as protection. But research has found no substantial evidence that automated license-plate readers actually reduce crime. A tool can be useful to police without it making the public safer. And just because it’s useful does not mean it’s ethical, necessary, or justified. What feels protective to one person can put another at greater risk. Police and surveillance may bring reassurance to some, but for others, they bring the fear of being watched, stopped, criminalized, harmed, deported, or killed. That fear is grounded in lived experience and in a history of American policing and surveillance used to control Black and Indigenous people, immigrants, workers, activists, disabled people, queer and trans people, people living in poverty, and others pushed to the margins. Public safety cannot mean making some people feel protected by taking privacy, freedom, and a sense of belonging away from others. Safety must belong to everyone. We are told that Stoughton is different, that our officers are good people who will use this power responsibly, but we should not confuse familiarity with accountability, or likability with safety. A kind officer or well-intentioned police chief still works within a larger system they do not control. Personal kindness does not change institutional power. Good intentions are not safeguards. Believing we are the exception is not oversight. Public safety is not only about the authority we give police. It is also about the limits we place on that authority. Page of 1338 End the Flock contract. Remove the cameras. End mass surveillance entirely. Let’s stop deciding who should watch us and start building what actually makes us safe. Thank you. Public Comments to Public Safety Committee, 7/22 Good evening, my name is Carrie Kilman, and I live in District 1. Later tonight, you will discuss a proposed resolution regarding the use of Flock cameras. Important and practical questions will be answered. But another question exists that I have yet to see members of this body ask or deliberate. What justifies the use of mass surveillance at all? Three ALPR cameras were installed in Stoughton appropriately sixty days ago. According to Flock’s estimates, the average ALPR camera takes 30,000 to 150,000 images per day. Using the most conservative estimate, that means we have already logged 5.4 million photographs of Stoughton residents and visitors. Over the two-year contract, this would mean an estimated 65.7 million high-resolution photographs, and more than 17,000 hours of livestream video footage. The vast majority of these images and videos are of people going about their normal lives. Someone walking their dog. Someone going to church. Someone checking their mailbox. A child climbing into a school bus. A teenager walking to school. A woman on her way to a chemotherapy appointment. A man on his way home from an AA meeting. A young couple on their first date. What public safety benefit justifies this degree of public surveillance? Where is the evidence that any of this makes our community any safer? Instead of investing in more surveillance technology, I urge you to consider the mounting evidence from communities across the country regarding the power of public investments to reduce crime. In recent years, various local and national studies have shown the following: •Workforce development and summer job programs reduced youth involvement in violence by 35 to 45 percent. •Arrests for violent crimes declined by 51 percent among people receiving temporary financial assistance. Page of 1438 •Access to housing reduced the probability of committing crime by 80 percent and reduced the number of jail days by 130 percent. •Home repairs in low-income, predominantly Black neighborhoods were associated with a 21.9 percent reduction in total crime. •Efforts to clean up vacant lots in high-poverty neighborhoods led to a 29 percent reduction in violent crime. •The presence of street lighting, painted sidewalks, public transportation, and parks is associated with at least 76 percent decreased odds of homicide. What keeps our community safe is not--and will never be--mass surveillance cameras. What keeps our community safe are the connections we have with one another, the investments we make in one another, the green spaces, the working street lights, the safe places to live and play, the free after-school programs, the jobs that pay a decent wage. A community that invests in these things will always be safer than a community that does not. Please pass the People's Resolution. Thank you. Public Comments to Public Safety Committee, 7/22 Good evening, My name is Annette Gomez and I live at 208 Johnson Street. Thank you all for your service to the city of Stoughton. As some of you may know, Stoughton city council passed a resolution in 2025 called Stoughton Proclamation on Human Rights. Whether this was a resolution with any weight has yet to be determined. I would like to read a portion of that resolution: WHEREAS, the principles of equality, dignity, and respect for all individuals are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as in national and local laws that protect and promote the well-being of every person; and it ends: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Stoughton hereby approves that Stoughton pledges to work collaboratively with community partners, advocacy groups, and governmental agencies to create an environment where human Page of 1538 rights are protected, discrimination is eradicated, and every person can thrive with dignity and respect. Tonight you are presented with a resolution, created by the mayor, that asks for a vote on continuing the agreement made with Flock Safety. This resolution does not go far enough. It does not look at the harm the Flock partnership has already done to the people of Stoughton. Partnering with Flock has undermined trust in city government, it’s decision making process and in particular those around our PUBLIC SAFETY. I ask you now to please consider adopting the resolution created by community members as an alternative to the resolution before you tonight. I direct you to these salient points of the resolution as they relate to HUMAN DIGNITY AND RESPECT- WHEREAS, everyone who lives in, works in, or visits Stoughton deserves dignity, privacy, and safety, and to have their civil liberties protected; and WHEREAS, the use of AI-enhanced mass surveillance technology creates unwarranted disregard for the basic civil liberties of residents and perpetuates fear, hostility, and mistrust throughout our community; and WHEREAS, decisions affecting the privacy, civil liberties, and movements of thousands of residents should not be made solely through departmental purchasing, contracting, grant acceptance, or operational processes; and WHEREAS, the people of Stoughton have clearly and consistently communicated, in writing and in public testimony, their overwhelming opposition to the use of mass surveillance at all. This is an issue that goes much deeper than the who, the when and the why of the this agreement with Flock, I urge you to open your eyes to the HARM already done and adopt the PEOPLE’S RESOLUTION to address these harms. I also urge you to pledge to CREATE BETTER WAYS to inform and include members of our community when determining what SAFETY really means to all of us. Thank you. Public Comment to City Council, 7/14 My name is Carrie Kilman, and I live in Stoughton. When we leave our homes, we give up some degree of privacy. At the bank or the library or any number of other places, we expect that basic security cameras may catch sight of our movements. Collectively, our courts and our communities have agreed that this is an acceptable price to pay for moving around in public. Page of 1638 But, when we leave our homes, we do not expect that footage of us is constantly being taken and uploaded to a centralized, third-party database, where AI software scrapes it for identifying characteristics, analyzes it for patterns in our movement, converts all that information into searchable text and metadata, and then makes it available to police and federal agencies all over the country, who can search that centralized, third-party database without a warrant. A shocking amount of data is being collected about us, without our consent. The problem is not the logo on the camera being used--the problem is the use of the technology itself, no matter who owns it. The courts are just beginning to weigh in on whether any of this is constitutional. But our community is speaking loud and clear: This should not be the price for moving around in public. I know that city government moves slowly, but there are two things you have the power to do tomorrow: Cover the cameras in a way that prevents them from taking pictures. And invite the ACLU to present at the next Public Safety Committee and City Council meetings so that any future decision can be grounded in independent, expert perspectives. Thank you. Follow-up email to the Council and Mayor, 7/6 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, Thank you for your service to our community and for listening to the concerns residents have raised over the past several weeks regarding the City's use of Flock automated license plate reader cameras. As you know, across Wisconsin communities and public institutions are ending their relationships with Flock as concerns about privacy, governance, data sharing, and public trust continue to grow. Most recently, the University of Wisconsin Police Department joined that list. Stoughton should do the same. The Council must vote to end the current Flock contract. However, ending the Flock contract should not be mistaken for resolving the larger issue. Page of 1738 My concern is that the conversation has already shifted from "Should Stoughton end its contract with Flock?" to "Which company should replace Flock?" But that's not it. The question many residents are asking is much more fundamental: Should Stoughton be using community-wide surveillance technology at all? The public deserves confidence that the Council's next decision will be informed by independent judgment, not simply by the recommendations of those requesting the technology. That question cannot be answered by comparing vendors. It requires a transparent, community-centered process. The Police Department is responsible for advocating for the tools it believes it needs. The Council's responsibility is different. It is not to rubber-stamp departmental recommendations or vendor presentations, but to determine whether those recommendations align with the community's values, are supported by sufficient evidence, and warrant the level of intrusion they create. Representative government requires independent judgment. That means looking beyond departmental recommendations and vendor presentations, reviewing independent research, hearing from experts with differing viewpoints, engaging your constituents, and ensuring meaningful public participation before approving technologies that affect the privacy and daily lives of 12,000+ law-abiding residents and visitors. Due diligence also means understanding the documented disparate impacts that policing and surveillance technologies can have on communities of color, LGBTQ+ communities, immigrants, and other populations that have historically experienced disproportionate surveillance or policing. If Stoughton is committed to being a welcoming and inclusive community, those impacts deserve careful attention alongside any claimed public safety benefits. Residents deserve confidence that their elected officials are making these decisions because they have done the work, not because a vendor made a persuasive presentation, not because the Police Department recommended a particular product, and not because another community chose a different path. We deserve to know the Council has independently examined the evidence, heard competing viewpoints, listened to its constituents, and reached its own conclusions. That is how public trust is earned. To earn that trust, I call on the Council to: Page of 1838 Vote to end the current Flock contract and direct that the cameras be bagged or removed immediately. Require explicit approval from both the City Council and a community oversight body before the Police Department may enter into any future contract for automated license plate readers or comparable surveillance technology. Complete a truly independent review before considering any replacement surveillance technology. That review should include independent expert presentations, meaningful public engagement, and the creation of a permanent community oversight body to evaluate future surveillance technologies and make recommendations before any decision is made. Invite independent experts—including representatives from the ACLU—to present at both the July 22 Public Safety Committee meeting and the July 28 City Council meeting so members hear more than one perspective before recommendations are made and votes are cast. I am concerned that the Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hear from the Police Department on July 22 before making its recommendation to the Council, which is expected to vote on July 28. That may be enough time to decide whether to end the Flock contract. It is not enough time to evaluate an entirely new surveillance system and ensure accountability mechanisms are in place. Before considering another vendor, the Council deserves time to independently educate itself, hear from outside experts, engage the public, and fully understand the broader implications of these technologies. Ending the Flock contract should not become a bridge to another surveillance vendor. It should be the beginning of a transparent, community-centered process that determines whether community-wide surveillance belongs in Stoughton at all. To support that process, I have included several independent articles and resources. Together they examine issues extending well beyond Flock itself, including the expanding role of private surveillance companies such as Axon and Palantir, the integration of automated license plate readers into broader surveillance ecosystems, data-sharing practices, immigration enforcement concerns, contractual provisions governing access to collected data, documented equity impacts, and broader questions of privacy, democratic oversight, and local control. I am not asking you to agree with every conclusion these authors reach. I am asking you to include these perspectives in the independent research your constituents Page of 1938 deserve before making decisions about surveillance technology or committing Stoughton to another surveillance system. Above all, the public deserves confidence that whatever comes next is the result of the Council's own independent judgment, not simply the recommendations of those requesting the technology. Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Lorrie Forde Hurckes, Stoughton resident, District 3 Resources •The Recombobulation Area – Trading One Big Brother for Another •Wisconsin Examiner – Analysis of Flock Use by Wisconsin Cops Reveals Trends, Raises Questions •NPR – Flock Contracts Canceled Amid Immigration Surveillance Concerns •ACLU – Tracking ALPR Cameras: Flock's Terms and Conditions •Campaign Zero – The Private Companies Quietly Building a Police State •ACLU - Flock Safety Credibility Lost as it Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police Departments, and Public Across the Country •Flock Safety Has Been Caught Lying 6 Times So Far, Are They Also Lying About Facial Recognition Technology? Follow-up email to the Council and Mayor after the 6/23 meeting and SPD presentation Dear Council Members and Mayor, Thank you for the attention you are giving to citizen concerns with the city's Flock contract. I am following up on a few issues from last night’s meeting. Page of 2038 We were told repeatedly that the Stoughton Police Department owns data collected by Flock cameras. At the same time, we were told the tool is only as valuable as the size of the network. We were not told which agencies Stoughton PD shares data with, but the Nation Lookup Tool that provides national search access is only available to agencies who share their camera data with the other estimated 4,800 subscribed agencies outside of our jurisdiction – who will search, share and use data according to their own policies or lack thereof. When Flock says Police Departments “own” the data, they mean agencies choose whether to share their data and participate in the network. Once that data is shared, we no longer control it, and I would argue therein lies the end of ownership. And again, we heard last night that our Police Department shares data with other subscribed agencies and the data sharing network is what makes Flock their preferred vendor. All collected data is stored in Flock’s private, centralized database. Stoughton’s city attorney shared that our city’s contract gives Flock permission to use data to improve its own products. This alone is concerning, given the company and its investors interest in developing AI trained global surveillance technology, but language in Flock’s default contract shared by ACLU is much broader: “Agency hereby grants Flock a non- exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free right and license (during and after the Service Term hereof) to i) use and distribute such Aggregated Data to improve and enhance the Services and for other development, diagnostic and corrective purposes, other Flock offerings, and crime prevention efforts, and ii) disclose the Agency Data (both inclusive of any Footage) to enable law enforcement monitoring against law enforcement hotlists as well as provide Footage search access to law enforcement for investigative purposes only. “ Stoughton has paid in full for a one-year subscription as part of our two-year contract. The $12,500 of taxpayer dollars contributes to Flock’s net revenue (reported at over $300M), which means we are contributing to dividends paid out to investors, and therefore contributing to Founders Fund led by the founder of Palantir. This is what I mean when I say we joined a “capital network.” We are indirectly investing in the development of global mass surveillance infrastructure by subscribing to Flock. Meanwhile in Stoughton on Jackson Street, a Flock camera facing Cascade Hills Apartments has its lens pointing directly at its one entrance/exit enabling 24/7 police surveillance of a private residence that houses many of our Black and Brown neighbors in Stoughton. In a recent study by Christopher Newport University, researchers found that Black neighborhoods were surveilled by ALPR systems at nearly four times the rate compared to white neighborhoods, resulting in significant disparities in Flock related Page of 2138 traffic stops. Regardless of intent, Stoughton must reckon with the fact that our Police Department is participating in the over policing of Black and Brown residents through surveillance. I appreciate the action proposed last night to have the Public Safety Commission review the contract and consider other vendors, but this specific camera needs to be covered immediately and our Police Department needs to be held accountable for what appears to be police surveillance of a private residence without consent. Thank you, Kristin Forde Hurckes Follow-up email to the Council and Mayor after the 6/23 Council meeting Hello Council and Mayor Swadley. Thank you to the Council, staff, and community members who participated in last night's discussion regarding Flock cameras and surveillance technologies. After listening to the presentation and discussion, I left with significant concerns, not only about Flock, but about the broader expansion of surveillance in our community. Much of the presentation relied on information provided by Flock itself, while many of the concerns that have led other communities to end their contracts received little attention. We heard examples of successful investigations involving retail theft and locating missing individuals, but we did not hear a compelling case that Stoughton faces a public safety problem that requires creating a system capable of recording and tracking the movements of thousands of law-abiding residents. Several statements made during the meeting also raised important questions. For example, residents were initially told that Flock cameras do not capture people. However, when pressed by a council member, the officer presenting acknowledged that while the cameras are not designed to capture people, they can do so under the right conditions. That distinction matters. Residents deserve a clear understanding of what these systems are capable of collecting, not simply what they are intended to collect. I was also struck by the repeated claim that Stoughton would "own" its data. At the same time, one of the primary reasons given for selecting Flock was the size of its network and the ability to connect with cameras operated by agencies across Wisconsin Page of 2238 and beyond. We also learned that before Stoughton had a single camera installed, officers were already searching data from agencies throughout Wisconsin and even Indiana. Those two arguments are difficult to reconcile. If the primary benefit of the system is access to a vast network of cameras operated by other jurisdictions, then ownership is not really the issue. Access is. It gets to the heart of the issue: the system is designed to make data collected in one place available elsewhere. If that wasn't true, Flock's large network wouldn't be one of its biggest selling points. Residents are therefore not simply being asked to trust Stoughton's policies. They are being asked to trust the policies, oversight, and practices of countless other agencies they do not elect, oversee, or control. I was also concerned by the discussion of oversight. We were told that approximately 10% of recorded searches are audited. That means roughly 90% are not. Given the documented misuse of license plate reader systems around the country, including cases involving officers using these systems to track romantic partners and conduct unauthorized searches, that level of oversight is difficult to view as sufficient. We were also told that data is permanently deleted by a third party after 30 days. Yet during the discussion, the City Attorney acknowledged that portions of the contract language are vague. That uncertainty matters. Flock has repeatedly revised its contract language over time, including provisions related to customer data and product development. Residents are therefore being asked to place significant trust in a private company whose terms and policies have changed repeatedly. More fundamentally, however, I do not believe the central question is whether enough safeguards can be added to make mass surveillance acceptable. The question is whether creating systems that record and share information about the movements and patterns of large numbers of law-abiding residents is something we should be doing at all. I was also troubled by the discussion regarding the live-feed camera. Officials declined to identify its location, yet many residents are aware that the camera is located near the high school and monitors the only entrance and exit to one of Stoughton's most affordable and diverse housing communities. It is on a pole that also has a Flock camera installed. Page of 2338 During the discussion, officials referenced stalking incidents involving women in the area as part of the justification for the camera. Those concerns should absolutely be taken seriously, and victims deserve protection and support. However, the response to a small number of incidents should be equitable, proportionate, and as minimally invasive as possible. I was also struck by the repeated references to "lots of juveniles" being present in the area. The presence of young people should not, by itself, be viewed as a justification for surveillance. Communities should be cautious about normalizing the idea that youth gathering in public spaces is inherently suspicious or requires monitoring. The people most often being recorded are not suspects, but students walking to school, families returning home, residents going about their daily lives, and young people participating in community programs. Before subjecting an entire neighborhood to continuous monitoring, residents deserve a transparent discussion about why this approach was chosen, what alternatives were considered, and whether the benefits truly justify the intrusion. Before moving forward, I strongly encourage Council members to do their due diligence and speak directly with elected officials in Dane County, Verona, Fitchburg, Monona, Oshkosh, Sturgeon Bay, and Appleton. These communities spent considerable time evaluating these technologies and ultimately chose to end, not renew, or phase out their contracts. During the discussion, the Chief suggested that some communities ended their contracts because officials became overwhelmed by public opposition and did not want to deal with the controversy. I would encourage Council members to look deeper than that explanation. Many elected officials, law enforcement leaders, attorneys, and residents spent significant time examining the technology and its implications. If Stoughton is committed to due diligence, Council members should ask what those communities learned, what concerns influenced their decisions, and whether they would make the same choice again today. As part of that process, I encourage the City to temporarily disable or cover the cameras, as Dane County did, while conducting a thorough review. Residents should not be subjected to ongoing surveillance while fundamental questions about necessity, effectiveness, governance, and community impact remain unresolved. Page of 2438 Finally, I urge the Council not to treat these concerns as vendor-specific. Whether the system is provided by Flock or another company, the fundamental questions remain: Should the government be tracking and recording the movements of ordinary residents? Should families and students be subject to continuous monitoring as a condition of living, learning, or participating in community life? And what are the long-term consequences of normalizing that level of surveillance? The decision before the Council is larger than a contract. It is a decision about what kind of community we want to be and whether widespread surveillance of ordinary residents is consistent with our values. Thank you for your consideration. Lorrie Forde Hurckes Stoughton Resident, District 3 Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 A Washington court recently ruled that Flock camera data is public record. Regardless of an individual's trust in the police force as responsible stewards of your information, you should not trust everyone making a public records request to have noble intentions. Surveillance and monitoring are shown to have a chilling effect on dissent, and Flock as a company has been anything but transparent about how their data is being used. Furthermore, Flock's data storage is abysmally insecure. Congress has even investigated a 30-second exploit that could allow bad actors access to 24/7 surveillance footage. The FTC has investigated the sale of Flock credentials on Russian dark web forums. All it takes is one corrupt person with Flock access, and burglars could know when you aren't home. Pedophiles could know when your kids are alone. Sure, as long as the data isn't deleted, the police could catch the criminal, but I don't want a pedophile to know where my kids are to begin with. I want to keep my life, the lives of my family and my community private. Stoughton deserves better. -Stuart Clements Page of 2538 Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 Good evening, my name is Carrie Kilman, and I live at 211 Brickson Street. Most people know that police can record in public. But Flock cameras aren't basic street cameras. They are automated, AI-enabled systems that continuously identify, track, and analyze movements across entire cities. They record where you go, who you meet, what routines you have. They record how often you visit certain locations--the grocery store, for example, or your doctor's office, or your child's school. They know if your vehicle frequently appears in the vicinity of someone else's. They catalogue "incredibly granular" details, such as paint damage, bumper stickers, and after-market wheels. They can be used to track and identify people, according to Flock's own training videos and multiple independent tests of its systems. They store and connect huge amounts of data over time, basically generating a detailed “pattern of life” for anyone who passes in front of a lens. To search a Flock network, police don't need a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. They only need to list a brief "reason" for their search. In Wisconsin, according to public records, some of these "reasons" listed by police have included "political event intel," "trump rally," "demonstration," "immigration (civil/ administrative)," "image download," and simply "investigation." In short, Flock cameras represent a threat to our Fourth Amendment rights. Recording in public isn’t the problem. Turning entire cities into searchable databases of people’s daily lives is. I would like to know why this decision was made without any public knowledge, input, or consent. I would like to know why any discussion regarding a potential contract with Flock was kept out of public meetings, and whether an intentional effort was made to avoid public scrutiny. I would like to know why a Flock camera is pointed directly at the only entrance and exit to the Cascade Falls apartment complex parking lot. And I would like to know whether any other agreements exist between the City of Stoughton and mass surveillance companies. The issue is not whether police can observe what happens in public. The issue is whether residents should be subjected to constant, automatic tracking without transparency, public debate, or meaningful consent. I urge you to cancel the Flock contract and take the cameras down. Thank you. Page of 2638 Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 Good evening. My name is Lorrie Forde Hurckes and I live at 501 W South St. I'm here to urge you to end the use of Flock cameras in our community. Before we create a surveillance system that records the movements of thousands of law-abiding residents, we should ask a simple question: What problem are we solving that justifies it? How many serious crimes in Stoughton have actually gone unsolved because we didn't have this technology? We're told these cameras are about public safety. We're told there are safeguards. We're told local agencies control the data. But real-world experience tells a different story. Right here in Wisconsin, a Milwaukee police officer was charged after allegedly using Flock cameras 179 times to track a woman he was dating. Across the country, officers and even police chiefs have used license plate reader systems to stalk former romantic partners and conduct unauthorized personal searches. Abuse isn't hypothetical. It's already happened. In Mountain View, California, officials shut down their Flock cameras after discovering federal agencies had accessed local data. Even the police chief apologized to residents. In San Francisco, an audit uncovered nearly 300 improper searches involving federal and out-of-state agencies. And in Evanston, Illinois, officials ended their contract over concerns about immigration- related surveillance and data sharing. Communities that thought they were buying a local public safety tool discovered they had become part of a nationwide surveillance network. At the same time, Flock has also repeatedly changed its contract language regarding customer data, raising concerns about who ultimately controls residents' information. And that's why communities around us are walking away. Page of 2738 As of June 2026, Dane County, Verona, Fitchburg, Monona, Oshkosh, and Sturgeon Bay have ended or declined to renew their Flock contracts, Appleton is in the process of ending its use of the system, and McFarland halted plans to purchase Flock cameras altogether. After Verona ended its contract, Mayor Luke Diaz said the cameras were covered so they would stop "spying on people." These communities reviewed the technology and concluded the tradeoff wasn't worth it. That should give all of us pause. Every surveillance technology can point to success stories. The more important question is whether those benefits outweigh the documented risks of misuse, unauthorized access, expanding surveillance, and the loss of local control. Supporters are asking us to trust that these problems won't happen here. But communities across the country trusted that officers wouldn't misuse the system. They trusted that local data would remain under local control. They trusted that the rules wouldn't change. And many later discovered those assurances weren't true. The burden shouldn't be on residents to prove that this surveillance system is dangerous. The burden should be on those proposing it to prove that it is necessary. Given the documented misuse, the loss of local control, and the experiences of the many communities that have already walked away, I don't believe that burden has—or can—be met. End the contract and take down the cameras. Thank you. Page of 2838 Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 These are the comments that were submitted to the City Council by online form on 6/23/26. They will be shortened to be under 3 mins for verbal delivery at meeting. My name is Karen Laumb and I am a resident of Stoughton. The recent installation of Flock cameras in Stoughton made clear that we need better communication and decision-making among elected Stoughton leadership, the Stoughton police department, and Stoughton residents on issues that affect not only public safety, but also the rights and privacy of everyone who lives in Stoughton, or works in or visits Stoughton. The Stoughton public was caught off guard by the recent installation of Flock cameras in our city. We only became aware of this issue when cameras were installed in town in the past month. It is not clear if the full city council and the mayor were aware of the decision on the new Flock contract for Stoughton. I am not aware of any public announcement or public forum held by the police department or city council prior to the execution of the contract or installation of the cameras. It is perplexing and concerning that Stoughton would choose to install Flock cameras at the very same time that Dane County just discontinued its Flock contract and covered and then removed their cameras at the beginning of June 2026, and neighboring cities and villages like Oregon, McFarland, Fitchburg, and Verona are discontinuing contracts or choosing not to contract with Flock over strong citizen opposition and local leadership concerns about the company’s practices and violations of privacy and rights. I ask: Why is Stoughton rowing upstream with a new Flock contract while the current against Flock use is going downstream? I would like to know who in Stoughton leadership made these decisions, why was the public kept in the dark, and who is responsible now for how Stoughton’s Flock cameras and the information they collect about all of us are used. We need to be clear that Flock cameras are not simply “automated license plate readers,” or merely a traffic monitoring system to gather evidence of a specific moving violation or crime. Flock cameras are fundamentally different. They allow mass surveillance of everyone, gather information constantly, use artificial intelligence, and feed our data to a searchable system that can be accessed broadly, including by the Page of 2938 federal government, for undefined purposes, without warrants. They do not just capture our license plates. They go beyond this and allow tracking of individuals based on other characteristics as well, enabling citizens to be targeted in ways that infringe on our rights. This is new and different from what we have seen in the past. Given this new landscape, active engagement and decision making by the full Stoughton city council and mayor in police department contracting decisions and partnerships with private companies—which market directly to police departments—and the federal government is critical. There is information readily available to inform people on what the Flock company is, the products and services it provides, and how they market and conduct themselves. There is also plentiful information about concerns about Flock company practices, concerns over privacy and violation of constitutional rights, and pushback by citizens and local jurisdictions throughout the country. Further, all Stoughton residents must be recognized as stakeholders in this issue. We deserve to have a say in decisions regarding mass surveillance of our community and our privacy and rights, and the use of our taxpayer dollars. I do not believe that Flock cameras belong in Stoughton, and I would like to see this contract terminated and the cameras removed. Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 Good evening, alders of the City Council. My name is Sean Anderson, and I reside with my family at 103 N Madison Street. I am here to ask you to take accountability for the appearance of Flock AI cameras in our community. A teacher once helped me understand that word –accountability – as the act of bringing your values and your actions into alignment. I want to tell you about one of my core values, which I hope you all share: justice. (If you don’t happen to hold this value dear, I hope you’ll say so publicly… but we’ll be able to see your stance in your voting record regardless.) A commitment to justice demands not only that we treat each and every neighbor with dignity, respect, and care – it also dictates that w e interrogate every decision we make by asking, “does this contribute to old and ongoing forms of discrimination and oppression? Or is it a move toward freedom for us all?” The installation of Flock AI cameras in Stoughton fails on both these accounts. Contributing in any way to the construction of a massive, unaccountable, AI-driven, private database of innocent and un-accused people’s locations and movements is anti- Page of 3038 immigrant and anti-Black. If you don’t already understand why, you could read what the ACLU has been saying about Flock’s violations of civil liberties for Black and Latino folks since at least 2022. You might read the University of North Carolina study that showed that the mere presence of video surveillance decreased trust in the police by Black and Latino residents. You could also read the 404 Media investigation into all the local police departments that have been coerced by ICE into providing their Flock data. You should definitely ask the residents of Census Block 5007, which is disproportionately Black and Latino compared to the rest of the city – and where one apartment building’s entrance driveway is directly monitored by a Flock AI camera. But the one thing I’d urge each of you to read before you make any decisions is Professor Ruha Benjamin’s book Race After Technology. In that book, all of us as citizens and decision-makers are challenged to seek out technologies that finally abolish racism and xenophobia – not further entrench them. A vote to maintain Flock AI cameras in Stoughton is a vote against justice. Please do the right thing by us, your neighbors and constituents: refuse to allow any form of AI mass surveillance in our community. Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 (submitted via comments form) "The danger of our age is not merely that authority may concentrate in governments, corporations, or military institutions. It is that decisions of profound consequence may increasingly be delegated to technological systems that operate beyond the understanding and oversight of those whom the Constitution entrusts with governing." This statement was made by Dennis Kucinich, warning against the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The statement is frighteningly relevant as we face the deployment of Flock technology in our community and across the country. It is unclear who was at the table when Stoughton bought into Flock’s sales pitch, directed at both police departments and neighborhood associations across the country as technology designed for public safety. The most recent Treasurer’s report has a line item showing payment of $12,500 to Flock Group Inc. on May 28th, 2026. The expense was reported, but the decision to sign a contract and include Stoughton in what is, in fact, a national surveillance data network, was not discussed with or by our city council. To know whose flock we unknowingly joined and gain a better understanding of what the technology is intended to achieve, I wanted to know who is behind it. I learned that Page of 3138 Flock's investor base includes Founders Fund, led by Peter Thiel — who also co- founded Palantir, a company funded in its early days by In-Q-Tel, the CIA's own venture capital arm. Palantir doesn't sell to neighborhoods. It sells intelligence and data-fusion tools directly to ICE, Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon. Another major Flock investor, Andreessen Horowitz, runs a dedicated fund called "American Dynamism," focused on defense, policing, and border security startups — and lobbies actively in Washington to shape the policy around them. That same firm backs Anduril, whose autonomous towers now surveil nearly a third of the US-Mexico border under contract with Customs and Border Protection. Andreessen Horowitz has also built a reputation as one of the most active funders of startups founded by alumni of Israeli military intelligence units. When we adopt Flock, we're plugging our city's streets into a capital network that channels its biggest investments into the surveillance, defense and immigration- enforcement apparatus of the federal government and beyond. My pastor, Wendy Moen of Covenant Lutheran, offered a prayer this Juneteenth. In it she said: "Freedom is a responsibility." An AI-supported surveillance data network whose investors also fund similar technology used by the CIA, the Pentagon, DHS, and ICE is a threat to core constitutional freedoms — not someday, but now, already running on our streets. It is our responsibility to understand this. And it is our responsibility to end the contract. Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 (submitted via comments form) I strongly oppose the use of Flock Safety ALPRs in Stoughton. Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) collect and store license plate data, time, date, and location, enabling long-term tracking of vehicles and individuals' movements without suspicion of wrongdoing. This data can reveal sensitive details about a person's life, including home and work locations, associations, and personal habits, raising significant privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns. When police and Flock Safety salespeople cherry pick cases to argue that mass surveillance technology is an "important" tool, they obfuscate that it's a convenient shortcut around due process. Page of 3238 For serious crimes, police can already go through the standard legal process: making the case to a judge on why they should get a search warrant for location data, whether it's from cell phones or service providers. But police treat ALPR databases as if no such threshold exists, giving them free rein to track a person’s movements without a sliver of judicial oversight. These cameras must be deactivated and removed. Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 (submitted via comments form) Hello, having lived in Stoughton for most of my life, I am concerned about how Flock cameras managed to pop up in my hometown seemingly without anyone’s knowledge or consent. Surveillance that operates on AI is known to be inaccurate, and unconstitutionally puts the burden on individual citizens to prove their innocence instead of putting the burden on the state to prove guilt. We see this in the case of Jacob Rockwell, who was fined for running a red light in Pensacola, Florida, when he was in fact, in Alabama. He was not pulled over by a police, (because he wasn’t there), he simply received a citation in the mail because a flawed computer program accused him of something he didn’t do. Even when AI isn’t making false accusations, even when it is operating exactly as intended, it is still a level of surveillance that has no place in our community without community approval. When the cameras first went up, we heard that it happened without the knowledge of the city. Public comment at the last city council meeting was the first it was brought to your attention. How can this be? If that is true, how are you as our local representatives going to respond to surveillance being forced upon you and your neighbors? But I am still questioning the logistics of how these cameras were put up without your approval or even awareness. And if you didn’t know about them, then why is a $12,500 payment to Flock Group Inc listed in your 5/28/2026 treasurer’s report? Garrett Langley, CEO and co-founder of Flock asserts that the values of the company are “accountability and transparency.” Where is the accountability and transparency in installing AI powered surveillance which tracks the movements of our community members, and saying you didn’t know about it? The secretive, forced introduction of these devices in our town promotes an idea that while we the people are being Page of 3338 watched, you, the decision makers, the council and our police department, are operating behind closed doors. I would like to go for walks around my neighborhood without my face being fed into a database that is used by agencies like ICE, to kidnap neighbors and rip apart communities and families. I opt out of the biometric scanning at the airport every time, because when I have the option to not feed AI surveillance, that’s what I chose. At the airport, I have that right, so why not into my neighborhood, walking down the street? I never agreed to constant surveillance. Being born into the community does not mean consenting to being recorded every time I go outside. Please return to us the freedom to exist outside without surveillance. Please allow us the ability to either consent or say no. I’m saying no to surveillance, I hope you’ll listen. Public Comments to City Council, 6/23 (submitted via comments form) As a person of faith, I urge you to end the use of all Flock cameras that are currently operating and to end the contract with Flock immediately. I am a lifelong Catholic and am disturbed at the city's use of Flock's AI technology and their opaque contractual terms. I would like to know who was involved in the decision-making to sign a contract and install the cameras. To my knowledge, there has not been a public dialogue or notification about their installation - folks found out after their installation. This does not just identify and track residents, but ANYONE who works or visits our community. I am concerned in particular about the Flock camera on Jackson Street which is pointed at an apartment complex, and near the summertime "Lunches for Vikings" program. What is the justification of our neighbors being surveilled going to and from their homes and eating lunch? My Catholic faith compels me to be concerned for the most vulnerable, including children. I recently read the new AI Encyclical from Pope Leo XIV, called Magnifica Humanitas, which asserts that, "in practice, however, technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it." (MH #9, available on Vatican website). My Catholic faith, and the convictions of people of good will, demand that the common flourishing of everyone requires shared responsibility. Pope Leo's encyclical reminds us that subsidiarity must be practiced to ensure flourishing. Therefore, those most impacted by decisions at a local level of government MUST be done in dialogue with the people for whom the policies and practices impact the most. Finally, Pope Leo says that "technology is not simply a tool. When it becomes the standard by which everything is judged, it begins to dictate what matters and what Page of 3438 can be discarded, reducing creation to an object of exploitation and human beings to mere cogs in a system driven toward ever greater efficiency" (MH #92). I do not wish any resident, visitor, or worker in Stoughton to be reduced to an object to be exploited. End the Flock contract immediately. Lisa Demler | She/her Public Comments to City Council, 6/9 The deployment of Flock cameras in Stoughton—without public engagement—is a decision that affects every resident and visitor. We are told police departments “own the data” and share it only with agencies they “choose to partner with.” Who has the authority to make those partnerships in Stoughton and who has oversight? What limits exist? Which agencies currently receive our data? We are told our data is not shared with ICE. Under what written policy? If ICE requested data tomorrow, what stops STPD from providing it? Our neighboring communities have already examined these questions. Fitchburg’s official review states that “once Fitchburg data enters [Flock’s] network, we have limited ability to control or independently verify who is accessing it and under what circumstances.” It also states the city cannot “definitively demonstrate” that ICE is not accessing their data because Flock provides no enforceable technical barriers. This is because Flock is not just a camera system. It is a nationwide data sharing network. When Fitchburg ended its contract, the council had to amend the agreement to disable a national search feature that had been active the entire time — meaning departments across the country could search Fitchburg’s data. I want to know whether that feature is active in Stoughton, and whether city council has been informed either way. Logging and audits are said to insure accountability. But in Wisconsin, from January to June 2025, one department conducted nearly 1,900 searches with no justification beyond the word “investigation.” And officers from three separate Wisconsin agencies have been accused of using Flock cameras to track romantic partners — all in systems with logging and audits. What policies guide STPD’s logging requirements? Page of 3538 There is also evidence that ALPR systems increase racial disparities. Studies show these cameras are disproportionately installed in Black and Latino neighborhoods. That matters because Flock checks every passing plate against a “hot list” — a database of plates police have flagged as stolen, wanted, or “of interest.” When certain neighborhoods are surveilled more heavily and disproportionately exposed to false hits. National research shows these false “hot list” hits fall hardest on drivers of color. Communities across Wisconsin — Dane County, Fitchburg, Verona, Oshkosh, Monona — have ended their contracts after examining these issues. Verona’s council president summarized the problem clearly: “Effectively, there is no way in and out of the city without being tracked. And there was no consent around that.” Kristin Forde Hurckes Public Comments to City Council, 6/9 (submitted via comments form) To Stoughton City Council, My name is Annette Gomez and I live at 208 Johnson Street in Stoughton, Wisconsin. I am writing today because I believe that Stoughton Police department’s purchase of Flock Safety Automated License Plate Readers WITHOUT any public input is unacceptable. Doing so without any community input or control, presents significant threats to civil liberties. The data collected by ALPRs allows the government to track where people travel in their cars, including what doctors they go to, what political or religious meetings they attend, and where they sleep at night. Even if the Stoughton Police Department insists that data is not shared to the federal government, the network of surveillance puts the privacy of Stoughton residents in danger. “Flock's business model enables a nationwide data-sharing network that allows thousands of law enforcement agencies to access location data without warrants or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing….They cultivate a sense of shared community and purpose among users so they opt into good faith sharing relationships with other law enforcement agencies across the country. But it's precisely that social layer that creates uncontrollable risk.” https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-roundup Page of 3638 The Flock camera pointed directly into the parking lot of Cascade Apartments is especially egregious. Who is being targeted in this incidence? Thank you for your time in this matter. Annette G Gomez, Johnson St, Stoughton WI Public Comments to City Council, 6/9 (submitted via comments form) Good evening. My name is Lorrie Forde Hurckes, and my family and I are Stoughton residents. I am here tonight because I have serious concerns about the Flock surveillance cameras that have recently appeared in our community. My first question is simple: who made this decision, and why was it made without a public conversation? Many residents only learned about these cameras after they were already installed. Whether someone supports these cameras or opposes them, major decisions about surveillance in our community should not be made without public notice and public input. If the city is going to deploy technology that tracks and records the movements of people entering, leaving, and traveling through our community, residents deserve transparency before those decisions are made—not after. I also have concerns about privacy, data collection, and accountability. Who has access to the data collected by these cameras? How long is it stored? What agencies can access it? Under what circumstances can it be shared? What oversight exists to prevent misuse? These are not hypothetical concerns. Communities across Dane County and Wisconsin have spent months debating these questions. Many have decided the risks outweigh the benefits and have terminated their contracts with Flock. Yet while neighboring communities are stepping away from this technology, Stoughton appears to be moving toward it. Why? As neighboring communities have ended their contracts with Flock, some local leaders have argued that the real product is not public safety, but data. Their concern is that Page of 3738 every new camera expands a larger surveillance network that can be accessed by agencies far beyond the community where the information was collected. If that concern is serious enough to cause neighboring communities to walk away, why has Stoughton chosen to move forward? I am especially troubled by the location of the cameras near the high school. One appears to capture children coming and going from school. Another appears directed toward a racially diverse apartment complex. Even if that was not the intention, it raises legitimate questions about surveillance, equity, and who bears the burden of being watched. But beyond all of those concerns, I want to talk about what kind of community we want to be. I want Stoughton to be a welcoming place. I want my friends, family, and visitors to feel comfortable and safe when they come here. I want people from all backgrounds to feel like they belong. When people enter a community and are greeted by surveillance cameras, that sends a message. It says that watching people is a priority. It says suspicion comes before trust. For many people, especially people of color, immigrants, activists, and others who have experienced disproportionate surveillance, that does not create a sense of safety. It creates a sense of being monitored. Safety and community trust are not the same thing. We should not sacrifice one in pursuit of the other. Tonight, I am asking the city to immediately stop the use of these cameras, remove them from service, and begin a transparent public process to determine whether they belong here at all. The question before us is bigger than a camera contract. It is whether Stoughton will choose trust over surveillance, community over monitoring, and public participation over decisions made behind closed doors. I believe the answer should be clear. These cameras should come down. Thank you. Lorrie Forde Hurckes Page of 3838 WORKING TIMELINE* *This timeline is as complete as current records allow. Additional details will be added as information is received. [With sources] [PRR] = document obtained via public records request 2018 or 2019 Exact date unknown: SPD joins the Wisconsin ALPR Association, a regional ALPR network that was sometimes referred to as the “BOSS system." The Association was formed in 2011 "for the purpose of bringing data into one server." Data was physically hosted by the Greenfield (WI) Police Department. Members appear to have used "Neology’s PIPS Technology brand of ALPRs,” which were provided by BAYCOM, a company in Green Bay that also participated as an Association member. [PRR and BAYCOM press release] NOTE: Although the PIPS/Neology camera (circa 2018-2019) and the Flock Falcon camera (circa 2025-2026) are both called “ALPR cameras,” the two systems have very different capabilities: The PIPS/Neology ALPR was built primarily to read license plates at a particular camera location, with data stored and shared within a single agency or consortium. In contrast, the Flock ALPR combines license plate reading with AI-based vehicle recognition, cloud computing, automated searching and alerts, and large-scale data sharing. These substantial technological shifts represent a dramatic expansion in surveillance capability. For a more detailed breakdown, see the document titled “ALPR Tech: How They Compare." 2021 May: In response to a Public Records Request (PRR), the Wisconsin ALPR Association shares a list of its 51 member organizations, including Dane County Sheriff’s Office, Milwaukee PD, and Stoughton PD. [PRR: Muckrock] 2022 March 8: Dane County Sheriff’s Office Field Services Division enters into a one-year contract with Flock Group Inc. The contract title/description field reads: "An agreement for the Sheriff's Office to participate in a study related to the use of license plate reading cameras. This is a no cost agreement to the Sheriff's Office, Axon will pay Flock Group directly for the cameras used in the study.” The contract is signed by Dane County Executive Joseph Parisi on March 7. [PRR via DeFlock Dane] Under the agreement, Dane County is able to install 25 Flock Falcon ALPRs, with an estimated price of $68,750, at no cost to the Sheriff’s Office. According to the terms of agreement, the Sheriff’s Office appears to have been granted access to private/non-law enforcement cameras: "WHEREAS, Agency desires to partner with Flock Safety, Axon Enterprise, Inc. (“Axon”), and the National Police Foundation to use and/or have installed access to the Flock Service in order to create, view, search and archive Footage and receive Notifications, including those from non- Agency users of the Flock System (where there is an investigative purpose) such as schools, neighborhood homeowners associations, businesses, and individual users, in facilitation of a yearlong study on the efficacy of license plate reader technology;” [PRR via DeFlock Dane] The agreement instructs the Sheriff’s Office to download and save Flock data to comply with records retention laws (notably, this language appears to have been removed from later Flock contracts): "WHEREAS, because Footage is stored for no longer than thirty (30) days in compliance with Flock’s records retention policy, Agency is responsible for extracting, downloading and archiving Footage from the Flock System on its own storage devices;” and "9.1 Data Preservation. The Agency agrees to store Agency Data and Non-Agency End User Data in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, regulations, policies and ordinances and their associated record retention schedules. As part of Agency’s consideration for paid access and no-fee access to the Flock System, to the extent that Flock is required by local, state or federal law to store the Agency Data or the Non-Agency End User Data, Agency agrees to preserve and securely store this data on Flock’s behalf so that Flock can delete the data from its servers and, should Flock be legally compelled by judicial or government order, Flock may retrieve the data from Agency upon demand.” [PRR via DeFlock Dane] 2023 June (exact date unknown): Kaukauna PD becomes the latest WI agency to join Flock. Because many Flock contracts occur without a council vote, the start date and approving body of many contracts are unknown. [Kaukauna Community News] Oct. 25: At a regular meeting of the Wisconsin ALPR Association, members discuss “concerns regarding the possibility of agencies withdrawing from the Association, switching to Axon Fleet 3 or Flock ALPR.” [PRR] 2025 Exact date unknown: Milwaukee appears to have deployed Flock cameras at some point in 2025, though no record approving a Flock contract exists in the Milwaukee Common Council's system. [https://whoapprovedthis.org/city/wi-milwaukee/] Also of note: Milwaukee’s Flock contract originally "was attached to MPD’s intelligence-focused fusion center known as the Southeastern Threat Analysis Center (STAC), [which] partners with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and shares information between local police departments across eight counties in southeastern Wisconsin.” [Wisconsin Examiner investigation] "The Flock contract was later modified to cover the entire police department.” [Wisconsin Examiner investigation] April-August April 30: Flock invites Chief Jenks and then-Lieutenant Hill to attend the annual Flock conference Aug. 4-6 in Atlanta. The invitations are signed by “Mike Moulton, Retired Police Chief,” whose email signature indicates he is working as a Flock consultant. Note: It is currently unknown whether Jenks or Hill attended the conference or otherwise engaged with Flock at this time. [PRR] Aug. 6: Wisconsin Examiner publishes an investigation into the use of Flock cameras by Wisconsin law enforcement. Among its findings: 221 Wisconsin agencies searched Flock networks between Jan. 1 and May 31, 2025. 11 of Wisconsin’s 13 county sheriffs that partner with ICE through the federal 287(g) program appeared in the Flock audit data. Among all 221 Wisconsin agencies using Flock, violent crimes did not appear among the top 10 reasons for searches. The most common reason listed was “investigation.” Other top 20 reasons included “inv,” “stolen,” “theft,” “leo,” “sus”, and “.” (a dot or period). A quote from Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the ACLU of Wisconsin: "They say it’s about violent crime — but in practice, that doesn’t appear to be the case. It also begs the question of what is the technology and data being used for? If this tool is mostly being used for minor offenses or vague investigations, then we’re creating a mass surveillance infrastructure to enforce petty infractions — usually disproportionately against Black, brown, and poor residents. Is it being used to track protesters and dissidents?” [Wisconsin Examiner investigation] October-November Oct. 14: Flock account executive Bryan Tambeau sends a direct appeal to John Montgomery, City of Stoughton IT Director, requesting a phone call. Tambeau writes: “I understand you recently spoke with Cody and that the project was paused due to funding constraints. I’d really appreciate the chance to reconnect and walk through additional funding sources we regularly help departments secure.” Note: Because emails originating from @cityofstoughton.com addresses were not included in the records received, it is unknown whether John Montgomery replied to Tambeau or whether a phone call or meeting between Montgomery and Tambeau occured. Who “Cody” is and when he and Montgomery spoke is currently unknown. [PRR] Oct. 15-Nov. 14: Flock sends at least 19 marketing emails to SPD and City of Stoughton staff. [PRR] Fall 2025 (exact date unknown): SPD "ended (its) partnership” with the ALPR system managed by Greenfield PD after the "company (was) sold.” Note: While his presentation slides state that the company was sold, Chief Hill has stated elsewhere that the company “went out of business.” It is unclear which company he is referring to. [“Fall 2025" comes from Chief Hill during a conversation with two UnFlock Stoughton members on June 24 after the PSC meeting; other details here come from Chief Hill’s June 23 presentation slides to City Council] Nov. 4: Greenfield Police Chief Jay Johnson is charged with the first of three felony counts after installing a police-owned surveillance camera outside his home during divorce proceedings at some point during 2024. [multiple news outlets] Nov. 11: Verona City Council votes to not renew its Flock contract. Despite multiple requests from the Verona PD, it will take several months for Flock to remove the cameras, although Verona PD does receive sales calls from Flock during this time. [multiple news outlets] Nov. 18 and 19: Flock’s Bryan Tambeau sends two direct appeals to Mayor Swadley requesting a conversation. Note: Because emails originating from @cityofstoughton.com addresses were not included in the records received, it is unknown whether Mayor Swadley replied to Tambeau or whether a phone call or meeting between Swadley and Tambeau occured. [PRR] December Dec. 4: Flock's Bryan Tambeau has a call with SPD Det. Sargent. Note: It is unknown whether other Flock officials or other SPD or City staff join the call. It is unknown who arranged this call. [PRR] Dec. 5: The day after their call, Tambeau sends a follow-up email to Det. Sargent. In it, Tambeau includes: a “deployment map for the locations we mapped out yesterday”; a “budgetary quote for the three LPRs and one LPR + Live Video bundle”; sample LPR policy language; and a reminder for the next Flock/SPD meeting, scheduled for Dec. 11. [PRR] Dec. 21-22: Flock and SPD sign a contract via DocuSign. Chief Legal Officer Dan Haley signs on behalf of Flock, and Det. Cole Sargent signs on behalf of SPD. The itemized order form lists four ALPR cameras and one “video fixed” camera. [PRR and order form on City website] Dec. 22: Flock account activation email is sent to coneil@cityofstoughton.com. [PRR] Dec. 22: Flock’s Bryan Tambeau emails Det. Sargent, Brandon Hill, Dan Jenks, and Chad O’Neil, letting them know that "the location approval [is] completed" and that a kickoff call will be planned after Christmas. [PRR] Dec. 22: Flock sends three marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] Dec. 29: Flock sends six marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] Dec. 29: Flock sends an email to jhalverson@cityofstoughton.com (City Streets Supervisor) asking about permit requirements for cameras placed in the City’s right-of-way. [PRR] 2026 January Jan. 8: Flock sends a marketing email to Chief Jenks. [PRR] Jan. 9: Flock sends a marketing email to Mayor Swadley. [PRR] Jan. 12-16: Flock sends five marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] Jan. 16: Flock sends a marketing email to Mayor Swadley. [PRR] Jan. 21: Flock creates Admin accounts for csargent@cityofstoughton.com, coneil@cityofstoughton.com, choeper@cityofstoughton.com. [PRR] Jan. 21: Flock and SPD staff have a kick-off call. [PRR] Jan. 21: After the call, Flock sends SPD staff a “recap” email that: confirms the types of cameras being installed; confirms that permission to install the “bundled cameras” [e.g., the ALPR + fixed video camera on Jackson Street] in the City’s right-of-way has been received; and notes that an unspecified number of the cameras will require WI DOT permits, stating that “this will be the biggest hurde.” [PRR] Jan. 21: Flock sends SPD a video overview of the Flock Transparency Portal. The Flock representative writes, “Once complete, I will send you your transparency portal link. This link can be added to your department’s website.” Note: On June 9, possibly after being alerted to written comments from concerned constituents, SPD will reply to this email and will ask for a link to the department’s transparency portal; Flock will respond that no such portal has been created. [PRR] Jan. 23: Flock sends two marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] Jan. 23: Chief Hill’s Flock account is activated. [PRR] Jan. 23: Three days before SPD’s search access goes live, Det. Sargent asks Flock how to expand their network access and what is required to perform a search: "I clicked and selected all networks for the ‘Patrol’ role yet only 14 networks show up. Did I do something wrong, or do I have to wait for all the other networks to accept and share their network with me. As you can see the Admin has 154 networks so just want to make sure our patrol gets access to all the cameras they can. My 2nd question would be if there is a requirement from Flock on what is needed before someone can run searches...” [PRR] Jan. 26: SPD’s search access to Flock's database goes live. [Chief Hill’s June 23 presentation slides to City Council] Jan. 29: Flock sends eight marketing emails to SPD staff inviting them to attend a Flock webinar on “navigating these challenges” related to the 4th Amendment and Wisconsin public records law. [PRR] February Feb. 3-10: Flock sends eleven marketing emails to SPD staff and encourages them to forward the emails to members of the City Council. [PRR] Feb. 16: Det. Sargent emails “police@cityofstoughton.com” and announces he is creating “Flock user accounts for each and every one of you.” Det. Sargent ends the email by stating: "**USER BEWARE** "Agencies get records request all the time regarding what officers are searching on Flock and internal audits may take place. Searches are obviously for law enforcement investigations purposes only and you will be required to submit a case number, type of call and reason for the search (Investigation). I say this not to deter you from using the program, just make sure you are using it for the right reasons and dont do something you shouldnt. Ive also attached our current LPRs policy #426 for your review.” [PRR] Feb. 16: Flock account activation emails are sent to 21 SPD staff members. [PRR] Feb. 17: Det. Sargent emails Flock and asks, "Do you guys have any examples of policy that you can share? Thanks.” [PRR] Feb. 23-26: Four outside agencies request data-sharing agreements with SPD (Wautoma PD, Oak Creek PD, Wisconsin Dells PD, and Merrill PD). [PRR] March March 3-4: Two outside agencies request data-sharing agreements with SPD (Hudson PD and Florence County). [PRR] March 3-10: Flock sends eight marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] March 11: Two outside agencies request data-sharing agreements with SPD (Lincoln County and Waushara County). [PRR] March 12: Flock sends 28 marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] March 16-23: Three outside agencies request data-sharing agreements with SPD (Eau Claire County, Ashland County, and Chetek PD). [PRR] March 27: Flock tells SPD that WI DOT is “holding back” the final permit because of road construction on Highway 51. Flock requests an alternate location for the camera. [PRR] March 30: One outside agency requests a data-sharing agreement with SPD (Weyauwega PD). [PRR] March 30: Flock sends four marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] April April 1-7: Two outside agencies request data-sharing agreements with SPD (West Bend PD and Crivitz PD). [PRR] April 7: Flock sends eight marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] April 9-13: Flock asks “if there has been any discussion” regarding the camera planned for Highway 51. Det. Sargent states that SPD wants to move the camera to “USH 51 @ Rowe St.” In the same email thread, Flock states that it will pursue a WI DOT permit for the new location. Flock asks if they can install the other permitted cameras, and SPD agrees. [PRR] April 13: Flock sends six marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] April 16: Dane County Board of Supervisors votes to withdraw $80,000 allocated for its Flock contract, leaving the contract to expire on May 31. [multiple news outlets] April 21: Sturgeon Bay City Council declines to renew its Flock contract, citing concerns over privacy and civil liberties. [multiple news outlets] April 21-23: Oshkosh City Council approves a one-year Flock renewal on April 21, then rescinds it 7-0 at a special meeting on April 23, after City staff found that a Flock representative's denial of the system's heat- map capability was inconsistent with information the City received after the 4/21 vote. [multiple news outlets] April 27: Flock sends an email to SPD titled, "Clarifying Oshkosh Council Decision & Flock LPR Capabilities.” In the email, Flock blames Oshkosh’s decision on "a single misunderstanding during the two- hour Council meeting.” Flock states that it does not engage in heat-mapping, while also acknowledging that its system includes a feature called a “heat map.” [PRR] May May 5: Flock sends a special newsletter issue that it calls "Meeting the Moment: A Special Edition on Trust & Compliance" to nine SPD staff. [PRR] May 8: Flock emails Chief Hill with the subject line, "Flock Q&A for Wisconsin Police Chiefs After Oshkosh canceled Flock,” inviting him to attend a 30-minute “Wisconsin Chiefs Roundtable” with Flock's CEO on May 12. The email footer identifies the message as “advertising." [PRR] May 18: Flock technicians install three ALPR cameras and one fixed video (pole) camera at three locations in Stoughton. [PRR] May 19: Flock emails Det. Sargent and confirms that “the installed cameras are online and actively getting plate captures.” Data sharing requests from outside agencies appear to show that SPD initially enabled outside agencies to request access to its live video feed, historical video data, and video downloads, in addition to data from still images. [PRR] May 19: Two outside agencies request data-sharing agreements with SPD (New Berlin PD and Juneau Co). [PRR] May 19: Flock account activation emails are sent to jfrisch@cityofstoughton.com and aorn@cityofstoughton.com. [PRR] May 20: Flock sends an email to eight SPD staff with links to online training. The email states: "With the connection of your first camera, the terms of your contract are now in effect, marking the beginning of your annual agreement.” [PRR] May 20: Flock emails Chief Hill and Det. Sargent and asks if Flock’s point of contact for SPD should be changed from John Montgomery (City IT Director) to someone else. [PRR] May 22: Flock sends eight promotional “getting started" emails to SPD staff. [PRR] May 24: Flock sends nine promotional “getting the most out of Flock” emails to SPD staff. [PRR] May 26: Fitchburg City Council votes to end its Flock contract. [multiple news outlets] June June 2: While watching a Flock training video, Det. Sargent realizes that SPD's Flock video camera isn’t what SPD thought it had ordered. Det. Sargent emails Flock: “It appears that our video camera is not a PTZ and is a fixed camera. We were under the impression that our video camera was a PTZ and were told that it has approx. 270 degrees of viewing. There was talk about Guardian mode and how we could save positions of the camera, however its fixed. The location [on Jackson Street] was specifically chosen as we could cover parts of the school, aparment complet [sic] and roadway and move back and forth. Not having a PTZ camera at this location may cause us issues as we have communicated to our public the multipurpose of this camera and what we as law enforcement are doing with it. Looking to see what is needed to in fact get a PTZ camera at that location as that is what we were originally ’sold’.” [PRR] June 2: Flock account activation email is sent to swollangk@cityofstoughton.com. [PRR] June 3: Flock sends a permit application and site map to SEddy@cityofstoughton.com. [PRR] June 4: Flock sends 10 marketing emails to SPD staff titled, "Building trust with your community." [PRR] June 4: Seventeen days after the cameras are installed, Det. Sargent appears to ask Flock how to stop or prevent other agencies from viewing SPD’s live video feed. In a reply to an email from Det. Sargent, a Flock technician sends instructions for how to revoke “VMS Go-Live” permission, which is the function that allows other agencies to access live video feed. The exact content of Det. Sargent’s original email is unknown. [PRR] June 8: Several Stoughton residents submit public records requests to the City regarding the deployment of Flock cameras. June 7-9: Several community members use the City’s online form to submit written comments opposing the use of Flock cameras, in advance of the June 9th City Council meeting. Exact date unknown: At some point, likely after receiving the online comments from residents, Mayor Swadley instructs Chief Hill to prepare a presentation for the City Council meeting on June 23. [personal conversation with Mayor Swadley on June 23] June 9: Flock sends 10 marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] June 9: Det. Sargent asks Flock for "the Transparency Portal link for Stoughton Police” and learns that SPD "does not have a published transparency portal.” [PRR] June 9: The Stoughton Policy Department's ALPR policy (“Policy #426”) appears to be updated on the City of Stoughton website on an unknown date; the document footer suggests that new policy language was downloaded from or provided by a third-party source, Lexipol, on June 9, 2026. The footer text reads: "Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2026/06/09, All Rights Reserved. Published with permission by Stoughton Police Department.” It is unknown how or whether this language differs from the “Policy #426” that Det. Sargent emailed to SPD staff on Feb. 16. [Policy #426, Stoughton Police Department, LE Policy Manual] June 9: Four community members attend the City Council meeting. Prior to the start of the meeting, Mayor Swadley approaches the community members, acknowledges that several constituents have made records requests related to Flock, and states that he and the City Attorney would be working on them. Mayor Swadley also tells the community members that he has already arranged for Chief Hill to give a presentation about Flock at the next City Council meeting. One community member speaks against Flock during the public comment period. June 10: Flock sends a promotional email to Chief Hill inviting him to attend a “live conversation" with the Flock CEO on June 18. [PRR] June 11: Flock sends SPD confirmation that a work order (#00964394) has been issued to replace the fixed video camera on Jackson Street with a more powerful PTZ video camera. The replacement is expected to happen “as soon as possible, typically within two-three weeks.” [PRR] June16: Flock sends two marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] June 17: Flock sends one marketing email to SPD staff. [PRR] June 18: A Flock technician attempts to survey the new location for the fifth camera (at Highway 51 and Rowe Street) but is unable to do so because of “an active construction zone.” Flock emails Det. Sargent and Chief Hill: “Do you have any idea on the timeline for this work? Or do we need to find a new location? Tech could not locate anyone onsite to ask questions.” Det. Sargent responds on June 22 that SPD wants to wait and install the camera at the original location on Highway 51 after the construction is completed. [PRR] June 18: A letter to the editor opposing the use of Flock and mass surveillance appears in the Stoughton Courier Hub. Exact date unknown: At some point between June 9 (when Mayor Swadley instructed Chief Hill to prepare a Flock presentation for City Council) and June 23 (when the presentation occurred), it can be surmised that SPD and/or other City staff were in contact with Flock regarding the presentation. The reason this can be surmised is because two Flock officials knew to watch the June 23 Council meeting live (remotely/online), as indicated in an email from Flock to SPD on June 24. [PRR] June 23: The Finance Committee meets at 6 pm; this is the first time a payment to Flock appears before the Finance Committee, in the form of a line item on the Treasurer’s Report—check #85784 for $12,500, written out to Flock Group Inc on 5/28/26. There is no discussion of Flock or the payment during the committee meeting. [07A Treasurer’s Report-May 2026] June 23: The City Council meets at 7 pm: More than a dozen community members provide verbal and/or written testimony opposing Flock cameras and the use of mass surveillance in Stoughton. Chief Hill and two SPD officers give a presentation about Flock in which they: mention the fixed video camera but do NOT mention that it is expected to be changed to a PTZ; decline to share the camera locations, even after a Council member requests this information; share four local “success stories,” two of which involve using Flock to track down people suspected of stealing from Walmart. The City Council instructs the Public Safety Committee to submit draft recommendations regarding how to proceed with the City’s Flock contract. Two Flock officials “tune in” to watch the meeting; it is unknown whether anyone within SPD or the City knew Flock was watching. [PRR] June 24: The morning after the City Council meeting, Det. Sargent emails Flock: “I wanted to reach out after our city council meeting and let you know how it went.” This begins a lengthy back-and-forth between Flock, Det. Sargent, and Chief Hill: Sargent asks for clarification regarding the contract language that “allows Flock to use ‘our’ data to help train and improve Flock systems. Can you or someone from your team provide any information on what that actually means as so it can be explained to our counsil [sic] members." Flock account exec Guatam Ratnam responds that Flock officials watched the City Council meeting live and want to talk: "My director, Mike Wahl, and I tuned in to watch the meeting last night. . . . Can we schedule a brief call this afternoon? Mike and I would be happy to discuss the contract language + strategize on how best to prepare the department to ensure you win the vote and keep the cameras.” Det. Sargent replies, "Appreciate you guys watching and helping us through the questions." Mike Wahl compiles "a document addressing the major concerns shared last night” and sends it to Chief Hill and Det. Sargent. Wahl also says, “Please don’t promise we can remove the customer data language until I get confirmation." Multiple emails are exchanged regarding scheduling a time to meet; Flock and SPD arrange a call for that afternoon at 4 pm. [PRR] June 24: The Public Safety Committee meets; several residents voice concerns about Flock during the public comments period. Mayor Swadley instructs Chief Hill to research several questions and present different options at the next Public Safety Committee meeting. June 25: SPD and Flock exchange several email messages related to federal data sharing and talking points to share with City Council. [PRR] June 26: A constituent submits a records request for "All service agreements, agency agreements, contracts, amendments, invoices, procurement records, and vendor correspondence related to Flock Safety automated license plate reader and video camera systems.” In response, she receives an email from SPD staff containing a link to the City’s homepage: "The department's Flock Safety contract and our Flock Safety policy are publicly available on our website. You may access and review these documents at www.cityofstoughton.com. These are all of the records we have in response to your request." In a follow-up email to SPD staff, the constituent asks for clarification—"Can you tell me which of these documents can be accessed on the City's website and provide direct links to each of them?”— but receives no response. The document eventually located on the City’s website appears to be a signed order form, not a full contract, nor any of the other items in the original request. June 29: Flock tells Det. Sargent via email that the PTZ video camera installation is tentatively scheduled for July 7. [PRR] June 30: The Stoughton Courier Hub publishes an article about the June 23 City Council meeting titled, “Residents voice concerns about Flock cameras.” [Courier Hub] June 30: Flock sends two marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] June 30: One agency requests a data-sharing agreement with SPD (McHenry County IL Conservation District PD). [PRR] July July 2: One agency requests a data-sharing agreement with SPD (Village of Mukwonago PD). [PRR] July 3-5: Multiple community members submit records requests that remain unanswered and unacknowledged. July 6: Chief Hill and Flock representatives exchange emails about the City Council deliberations: Chief Hill writes, “The direction Ive been given from the mayor is to research ALPR options and present them to council,” and he asks, "Could we get out of our contract and get a full refund? Could we get out and just not pay the second year? Could we get out and pay both years in full? Would there be any costs associated with taking down cameras or penalties? for not fulfilling the contract?" He concludes: "My goal is to keep flock, but I'm tasked with researching all options and not using flock unfortunately is an option." Flock responds, "if the council has provided any feedback regarding what they would look for in other vendors, please let us know.” Chief Hill replies, "the only main criteria for a new ALPR provider is that it isnt flock. Doesnt make sense to me but many things dont.” [PRR] July 6: Flock introduces Chief Hill to Max Weinstein, Flock’s “Director of Public Trust and Technology” and suggests a meeting “to align on how we can strategize to ensure that Stoughton can keep Flock. Given the Public Safety committee meetings and the imminent council vote on Flock, please let me know what time works…” A call is set for July 8. [PRR] July 7: Flock sends 10 marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] July 8: City of Kaukauna declines to renew its Flock contract. [multiple news outlets] July 8: Chief Hill and Flock’s Director of Public Trust and Technology are scheduled to meet at 1:30 pm. [PRR] July 9: Three letters to the editor opposing Flock appear in the Stoughton Courier Hub. July 10: A community member submits a records request for all email correspondence between Flock and SPD. To fulfill the request, SPD charges $61.19, which is paid on July 22. However, the records provided by SPD contain only emails from @flocksafety.com addresses; outgoing emails from @cityofstoughton.com addresses to Flock are not included, despite these emails being within the scope of the request. Follow-up requests for SPD’s outgoing correspondence have gone unanswered. July 13: Flock sends two marketing emails to SPD staff. [PRR] July 13: Det. Sargent asks Flock why the PTZ video camera still hasn’t been installed. [PRR] July 13-14: Chief Hill follows up with Flock to get answers to the questions posed in his July 6 e-mail regarding an end to the contract. Flock’s regional sales director replies that Flock’s “legal team is drafting the legal language for your review,” adding that SPD’s account will be getting “additional resources during this time." [PRR] July 14: One agency requests a data-sharing agreement with SPD (Glendale PD). [PRR] July 14: The City Council meets; Flock is not on the agenda. Six community members speak during the public comments period, all opposing Flock and mass surveillance. One community member distributes a document to Council members titled “Receipts: The Case Against Stoughton’s ALPR Program." July 15: Flock’s regional sales director emails Chief Hill and Det. Sargent and asks them for comments shared by a member of the public during the previous night’s City Council meeting: "Do either of you have a copy of the pamphlet distributed at last night’s meeting? Receipts: The Case Against Stoughton's ALPR Program.” This suggests that Flock officials may have been watching the Council meeting the night before. [PRR] July 16: Multiple letters to the editor opposing Flock appear in the Stoughton Courier Hub. July 16: Chief Hill follows up with Flock a third time, asking for an exit option: "I know Im going to be asked that question at next weeks public safety committee meeting and don't want to have to say that I reached out and didnt get an answer. That would just make your company look bad. Even if the answer is no and we have to pay in full for both years that's better than no answer at all." [PRR] July 16: Flock responds to the questions about ending the contract and offers to prep SPD staff for the upcoming Public Safety Committee meeting. Flock also offers to speak directly with alders to "clear up any miscommunication,” provide the City's IT Department with information to ensure SPD has an "internal advocate," and supply a response to the misinformation in the "Receipts" document. [PRR] July 16: Appleton Common Council terminates its Flock contract. [multiple news outlets] July 17: Flock sets up a meeting with SPD for July 20 to "prepare for all scenarios regarding the council vote." [PRR] July 20: Flock provides two documents, first a response to the "Receipts" document distributed by a member of the public at the City Council meeting on July 14, and second a "matrix" of LPR vendors. Flock states: "we'd still be happy to talk to any alderpersons open to learning the facts." In a later e-mail, Flock states in reference to the matrix: “the goal is to open the conversation up for debate on each vendor and urge the city to exercise due diligence when navigating the vendor selection process." [PRR] July 21: Members of the community submit the "People’s Resolution to End the City of Stoughton’s Relationship with Flock Safety and Require Public Oversight of Mass Surveillance Technology” to the City Council, Public Safety Committee, and Mayor’s Office. July 22: The community member who submitted the records request for correspondence between Flock and SPD retrieves the records provided. Note: Only emails from Flock—no original outgoing emails from SPD—were included. No emails past this date have been received or incorporated into this timeline. July 22: The Public Safety Committee meets at 6 pm, where: More than a dozen community members provide verbal and/or written testimony opposing Flock cameras and the use of mass surveillance in Stoughton. Mayor Swadley explains that the issue is complicated and states he wants to “create a process,” saying that this is the first chance this committee has had to address it. Mayor Swadley presents a draft resolution to the Common Council he wrote and mentions a second resolution called the Peoples Resolution that he received on July 21. The Mayor states that Dane County will be putting out an RFQ for a different ALPR vendor and that waiting to see what Dane County does would be a good idea, because “there is strength in numbers." Chief Hill shares an email update from Flock stating there is no way to end the Flock contract without paying the remaining amount of the contract, $12,500, for all of 2027. Alder Jenson moves to recommend to Council that it end the contract with Flock. Tilleson seconds the motion. Questions remain whether to bag the cameras in the meantime. The motion passes unanimously, and the Mayor’s resolution is sent to Council. July 23: A letter to the editor opposing mass surveillance, signed by 14 area residents, is published in the Stoughton Courier Hub. It is titled, The issue is more than just Flock. July 28: ALCU of Wisconsin submits detailed comments to the City Council regarding legal and constitutional concerns about Flock and ALPRs. July 28: The City Council meets at 7 pm, where: Ten community members provide verbal and/or written testimony opposing Flock cameras and the use of mass surveillance in Stoughton. Alder Wozniak Scanlon moves to approve "R-103-2026 Resolution Regarding Use of Automated License Plate Reader Cameras," with a second by Alder Tilleson. Alder Hirsch, seconded by Alder Schumacher, moves to amend R-103-2026 to remove or cover the Flock cameras within 48 hours of the cancellation notification. Amendment carries 10-0. The original motion as amended carries 10-0. July 30: Flock cameras are removed from Stoughton. August Aug. 4: A community member submits a public records request for email correspondence between Stoughton Mayor Tim Swadley and Dane County Sheriff Kalvin Barrett pertaining to Flock, Axon, or ALPR systems. The City Clerk replies two days later, stating that the request will cost $2,610, as the "Flock/Axon/ALPR" keyword search resulted in 17,550 records. However, it is unclear if the keyword search was filtered correctly/as the request specified. [email correspondence] Aug. 4: Another community member submits a records request for four sets of emails: 1) correspondence between SPD and Greenfield PD from October 2025 to February 2026; 2) internal correspondence about Greenfield PD from October 2025 to February 2026; 3) correspondence between SPD and any other party pertaining to McHenry IL from June to August 2026; and 4) correspondence between SPD and Flock since July 20. SPD responded to the request on Aug. 28, stating that it would take an estimated two hours for IT staff to locate the records, at a rate of $30/hour, plus $15 for a thumb drive, for a total of $75, and that once the $75 was paid, "they will begin locating the requested records.” [email correspondence] City of Stoughton CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) EXPENDITURE MANUAL This manual has been designed to ensure that all City departments meet the policies set by the appropriate governing body with regard to the expenditure of public funds for CIP purposes. It will be the responsibility of the departments to initiate purchases, with the Finance Department having oversight of the guidelines set forth by this manual. SECTION I – STANDARD CIP PURCHASING PROCEDURES A. Purchases Up to $50,000: Purchases of goods and services not addressed separately in the sections below and having a value up to $50,000 will require a Purchase Order signed by the Finance Director. Department Heads are encouraged to perform sufficient due diligence to ensure the lowest cost is obtained for these purchases. ● If the purchase amount is under the approved budgeted CIP amount, no further approval is required. ● If the purchase amount is over the approved budgeted CIP amount, approval from the Mayor and City of Stoughton Finance Committee is required. ● If the requested goods and/or services are not included in the approved CIP budget, approval from the Mayor, City of Stoughton Finance Committee and Common Council is required. B . Purchases Over $50,000: Purchases of goods and services not addressed separately in the sections below and having a value in excess of $50,000 will require a Purchase Order signed by both the Finance Director and the Mayor. Every effort must be made by the Department Head to send out enough quotation requests in order to receive a minimum of (3) three written quotations. If extenuating circumstances exist that limit the number of written quotations, the Department Head must attach documentation to the Pu rchase Order outlining why a minimum of three quotations could not be obtained. ● If the purchase amount is under the approved budgeted CIP amount, no further approval is required. ● If the purchase amount is over the approved budgeted CIP amount, approval from the City of Stoughton Finance Committee is required. ● If the requested goods and/or services are not included in the approved CIP budget, approval from the both the City of Stoughton Finance Committee and Common Council is required. C. Public Construction $25,000 : All public construction in which the estimated cost exceeds $ 25,000 must be approved in the CIP budget and the contract(s) shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder(s). The bidding process shall incorporate the requirements in Section 62.15 and 66.0901 Wisconsin Statutes. Any project receiving only one bid shall be rebid unless it is approved by a three-fourths vote of the City Council. The City has the right to reject any and all quotes and/or bids. Any public construction contract that is within budget may be awarded to the low bidder, without the need for Committee or Council action. The public bidding law (62.15(12)) states : “ All contracts shall be signed by the mayor and clerk, unless otherwise provided by resolution or ordinance, and approved as to form by the city attorney. Change Orders on Public Construction Contracts : Whenever it is reasonably possible, a proposed increase in the cost of a public construction contract resulting from a change in the scope of the project shall be presented to the Finance Committee for recommendation to the City Council for approval provided it will not result in a costly delay to the construction project. If the cost of delaying the project is prohibitive, the appropriate Department Head, the Director of Finance, and the Mayor shall approve change orders that are a result of a change in the scope of the project provided the cost of the change order does not result in the project exceeding the original budget approved by the City Council. A report shall be submitted to the Finance Committee and City Council at its next meeting following the initiation of the change order documenting the reasons for and the fiscal impact of said change order. The appropriate Department Head, the Director of Finance and the Mayor may approve changes in increased quantities that are allowable to the pursuant contract. Other changes in existing public construction contract scope shall be reviewed by the Director of Finance and/or the City Attorney and may require a separate bidding process and City Council approval. D. Land and Buildings: Whenever any purchase or lease of land or buildings is contemplated, the requesting Department Head will notify the Mayor of the intent. The Mayor will evaluate the requests and forward to the Planning Department or another designated department for further processing. Such acquisitions require appropriate attorney review and prior approval by the City Council and shall follow all State and local guidelines and requirements. SECTION II - SPECIAL PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES The City may need to purchase goods or services under circumstances that do not clearly fit the patterns of normal public procurement and for which normal competitive shopping procedures do not apply. The following guidelines are provided with regard to making such purchases. A. Master Service Agreement: A Master Service Agreement (MSA) is a contract reached between parties, in which the parties agree to most of the terms that will govern future transactions or future agreements. This type of agreement allows the involved parties to more quickly negotiate future transactions or agreements, because they can rely on the strong foundation of the master agreement for future business, so that the same terms need not be repetitively negotiated, and you only need to negotiate terms specific to the latest deal. Examples of MSAs : - Financial Audit and Consulting Services - Engineering Services - Municipal Advisory Services B. Sole Source Purchases : A sole source purchase means that only one supplier (source), to the best of the requester's knowledge and belief, based upon thorough research, is capable of delivering the required product or service. Similar types of goods and services may exist, but only one supplier, for reasons of expertise, and/or standardization, quality, compatibility with existing equipment, specifications, or availability, is the only source that is acceptable to meet a specific need. Sole Source Purchasing Guidelines: - Department Heads must follow the same Purchase Order procedures as identified in Section I of this document and document the applicability of sole source purchases therein. - A sole source purchase is a method of acquisition. It is not to be used to avoid competition. - Price cannot be used as a factor in determining if a sole source exists because it indicates the existence of a competitive marketplace Sole Source Purchasing Justification Criteria: - Only one manufacturer makes the item meeting salient specifications; that manufacturer only sells direct /exclusively through one regional/national representative. - Item required must be identical to equipment already in use by the end user, to insure compatibility of equipment, and that item is only available from one source (system continuity). - Maintenance or repair calls by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) are required for a piece of equipment, and the manufacturer does not have multiple agents to perform these services. - Replacement or spare parts are required from the OEM, and the OEM does not have distributors for those parts. This section does not apply to public construction projects subject to SS 62.15. C. Cooperative Procurement Programs: Department Heads are encouraged to use cooperative purchasing programs sponsored by the State of Wisconsin, WPPI or other jurisdictions and entities. This process can eliminate paperwork and reduce costs for a product or service due to the large quantity purchases made by these entities. Department Heads must follow the same Purchase Order procedures as identified in Section I of this document and document the Cooperative Procurement Program being utilized for the proposed purchase. D . Emergency Purchases : Emergency purchases not involving public construction shall only be made to: 1. Prevent delays in construction or delivery of essential services 2. To stay an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public and employees. Emergency purchases involving public construction require the Council to adopt a resolution determining there is an emergency that requires proceeding without bidding. For emergency purchases of non-budgeted items or services, the appropriate Department Head shall make every effort to obtain (3) three bids/quotations for the item. The purchase shall be approved by the Director of Finance and the Mayor prior to ordering the item. In the absence of the Director of Finance or the Mayor, the purchase shall also be approved by the Council President prior to ordering the item. A report shall be submitted to the Finance Committee and City Council at its next meeting following the purchase documenting the reasons for and fiscal impact of the emergency purchase. 1 PURCHASING POLICY Adopted by the Common Council June 24, 2008 PURPOSE The purpose of this Policy is to provide for the fair and equitable treatment of all persons involved in public purchasing by the City of Stoughton, to provide guidance and procedures to be followed for the procurement of goods and services for all departments, and to provide safeguards for maintaining a procurement system of quality and integrity which is deserved by City taxpayers. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the City’s purchasing policy are: 1. To ensure that materials, equipment, and services are purchased at the lowest prices consistent with quality and performance; 2. To provide adequate controls over City expenditures and financial commitments with proper documentation; 3. To obtain quality goods required by City Departments and; 4. To provide a standardized system of purchasing for use by all City departments. APPLICATION This policy applies to all procurements of supplies, services, and construction, entered into by the City of Stoughton after the effective date of this Policy. It shall apply to all expenditures of public funds by a City employee for City purchasing irrespective of the source of funds. When the procurement involves the expenditure of federal assistance or contract funds, the procurement shall be conducted in accordance with any mandatory applicable federal law and regulations. Nothing in this Policy shall prevent any City employee from complying with the terms and conditions of any grant, gift, or bequest that is otherwise consistent with law. VENDOR DISCOUNTS It is the policy of the City to take advantage of available vendor/trade discounts and government pricing when the available discount provides the lowest cost for the same quality. NON-BUDGETED ITEMS All requested expenditures should be provided for in the current budget. However, purchases that have not been provided for in the current budget will require City Council approval, and Council action will be taken to provide corresponding budget transfers. The Department Head should notify the committee Chairperson of their reporting committee and provide written documentation regarding the expenditure. The Committee will than make a recommendation and provide the information to the Finance Committee at their next meeting to review the request and recommend necessary transfers. 2 EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF NON-BUDGETED ITEMS Emergency purchases shall only be made to: 1. Prevent delays in construction or delivery of essential services 2. To stay an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public and employees. For emergency purchases of non-budgeted items or services, the appropriate Department Head shall make every effort to obtain three quotes for the item. The purchase shall be approved by the City Finance Director and the Mayor prior to ordering the item. In the absence of the Finance Director or the Mayor, the purchase shall also be approved by the Council President prior to ordering the item. LOCAL MERCHANTS: For purchases up to $15,000: Taking price, quality, performance and service into account, the City will first give reasonable consideration to local merchants whose price quotes are within 5% of outside merchants. EMPLOYEE CONFLICT OF INTEREST It shall be unethical for any City employee to participate directly or indirectly in procurement contract if the City employee knows that: 1. The City employee or any member of the City employee’s immediate family has a financial interest pertaining to the procurement contract; or 2. Any other person, business, or organization with whom the City employee or any member of the City employee’s immediate family is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment is involved in the procurement contract. POLICY The provisions of Wis. Statute 62.15 take precedence over any portion of this policy that may conflict. Public construction over $15,000 shall be publicly bid. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR 1. Ensure funds are available for purchases pursuant to the budget. 2. Ensure the account is accurate in amount and a proper charge against the treasury. 3. Ensure the goods or services were duly authorized by the designated responsible party. 4. Provide a report of all expenditures to the Finance committee monthly. 5. Review Purchase Orders for accuracy and completeness before approval. PURCHASING PROCEDURE Purchases made by the City of Stoughton are grouped under the following categories: 1. Purchases up to $1000.00 2. Purchases over $1000.00 to $5,000.00 3. Purchases over $5,000 to $15,000 4. Purchases of $15,000 or more not covered by section 62.15 or Wis. Statutes. 5. Public Construction over $25,000.00 6. Change orders in Public Construction Contracts 3 1. Purchases up to $1,000.00. If the estimated price of an item is $1,000 or less and is budgeted, the appropriate Department Head is authorized to purchase said item. A Purchase Voucher must be attached to the invoice and turned into the City Finance Director. The City Finance Director will review the invoice for proper account coding and authorization before payment is made. 2. Purchases over $1,000 but less than $5,000. Purchase Authorization is required. For the purchase of a budgeted item involving an estimated expenditure of more than $1,000 and less than $5,000, the appropriate Department Head must make every effort to solicit enough quotes in order to receive at least two oral or written. If the lowest quote is not recommended by the Department Head, a report must be submitted to the City Finance Director stating the reasons for the recommendation. The quotes shall be approved by the Finance Director prior to ordering the item. 3. Purchases over $5,000 but less than $15,000. A Purchase Order is required. For the purchase of a budgeted item involving an estimated expenditure of more than $5,000 and less than $15,000, the appropriate Department Head must make every effort to solicit enough quotes in order to receive at least three. If the lowest quote is not recommended by the Department Head, a report must be submitted to the City Finance Director stating the reasons for the recommendation. The quotes shall be approved by the Finance Director and the Mayor prior to ordering the item. 4. Purchases of $15,000 or more not covered by section 62.15 of Wis. Statutes. Every effort must be made to send out enough bids or quotation requests in order to receive a minimum of three written quotes in order that the proper Council Committee can make a recommendation. Bids and quotations shall be opened and examined and a report shall be made to the appropriate Council Committee concerning the bids or quotations received. The report shall contain a recommendation concerning the bid to be accepted or rejected. If a bid other than the lowest bid or quotation is recommended, the report shall state the reasons for such a recommendation, which shall be forwarded to the City Council. Any project receiving only one bid shall be rebid unless it is approved by a three- fourths (3/4) vote of the Standing Council Committee. The City has the right to reject any and all quotes and/or bids. 5. Public Construction over $25,000. All public construction in which the estimated cost exceeds $25,000 shall be let by contract to the lowest responsible bidders. The bidding process shall incorporate the requirements in Section 62.15 and 66.0901 Wisconsin Statutes. Any project receiving only one bid shall be rebid unless it is approved by a three-fourths vote of the Council. The City has the right to reject any and all quotes and/or bids. 6. Change orders on Public Construction Contracts. Whenever it is reasonably possible, a proposed increase in the cost of a public construction contract resulting from a change in the scope of the project shall be presented to the Finance Committee for recommendation to the Common Council for approval provided it will not result in a costly delay to the construction project. If the cost of delaying the project is prohibitive, the appropriate Department Head, the City Finance Director, and the Mayor shall approve change orders that are a result of a change in the scope of the project. The Common Council prior to final payment on the contract must approve all change orders. 4 A Purchase order is NOT REQUIRED for the following purchases:  Professional contracted service such as legal, architectural, engineering, auditing, maintenance contracts, and janitorial contracts. These expenditures are contracted and must have prior Council approval.  On-going Utility expenditures such as electricity, natural gas, and telephone services.  Payroll and related expenses such as employee insurance payments, pension payments and mandatory state and federal employee withholding. The City Finance Director will automatically charge the appropriate budget accounts.  Routine expenditures, such as insurance premiums, health claims and bond payments, which received prior Council approval and authorization. The City Finance Director will automatically charge the appropriate department budget account.  Large supply orders that are quoted at least annually. An example would be Street Department salt/sand purchases. EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENTS An employee reimbursement form with the corresponding receipts attached, and appropriate Department Head authorization will be presented to the City Finance director for approval. The City Finance Director will verify the appropriate budget account numbers and amounts prior to payment being made. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2026-RFP-054-PR AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) SYSTEM WITH FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLOUD-BASED EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT County of Dane City-County Building, Room 425, 53703 Madison, WI 53703 RELEASE DATE: July 23, 2026 DEADLINE FOR QUESTIONS: August 20, 2026 RESPONSE DEADLINE: September 3, 2026, 2:00 pm RESPONSES MUST BE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY TO: https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/countyofdane County of Dane REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and Cloud-Based Evidence Management I. Introduction ................................ ................................ .......................... II. RFP Guidelines and Overview ................................ ............................... III. Contract Term ................................ ................................ ....................... IV. Project Overview & Scope of Work ................................ ....................... V. RFP Response Requirements & Evaluation Criteria ............................... VI. Pricing Proposal ................................ ................................ .................... VII. Vendor Questionnaire................................ ................................ ........... VIII. Standard Terms and Conditions ................................ ............................ Attachments: A - Dane_County_IT_Infrastructure Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 3 1. Introduction 1.1. Summary The purpose of this document is to provide interested parties with information to enable them to prepare and submit a proposal according to the specifications set forth within this document. The County intends to use the results of this process to award a contract or issue a purchase order for the product(s) and/or service(s) stated: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and Cloud-Based Evidence Management. The Dane County Purchasing Division is the sole point of contact for questions and issues that may arise during the RFP process. 1.2. Contact Information Megan Rogan Purchasing Officer Email: rogan.megan@countyofdane.com Phone: (608) 283-1487 Department: Sheriff 1.3. Timeline Release Project Date July 23, 2026 Question Submission Deadline August 20, 2026, 4:00pm Question Response Deadline August 27, 2026, 4:00pm Proposal Submission Deadline September 3, 2026, 2:00pm Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 4 2. RFP Guidelines and Overview 2.1. GENERAL SOLICITATION PROCESS 1. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 1. The County will provide reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. If you need accommodations at a vendor conference or site visit, contact the Purchasing Officer listed or call WI Relay 711 for TDD Services. 2. VENDOR REGISTRATION 1. Interested vendors are required to register at the County's eProcurement Portal. Registration is free and will ensure that you receive notifications of solicitations that match your profile and category codes as well as providing the County with up-to-date company contact information. 2. Once registered, please double check to make sure your vendor information including commodity codes is up-to-date by signing into your account at the County's eProcurement Portal. 3. CALENDAR OF EVENTS 1. Specific and estimated dates and times of actions related to this solicitation are listed in the timeline in the Introduction Section. The actions with specific dates must be completed as indicated unless otherwise changed by the County. In the event that the County finds it necessary to change any of the specific dates and times in the calendar of events listed below, it will do so by issuing an addendum to this RFP and posting such addendum on the Dane County eProcurement Portal. 4. CLARIFICATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS / QUESTIONS 1. All inquiries concerning this solicitation must be submitted via the County's eProcurement Portal. 2. Questions must be submitted before 4:00 pm on Thursday, August 20, 2026. 1. Requests submitted after that time frame will not be considered. 3. Proposers are expected to raise any questions, exceptions, or additions they have concerning the solicitation at this point in the process. If a proposer discovers any significant ambiguity, error, conflict, discrepancy, omission, or other deficiency in this solicitation, the proposer should immediately notify the contact person of such error and request modification or clarification to the solicitation document. 4. Proposers are prohibited from communicating directly with any employee of Dane County, except as described herein. No County employee or representative other than those individuals Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 5 listed as County contacts on this solicitation is authorized to provide any information or respond to any question or inquiry concerning this solicitation. 5. ADDENDA & REVISIONS 1. In the event that it becomes necessary to provide additional clarifying data or information, or to revise any part of this bid, addenda and/or supplements will be posted via the County's eProcurement Portal. Bidders are responsible to regularly monitor the web site for any such postings. It is recommended to check the eProcurement Portal for addenda prior to submitting a proposal. Bidders must acknowledge the receipt/review of any addenda via the eProcurement Portal. 2. The Purchasing Division has the sole authority for modifications to specifications and/or the solicitation document. 6. INSPECTION OF PREMISES/VENDOR SITE VISIT - when applicable 1. When applicable, bidder’s may inspect site(s) prior to submitting bids to determine all requirements associated with the project by contacting Megan Rogan. Failure to do so will in no way relieve the successful bidder from the necessity of providing, without additional cost to the County, all necessary services that may be required to carry out the intent of the resulting contract. 2.2. BID / PROPOSAL SUBMISSION Dane County strongly encourages all vendors to submit proposals well in advance of the solicitation deadline. By doing so, if there are any technical difficulties, there is time to attempt to resolve the situation before the deadline. Late bids will not be accepted. If there are technical difficulties while trying to submit, first, contact OpenGov Support by clicking into the small blue circle on the bottom, right side of your screen while logged into the OpenGov system. 1. SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. Dane County reserves the right to accept any part of this bid deemed to be in the best interest of the County. The County also retains the right to accept or reject any or all bids. 2. Proposals must be submitted via the County's eProcurement Portal before 2:00 pm on Thursday, September 3, 2026. Late, faxed, mailed, hand-delivered, or incomplete proposals will be rejected unless otherwise specified. Dane County is not liable for any cost incurred by proposers in replying to this solicitation. 3. To Submit a Proposal: 1. Register at the County's eProcurement Portal at https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/countyofdane Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 6 2. Click on the green "+Subscribe" button on the left side of the screen and proceed to create an account or sign in if an account already exists. 3. Once registered, click on the "draft" button to draft your proposal. 4. Provide company information 5. Complete the entire Vendor Questionnaire 6. Where indicated, upload the required documents. 7. The file upload status can be seen for each document uploaded. 8. Confirm all files have been uploaded 9. Review your work and click on "submit" proposal 10. Acknowledge any addenda 2. MULTIPLE PROPOSALS & ACCEPTANCE 1. Multiple proposals from a vendor will be permissible; however, the proposer must create separate accounts with separate log-in sequences, emails, and passwords on the County’s eProcurement Portal. Each such proposal must be submitted separately and labeled as Proposal #1, Proposal #2, etc. 2. Please message procurementsupport@opengov.com with any questions regarding set up. 3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ON SUBMITTING COST PROPOSALS 1. The Cost Proposal section of this solicitation will either be incorporated into the system as a Pricing Table or as a separate Cost Proposal Attachment that must be downloaded, completed, saved, and uploaded to the Vendor Questionnaire section. 2. Price(s) quoted shall include all labor, materials, equipment, shipping and other costs and conditions outlined within the bid. Pricing shall remain fixed. 4. RIGHT TO REJECT PROPOSALS & NEGOTIATE CONTRACT TERMS 1. The County reserves the right to accept any part of a submission deemed to be in the best interest of the County and to reject any and all proposals and to negotiate the terms of the contract, including the award amount, with the selected proposer prior to entering into a contract. If contract negotiations cannot be concluded successfully with the highest scoring proposer, the County may negotiate a contract with the next highest scoring proposer. 2.3. VENDOR QUESTIONNAIRE DEFINITIONS 1. LOCAL VENDOR PURCHASING PREFERENCE - applicable to RFBs - DOES NOT APPLY TO PUBLIC WORKS BIDS Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 7 1. Under Dane County Ordinance 25.08(11)(c-e), a Locally Based and Owned Vendor, Locally Operated Vendor, or Non-Locally Operated Vendor may be invited to match the low bid if the low bid is offered by a vendor that is not identified as a Locally Based and Owned Vendor, Locally Operated Vendor, or Non-Locally Operated Vendor according to Dane County Ordinance requirements. Local Vendor Preferences do not apply to bids for sand, gravel, salt, asphalt and concrete. Locally Based and Owned Vendors: 1. When bids are reviewed, the County will determine if a Locally Based and Owned Vendor responding to the bid is the low bidder. If a Locally Based and Owned Vendor is the low bidder, they will be awarded the bid. 2. If a Locally Based and Owned Vendor is not the low bidder but is within 15% of the low bid, the County will contact the Locally Based and Owned Vendor and provide that vendor the option of matching the low bid price. 3. If no Locally Based and Owned Vendors are among the responding bidders, or the Locally Based and Owned Vendor declines to match the low bid, then the County will determine if a Locally Operated Vendor has responded to the bid. Locally Operated Vendors: 4. If a Locally Operated Vendor is within 10% of the low bid, the County will contact the Locally Operated Vendor and provide that vendor the option of matching the low bid price. 5. If no Locally Operated Vendors are among the responding bidders, or the Locally Operated Vendor declines to match the low bid, then the County will determine if a Non-Locally Operated Vendor has responded to the bid. Non-Locally Operated Vendors: 6. If a Non-Locally Operated Vendor is within 5% of the low bid, the County will contact the Non- Locally Operated Vendor and provide that vendor the option of matching the low bid price. 7. If no Non-Locally Operated Vendors are among the responding bidders, or the Non-Locally Operated Vendor declines to match the low bid, then the County will award the bid to the low bidder without regard to the location of the vendor. 2. LOCAL VENDOR PURCHASING PREFERENCE - applicable to RFPs - DOES NOT APPLY TO PUBLIC WORKS BIDS 1. Under County ordinances, a Local Vendor is defined as a supplier or provider of equipment, materials, supplies or services that has an established place of business within the County of Dane. An established place of business means a physical office, plant or other facility. A post office box address does not qualify a vendor as a Local Vendor. 1. County ordinance provides that a local vendor (within Dane County) automatically receive five points toward the evaluation score. 2. County ordinance provides that vendors located within the counties adjacent to Dane County (Columbia, Dodge, Green, Iowa, Jefferson, Rock, Sauk) automatically receive two points toward the evaluation score. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 8 3. LOCAL CONTENT VENDOR PREFERENCE - generally only applicable to RFBs - DOES NOT APPLY TO PUBLIC WORKS BIDS 1. Under Dane County Ordinance 25.08(4)(f-j), bidders offering goods made in Dane County, its surrounding counties, or the State of Wisconsin receive a price preference on sealed bid solicitations. Bids are first evaluated to determine if any bidders are offering products that qualify as Dane County-Made Goods, Regionally-Made Goods, or Wisconsin-Made Goods. Local Vendor Preferences do not apply to bids for sand, gravel, salt, asphalt and concrete. 2. A bidder offering Dane County-Made Goods will be considered the successful bidder if their price is up to 15% higher than the low bid for goods that are not Dane County-Made Goods. If no vendors meet this criteria, then the County will determine if any bidder is offering Regionally- Made Goods. If so, then such a bidder will be considered successful if their price is up to 12.5% higher than the low bid for goods that are not Regionally-Made Goods. If no vendors meet this criteria, then the County will determine if any bidder is offering Wisconsin-Made Goods. If so, that bidder will be considered successful if their price is up to 10% higher than the low bid for goods that are not Wisconsin-Made Goods. If no vendors are offering Dane County-Made, Regionally-Made, or Wisconsin-Made Goods, then the County will evaluate the low bid without regard to the content of the goods. 4. FAIR LABOR PRACTICES CERTIFICATION 1. Dane County Ord. 25.09 (1) is as follows: 1. (28) BIDDER RESPONSIBILITY. (a) Any bid, application or proposal for any contract with the county, including public works contracts regulated under chapter 40, shall include a certification indicating whether the bidder has been found by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or the Wisconsin Employment Relations Committee (WERC) to have violated any statute or regulation regarding labor standards or relations within the last seven years. The purchasing manager shall investigate any such finding and make a recommendation to the committee, which shall determine whether the conduct resulting in the finding affects the bidder’s responsibility to perform the contract. 2. If a company indicates that they have been found by the NLRB or WERC to have such a violation in the Vendor Questionnaire section, a copy of any relevant information regarding such violation with is required to be uploaded with the bid submission. 3. Additional information about the NLRB and WERC can be found using the following links: www.nlrb.gov and http://werc.wi.gov. 5. COOPERATIVE PURCHASING 1. Participating in cooperative purchasing gives vendors the opportunity for additional sales without additional bidding. Municipalities and state agencies use cooperative purchasing to expedite purchases. A “municipality” is defined as any county, city, village, town, school district, Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 9 board of school directors, sewer district, drainage district, vocational, technical and adult education district, or any other public body having authority to award public contracts (s. 16.70(8), Wis. Stats.). Federally recognized Indian tribes and bands in this state may participate in cooperative purchasing with the state or any municipality under ss. 66.0301(1) and (20, Wis. Stats. 2. In the Vendor Questionnaire section, you will have the opportunity to participate in allowing municipalities and state agencies to piggyback this bid. Participation is not mandatory. A vendor’s decision on participating in this service has no effect on awarding the bid. 3. Dane County is not a party to these purchases or any dispute arising from these purchases and is not liable for delivery or payment of any of these purchases. 6. DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIAL & PROPRIETY INFORMATION - generally only applicable to RFPs 1. RFP responses are public records under Wisconsin Law. Dane County may be required to release your RFP response if someone makes a public records request. There are few exceptions to disclosure under Wisconsin’s Open Records Law. 2. All proposed restrictions on the use of data contained within a proposal and all confidential information must be clearly stated on the Vendor Information Attachment under the “Designation of Confidential and Proprietary Information” section. 3. Proprietary information submitted in a proposal, or in response to the RFP, will be handled in accordance with the applicable Wisconsin State Statute(s) to determine whether such information must be disclosed. Dane County shall not provide advance notice prior to release of any requested record. 4. Submitted pricing will always become public information when proposals are opened and therefore cannot be designated as confidential. Designating the RFP response or proposal in its entirety as confidential is never warranted and will result in its release. 5. One exception under the Wisconsin Open Records Law is if information constitutes a “trade secret.” Trade secret is defined in Sect. 134.90 (1)(c)) of the WisconsinStatutes, as follows: "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method technique or process to which all of the following apply: 1. The information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. 2. The information is the subject of efforts to maintain its secrecy that are reasonable under the circumstances. County cannot guarantee that such information will be treated as a trade secret or confidential. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 10 6. To the extent permitted by law, it is the intention of Dane County to withhold the contents of the proposal from public view until such times as competitive or bargaining reasons no longer require non-disclosure, in the opinion of Dane County. At that time, all proposals will be available for review in accordance with the Wisconsin Open Records Law. 7. In the event the Designation of Confidentiality of this information is challenged, undersigned agrees to provide legal counsel or other necessary assistance to defend the Designation of Confidentiality and to hold Dane County harmless for any costs or damages arising out of Dane County withholding the materials. . 8. Failure to designate confidential and proprietary information within the Designation of Confidential and Proprietary Information section of the Vendor Information Attachment may mean that all information provided as part of the proposal response will be open to examination or copying. The County considers other markings of confidential in the proposal document to be insufficient. The undersigned agrees to hold the County harmless for any damages arising out of the release of any material unless they are specifically identified within the Designation of Confidential and Proprietary Information section of the Vendor Information Attachment. 2.4. EVALUATION 1. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 1. The proposals will first be reviewed to determine if all applicable requirements are met. Failure to meet mandatory requirements may result in the proposal being rejected. In the event that all vendors do not meet one or more of the mandatory requirements, the County reserves the right to continue the evaluation of the proposals and to select the proposal which most closely meets the requirements specified in the solicitation. 2. PROPOSAL SCORING - applicable to RFPs 1. Accepted proposals will be reviewed by an evaluation team and scored against the stated criteria in the evaluation section of the RFP posting. This scoring will determine the ranking of vendors based upon their written proposals. If the team determines that it is in the best interest of the County to require a Phase 2 Evaluation which may include oral presentations, the highest- ranking vendors will be invited to make such presentations. Those vendors that participate in the interview process will then be scored, and the final ranking will be made based upon those scores.RFP Cost Proposal's will be scored using a standard quantitative calculation where the most cost criteria points will be awarded to the proposal with the lowest cost. 3. ORAL PRESENTATIONS/INTERVIEW - applicable to RFPs 1. Top ranked selected proposers may be required to make oral interview presentations and/or site visits to supplement their proposals, if requested by the County. The County will make every reasonable attempt to schedule each presentation at a time and location that is agreeable to Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 11 the proposer. Failure of a proposer to conduct a presentation to the County on the date scheduled may result in rejection of the vendor’s proposal. 2.5. AWARD 1. RFB AWARD 1. The County will award the bid to the most responsive and responsible bidder whose bid is most advantageous to the County. In determining the most advantageous bid, the County may consider criteria such as, but not limited to, cost, bidder’s past performance and/or service reputation, and service capability, quality of the bidder’s staff or services, customer satisfaction, references, the extent to which the bidder’s staff or services meet the County’s needs, bidder’s past relationship with the County, total long term cost to the County, fleet continuity and any other relevant criteria listed in this solicitation. 2. A resulting award and any part thereof shall not be subcontracted or assigned to another Contractor without prior written permission of the County. The Contractor shall be directly responsible for any Subcontractor’s performance and work quality when used by the Contractor to carry out the scope of the job. Subcontractors must abide by all terms and conditions under this Contract. 2. RFP AWARD 1. An RFP award will typically be granted in one of two ways. 1. The award may be granted to the highest scoring responsive and responsible proposer. 2. Alternatively, the highest scoring proposer or proposers may be requested to submit final and best offers. If final and best offers are requested, they will be evaluated against the stated criteria, scored and ranked. The award will then be granted to the highest scoring proposer. 2. A resulting award and any part thereof shall not be subcontracted or assigned to another Contractor without prior written permission of the County. The Contractor shall be directly responsible for any Subcontractor’s performance and work quality when used by the Contractor to carry out the scope of the job. Subcontractors must abide by all terms and conditions under this Contract. 3. PAYMENT TERMS AND INVOICING 1. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, Dane County will pay properly submitted vendor invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt of goods or services. Payment will not be made until goods or services are delivered, installed (if required), and accepted as specified. Invoices presented for payment shall be submitted to via email to the Department Invoice Email Address shown on the Bill To section of the PO issued. The Dane County purchase order number must be noted on the submitted invoice. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 12 2. Other incidental or standard industry charges not identified herein, are not allowed under this contract. Miscellaneous service charges used to help the Contractor pay various fluctuating current and future costs are not allowed. These charges include, but are not limited to, costs directly or indirectly related to the environment, energy issues, fuel charges, service and delivery of goods and services. 4. NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO AWARD 1. Upon finalizing the award, a notification email may be sent via the OpenGov system showing the awarded vendor(s). 2. As a courtesy, the County may send a Notice of Intent letter to responding vendors at the time of the award. - applicable to RFPs 3. Written notice of award to a vendor in the form of a purchase order or other document, mailed or emailed to the address shown on the bid will be considered sufficient notice of acceptance of bid. 5. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 1. The successful vendor is required to submit to Dane County a Certificate of Insurance prior to performing any work under this contract. The certificate is required prior to issuance of purchase order. See the Insurance Responsibility section within the Standard Terms & Conditions. 2. Please contact your insurance representative to issue an Additional Insured Endorsement naming County of Dane, a municipal corporation, its boards, commissions, agencies, officers, employees and representatives listed as an ADDITIONAL INSURED on the General Liability policy. 3. Indicate mailing address as: o County of Dane Risk Management City County Building Room 425 210 Martin Luther King Jr., Blvd. Madison, WI 53703 4. Please inform your insurance representative that you have agreed to provide us with 30 Days written notice in the event of cancellation for any reason before the expiration date of your policy or policies. 5. Vendor may email Certificates of Insurance to risk.management@danecounty.gov. 6. Call 608-266-4965 with any questions. 6. PERMITS & LICENSES Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 13 1. The Contractor selected under this bid shall be required to obtain the necessary permits and licenses prior to performing any work under this contract. The Contractor will be required to demonstrate valid possession of appropriate required licenses and will keep them in effect for the term of this contract. 2. Contractor must be financially responsible for obtaining all required permits and licenses to comply with pertinent regulations, municipal, county, State of Wisconsin and Federal laws, and shall assume liability for all applicable taxes. 7. SATISFACTORY WORK 1. Any work found to be in any way defective or unsatisfactory shall be corrected by the Contractor at its own expense at the order of the County. The County also reserves the right to contract out services not satisfactorily completed and to purchase substitute services elsewhere. The County reserves the right to charge the vendor with any or all costs incurred or retain/deduct the amount of such costs incurred from any monies due or which may become due under this contract. 8. GOVERNMENT STANDARDS 1. All materials, equipment, and supplies provided to the County must fully comply with all safety requirements as set forth by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce and all applicable OSHA Standards. Bidders shall comply with all local, state and federal regulations, directives and laws. 9. DANE COUNTY SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES 1. On October 18, 2012, the Dane County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 103, 2012-2013 establishing the following sustainability principles for the county: o Reduce and eventually eliminate Dane County government’s contribution to fossil fuel dependence and to wasteful use of scarce metals and minerals; o Reduce and eventually eliminate Dane County government’s contribution to dependence upon persistent chemicals and wasteful use of synthetic substances; o Reduce and eventually eliminate Dane County government’s contribution to encroachment upon nature and harm to life-sustaining ecosystems (e.g., land, water, wildlife, forest, soil, ecosystems); and o Reduce and eventually eliminate Dane County government’s contribution to conditions that undermine people’s ability to meet their basic human needs. 2.6. CONTRACTING 1. CONTRACT/PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1. The County department(s) utilizing the service will be responsible for drafting, coordinating, monitoring and administering the resulting service contract/purchase order. The department Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 14 shall be responsible for notifying the awarded vendor about contract renewals or extensions. Any modifications or additions to the contract(s)/purchase order(s) shall be communicated by the department to the Purchasing Division. 2. CONTRACT ASSIGNMENT - SUBCONTRACTORS 1. A resulting contract and any part thereof shall not be subcontracted or assigned to another Contractor without prior written permission of the County. The Contractor shall be directly responsible for any subcontractor's performance and work quality when used by the Contractor to carry out the scope of the job. Subcontractors must abide by all terms and conditions under this Contract. 3. CONTRACT ADDITIONS 1. The County reserves the right to add new items and locations at a price conforming to other like items on the contract. The procedure for such additions shall be as follows: 1. The County Purchasing Officer will contact the vendor requesting pricing for the item(s) to be added. 2. The vendor, within three working days, should respond in writing and include the bid number, contract period and the price for each item or service to be provided. 3. Upon receipt, the County shall issue a Change Order adding the service or product(s) to the Contract or Purchase Order. 2. The County reserves the right to accept or reject prices and obtain bids on the open market for these add ons. 3. When applicable, Contractor may be required to sign a Dane County Contract. 4. CONTRACT TERMINATION 1. If for any reason the successful contractor fails to fulfill the requirements of the contract for providing the specified services, the County shall have the right to cancel the contract at any time and negotiate for the services with another contractor. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 15 3. Contract Term The contract shall be effective on the date indicated on the Dane County Purchase Order or the Dane County Contract execution date. The initial term length and renewal terms available are estimates only and are subject to change. If applicable, any optional or renewal terms are not automatic extensions. Renewal terms must be agreed upon mutually by Dane County and Contractor. Anticipated Terms (Calendar Dates) Term 1: November 1, 2026 - October 31, 2027 Term 2: November 1, 2027 - October 31, 2028 Term 3: November 1, 2028 - October 31, 2029 Term 4: November 1, 2029 - October 31, 2030 Term 5: November 1, 2030 - October 31, 2031 Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 16 4. Project Overview & Scope of Work The following definitions and links are used throughout the RFP. County: Dane County County Agency: Department/Division utilizing the service or product. Dane County Purchasing website: https://www.danepurchasing.com/ Proposer/Vendor/Firm/Contractor: a company submitting a proposal in response to this RFP. 4.1. Purpose 1. The Dane County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) is soliciting proposals from qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) system including fixed infrastructure cameras, cloud-based data management, and integration with existing agency cloud software platforms. The system must satisfy DCSO’s privacy, civil liberties, data governance, and public accountability requirements. 2. This RFP is intended to identify a vendor capable of delivering a modern, scalable, and fully integrated ALPR solution that advances DCSO's public safety mission. 4.2. Background 1. DCSO currently operates a suite of public safety technologies. The agency seeks an ALPR solution that complements its existing investments and operates within a unified, cloud-based evidence and data ecosystem. 2. The selected vendor must demonstrate the ability to integrate natively and securely with the agency’s existing platforms without requiring duplicate infrastructure, separate portals or redundant data stores. 3. The County Board has authorized funding of up to $80,000 annually for this program. Proposers shall clearly identify all one-time and recurring fees. 4. Requirements throughout this RFP reflect those conditions. Vendors must be prepared to address these requirements in full. 4.3. Community & Board Priorities The following priorities are foundational to this procurement and are reflected in the mandatory requirements of this RFP: 1. Vendor shall provide proof of independent third-party auditing of their system’s privacy and security protections with public disclosure of findings. 2. Exclusive ownership, control, and management of all collected data by DCSO 3. Detailed public reporting on data access to ensure no unauthorized third-party rights 4. Strict data retention limits and clearly defined automated deletion policies Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 17 5. Restricted, role-based user access controls with comprehensive audit logging. 6. Prohibition on unauthorized data sharing, sale or external access. 7. Strict limitations on collection and retention of non-license plate imagery 8. Full compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws 9. Public transparency measures, including DCSO’s ability to publish a public-facing data use policy. 10. No facial recognition capabilities of any kind. 11. AI use limited strictly to license plate character recognition and basic vehicle attribute identification. 4.4. Scope of Work/Specifications The selected vendor shall furnish all labor, equipment, software, subscriptions, implementation services, integrations, documentation, support, and other deliverables necessary to provide a fully functional ALPR solution meeting the requirements of this RFP. At a minimum, the scope shall include: 1. Supply and installation of fixed ALPR camera infrastructure at locations designated by DCSO. 2. Cloud based ALPR data platform with real-time and historical query capabilities. 3. Integration capabilities with DCSO’s existing public safety technologies. 4. Mobile application access for field personnel. 5. System training, ongoing technical support, and warranty coverage. 6. Public facing transparency portal enabling DCSO to publish its data governance and usage policies. Project management, implementation planning, testing, and acceptance support. 7. Transition-out assistance and data return at contract end 4.5. Vendor Qualifications MANDATORY QUALIFICATIONS: 1. The vendor shall have a minimum of five (5) years of experience providing ALPR solutions to US law enforcement agencies. 2. The vendor shall maintain a US based customer support operation staffed 24/7/365. 3. The vendor shall provide a minimum of three (3) reference agencies with deployments comparable in scale to DCSO that are using both the vendor’s ALPR system and the vendor’s digital evidence management platform simultaneously. 4. The vendor shall maintain a current SOC 2 Type II report, and current ISO/IEC 27001, and ISO/IEC 27701 certifications, and shall provide documentation at proposal submission. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 18 5. The vendor shall demonstrate current CJIS compliance via a signed CJIS Security Addendum or equivalent documentation. 4.6. Training & On-Going Support MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: 1. The vendor shall provide comprehensive initial training for DCSO administrators, investigators, and patrol personnel. Training shall be role-appropriate and cover both technical operation and DCSO's policy and governance responsibilities. 2. The vendor shall support a train-the-trainer model enabling DCSO training leads to certify new personnel internally, including new deputies joining patrol. 3. On-demand online training modules shall be available for both patrol and administrative roles, ensuring new personnel can complete required training without waiting for scheduled sessions. 4. The vendor shall provide 24/7/365 technical support staffed by U.S.-based personnel. 5. The vendor shall assign a dedicated customer success representative to DCSO for the duration of the contract. 4.7. Implementation Plan Vendor shall submit a detailed implementation plan including: 1. Project governance 2. Project schedule 3. Staffing and responsibilities 4. Installation approach 5. Integration steps 6. Training plan 7. Testing plan 8. Go-Live Plan 9. Post Go-Live support approach 4.8. Warranty, Maintenance & Product Support Vendor shall state the warranty period for camera hardware, accessories, installation workmanship, and software defects. Vendor shall identify: 1. Replacement process Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 19 2. Advance replacement options 3. Firmware update practices 4. Security patch practices 5. End-of-life notice period 6. Spare parts/support availability 7. Any exclusions 4.9. Hardware Requirements - Fixed ALPR Camera Infrastructure MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: 1. DCSO anticipates an initial deployment of twenty-six (26) fixed ALPR cameras. Final quantities and locations shall be determined by DCSO based on project needs and available funding. 2. Cameras shall be purpose-built for law enforcement ALPR application with all-weather IP66 or higher rated enclosures. 3. Cameras shall capture front and/or rear plates at vehicle speeds of 0-100 mph with no manual focusing required. 4. Cameras shall operate effectively in low-light and nighttime conditions using IR illumination. 5. The system shall provide real-time data transmission to a cloud-based platform with latency under three (3) seconds from capture to alert. 6. The hardware shall be manufactured and assembled by the vendor to ensure clear and transparent customer support; third party rebranded hardware is not acceptable. 7. The vendor shall offer flexible mounting options including dedicated fixed pole, or mounting to existing county-owned infrastructure. 8. Cameras should support solar/battery power options for off-grid deployment locations. 9. The legal title of LPR camera hardware shall be granted to DCSO upon contract start date. 10. Vendor shall provide a minimum three-year warranty on camera hardware and installation workmanship, including advance replacement of failed hardware when feasible-and/or coverage for vandalism and accidents, as well as no-cost firmware/security updates for the supported life of the product. 4.10. Software Platform & Cloud Architecture MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: 1. The data platform shall be entirely cloud-hosted with no requirement for on-premises servers at DCSO facilities. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 20 2. The platform shall provide a web-based investigative portal accessible without installing client- side software. 3. The system shall support real-time hot list alerts delivered to in-car and mobile devices within three (3) seconds of a plate read matching alert criteria. 4. The platform shall support historical plate queries with date/time, location, and vehicle attribute filters. 5. The platform shall support targeted, location-based alerting capabilities that allow authorized personnel to define specific geographic zones and receive notifications regarding specific vehicles of interest entering or exiting those zones. All searches are subject to existing policies, legal requirements, audit logging, data retention and oversight controls. 6. All LPR data shall be stored within a CJIS authorized cloud infrastructure with data residency within the United States. 7. The platform shall maintain a complete, immutable audit log of all user queries, exports, and data access events. Audit logs shall have an infinite retention period and shall not be able to be deleted by any user, including agency administrators. 8. The vendor’s platform shall comply with FBI CJIS Security Policy requirements. The vendor shall provide a current CJIS compliance attestation and evidence of CJIS security training for all personnel with access to agency data. 9. The platform shall hold a valid SOC 2 report. Documentation shall be provided at proposal submission. 10. The vendor shall hold current ISO/IEC 27001:2022 & ISO/IEC 27701:2019 certifications. Documentation shall be provided at proposal submission. 11. The vendor shall publish a publicly accessible trust and compliance portal documenting all current security and privacy certifications. 12. The proposed solution shall support authentication and identity management through Microsoft Entra ID using industry-standard protocols (e.g., SAML 2.0 and/or OpenID Connect), enabling centralized user provisioning, authentication, and role-based access control. 4.11. Data Security & Incident Response MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: 1. Vendor shall notify DCSO of any actual or suspected security incident involving DCSO data immediately, and in no event later than twenty-four (24) hours after discovery. 2. Vendor shall provide ongoing incident updates, root cause analysis, corrective actions, and full cooperation with DCSO’s incident response, legal, audit, and public communication obligations. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 21 4.12. Platform Integration with Existing Agency Public Safety Technology Platforms MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: 1. The ALPR platform shall natively integrate with DCSO’s existing digital evidence management system (DEMS), enabling LPR reads and associated images to be directly linked to DEMS cases without manual export/import. 2. Officers shall be able to access ALPR search results and receive real-time alerts through the same mobile applications used for existing body-worn camera and in-car video review. 3. The ALPR platform shall support evidence sharing and collaboration features consistent with the agency’s existing DEMS, including chain of custody tracking for LPR exports. 4. The vendor shall demonstrate a documented integration with the agency’s existing platforms at the time of proposal submission, including reference agencies using both systems simultaneously. 5. The ALPR data shall be accessible within the same investigative timeline view used for body- worn camera footage, in-car video, and other digital evidence. 6. The vendor should support integration with certified third-party cameras, including commercial cameras voluntarily shared with DCSO, through a managed partner program. All such integrations shall be agency-controlled and auditable. 4.13. Mobile & Field Access MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: 1. The vendor shall provide a native iOS mobile application for field access to ALPR data, real-time alerts and manual plate queries. 2. The mobile application shall function as part of the vendor’s unified public safety platform, not as a stand-along ALPR-only application. 3. Real-time hot-list alerts shall be delivered as push notifications to officer mobile devices with plate image, vehicle description, and alert reason. 4. Officers shall be able to conduct manual plate queries from the mobile applications while offline in degraded network conditions, with results syncing upon reconnection. 4.14. Privacy, Data Governance & Community Accountability MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: 1. The DCSO shall retain full, exclusive ownership of all ALPR data collected through the system. The vendor shall not pool, aggregate, resell, or repurpose agency data for any commercial, Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 22 analytical, or law enforcement purpose outside of delivering the contracted service to DCO. This shall be a contractual commitment, not solely a policy statement. 2. The vendor shall not provide any federal agency, including ICE, DHS, or any other entity, with independent access to DCSO data. Any federal access shall require either valid legal process directed to DCSO or an agency-approved sharing relationship explicitly configured and approved by DCSO administrators 3. The vendor shall not sell, resell, or transfer DCSO ALPR data to any third party under any circumstances without explicit written authorization from DCSO. 4. The platform shall include a public-facing ALPR Policy and Transparency Portal that DCSO can use to publish its retention policies, data sharing posture, usage metrics, and program governance details. DCSO shall have full control over what is published and may enable or disable the portal at any time. 5. The platform shall support configurable, automated data retention policies. Non-evidentiary detections shall be automatically purged when the agency-defined retention period is reached, with no manual deletion required. DCSO shall be able to modify retention periods at any time. 6. The system shall support role-based access controls (RBAC) allowing DCSO administrators to define granular permissions by user, group, and data type. All administrative controls shall be fully auditable. 7. Each detection shall capture only: a license plate image, a vehicle context image, basic vehicle attributes (make, model, color), and time/location metadata. The system shall not capture facial imagery, driver identity information, passenger data, or any personal record beyond the plate and vehicle. Context imagery shall be used solely for vehicle identification purposes. 8. The system shall not share DCSO data with any other law enforcement agency, commercial entity, or government body without an explicit sharing relationship configured and approved by DCSO. All sharing shall use federated access — recipient agencies query authorized data but do not take ownership of it. DCSO retains sole ownership and disclosure authority at all times. 9. The vendor's platform shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws. The vendor shall provide documentation of its compliance framework and shall make available legal and compliance support to assist DCSO in meeting Wisconsin-specific requirements. 10. Reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards must be implemented to protect any personal, confidential, or sensitive data accessed, processed, or stored. At minimum, the following safeguards are required: 1. Breach Notification 1. Dane County must be notified of any known or suspected data breach within seventy- two (72) hours of discovery. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 23 2. Access Controls 1. Data access must be restricted to authorized personnel only, with mechanisms in place to prevent unauthorized data exposure. 3. Data Use Prohibition 1. No personal, confidential, or sensitive data will be sold, used, or rented without explicit written authorization from the Dane County. 4. Data Disposal or Return 1. Upon completion or termination of the project/contract, all County data must be securely disposed of or returned to Dane County. 5. Compliance with Laws 1. Vendor must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal privacy laws throughout the duration of the project/contract. 11. The Vendor shall provide documentation upon request to demonstrate compliance with these requirements and shall fully cooperate with any audits or assessments conducted by Dane County to verify adherence to data privacy obligations. 4.15. AI Use, Surveillance Limitations & Civil Liberties Protections MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS: 1. No component of the proposed ALPR system — including cameras, software, firmware, or any AI/ML model — shall have facial recognition capabilities. This requirement applies to all hardware and software proposed, including any optional modules or integrations. Vendors shall provide a written attestation confirming the absence of facial recognition in the proposed solution. 2. The system shall not enable continuous, passive surveillance of individuals. Every alert generated by the system shall require human review before any law enforcement action is taken. The system surfaces information for human decision-making — it does not automate enforcement outcomes. 3. The system shall not enable tracking of individuals based on protected characteristics including race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, or participation in lawful protest or assembly. 4. All system activity shall be tied to an authenticated user identity and logged with a timestamp. It shall be technically impossible for any user to conduct ALPR queries or access system data anonymously or without a reviewable audit record. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 24 5. RFP Response Requirements & Evaluation Criteria 1. RFP Response - Proposers shall upload and submit their proposal response document(s) to Section 1 of the Vendor Questionnaire. • The RFP Response shall be organized to comply with the section numbers and names as shown below. Each section heading shall be clearly marked. o If applicable, the Local Vendor Preference section is answered within the Vendor Questionnaire and doesn't need to be included in the RFP Response document. • Cover Letter / Cover Page o Provide a Cover Letter or Cover page and at minimum should include: ▪ Contact Person for the RFP process ▪ RFP Title ▪ RFP # ▪ Name of Proposer • Table of Contents may be included but is not required. • Graphics may be included but are not required. 2. Cost Proposal Response • Complete the Pricing Table if there is one located within the RFP Posting. • If there is no Pricing Table within the RFP Posting: o Download and complete the Pricing Section document from the Attachment Section of the RFP Posting. o Upload the completed Pricing Section document to Section 1 of the Vendor Questionnaire. 3. Document Formatting - The RFP Response and Cost Proposal (if applicable) documents must be saved in PDF format unless otherwise specified within the RFP document and the file name shall include the RFP# and name of business submitting proposal. • Example of how to name the files: o RFP Response Document: "2023-RFP-025 – Vendor Name" o Cost Proposal Document (if no pricing table): "2023-RFP-025 – Vendor Name - Cost Proposal" 4. Evaluation Criteria - each section includes the Point Value assigned to it for evaluation purposes. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 25 No. Evaluation Criteria Scoring Method Weight (Points) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 26 1. Qualifications, Implementation Schedule & Service Level Commitments The Proposer shall provide information sufficient for the County to evaluate the Proposer’s qualifications, implementation capability, and support commitments. At a minimum, the response shall address the following: 1. Proposer Qualifications and Experience 1. The Proposer’s experience and capability to fulfill the contract requirements. 2. A brief company history, including year established, headquarters location, ownership structure, and length of time offering the proposed solution. 3. The Proposer’s experience providing ALPR solutions to U.S. law enforcement agencies, including confirmation that the Proposer has a minimum of five (5) years of such experience. 4. All outside consultants, subcontractors, implementation partners, hosting providers, or other third parties to be used in performance of the contract, including contact information and a brief description of their roles. 5. Evidence of financial stability, including the most recent audited financial statements or equivalent documentation. DCSO reserves the right to request additional financial information prior to award. 2. Vendor References and Comparable Deployments Points Based 15 (14.3% of Total) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 27 1. A minimum of three (3) law enforcement agency references for deployments comparable in scale to DCSO. 2. References shall include agency name, primary contact name, title, phone number, email address, deployment scope, and length of time in production. 3. DCSO reserves the right to contact references not listed by the Proposer. 3. Training and Knowledge Transfer 1. A comprehensive initial training plan for DCSO administrators, investigators, and patrol personnel. Training shall be role-appropriate and shall address both technical system operation and DCSO policy, governance, and authorized-use responsibilities. 2. A train-the-trainer approach enabling designated DCSO training personnel to train and certify new users internally, including newly assigned patrol deputies and other personnel. 3. Availability of on-demand online training modules for both patrol and administrative roles so that new personnel may complete required training without waiting for scheduled instructor-led sessions. 4. A description of all training materials, user guides, refresher training options, training update practices, and any additional training costs. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 28 4. Implementation Plan and Project Delivery 1. A detailed implementation plan from contract execution through production go-live and post-go-live stabilization. 2. The implementation plan shall include, at a minimum: 1. project governance, 2. project schedule, 3. project staffing and responsibilities, 4. installation approach, 5. integration steps, 6. training plan, 7. testing plan, 8. go-live plan, and 9. post-go-live support approach. 3. A detailed implementation timeline identifying major milestones, deliverables, dependencies, assumptions, and County responsibilities. 4. Identification of the proposed project manager, escalation structure, status reporting approach, and issue/risk management process. 5. Service Level Agreement and Ongoing Support 1. A detailed Service Level Agreement (SLA) covering system availability/uptime, support response times, issue resolution or restoration timeframes, escalation Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 29 procedures, and related support terms. 2. Confirmation that the Proposer maintains a U.S.-based customer support operation staffed twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week, three hundred sixty-five (365) days per year. 3. A description of support channels, severity levels, target response times, target resolution times, maintenance notification practices, and service escalation procedures. 4. Confirmation that a dedicated customer success representative or equivalent account manager will be assigned to DCSO for the duration of the contract. 6. Warranty, Maintenance, and Product Support 1. The warranty period for camera hardware, accessories, installation workmanship, and software defects. 2. The Proposer’s replacement process, including any advance replacement options. 3. Firmware update practices and security patch management practices. 4. End-of-life and end-of-support notice periods for hardware and software components. 5. Spare parts availability, maintenance support availability, and any exclusions or limitations applicable to Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 30 warranty or maintenance coverage. 2. Hardware Requirements - Fixed ALPR Camera Infrastructure The Proposer shall provide complete technical information for all fixed ALPR camera models proposed. At a minimum, the response shall address the following for each model offered: 1. Environmental durability, including ingress protection rating, operating conditions, and suitability for year- round outdoor deployment. 2. Manufacturer name, model number, country of manufacture, and country of final assembly. 3. Capture performance, including vehicle speed range and performance in daylight, low-light, and nighttime conditions. 4. Data transmission methods from the camera to the hosted platform, including connectivity options, transmission timing, buffering capabilities, and security protections for data in transit. 5. Mounting and deployment options, including pole mounting, compatibility with existing County- owned infrastructure, whether poles are provided, and typical site requirements or constraints. 6. Supported power options, including power source requirements, consumption, backup options, and site constraints. 7. The proposed ownership model for the camera hardware, including any terms governing title, maintenance, replacement, warranty, and end-of- term disposition. Points Based 15 (14.3% of Total) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 31 3. Software Platform and Cloud Architecture The Proposer shall describe the proposed software platform, hosting model, architecture, and security controls. At a minimum, the response shall address the following: 1. The overall hosting model, including whether the platform is fully cloud- hosted, hybrid, or on-premises. 2. Any required on-premises components, including servers, appliances, local gateways, agents, or client software. 3. Whether the solution is fully web- based or requires software installation for administrative or end- user access. 4. Whether local servers are required for application functionality, storage, processing, or alerting. 5. A high-level system architecture diagram identifying major components, interfaces, data flows, hosting environment(s), and third- party dependencies. 6. The expected turnaround time from image capture to hot-list alert notification under normal operating conditions. 7. The method(s) used to deliver alerts and any factors that may affect notification timing. 8. The data elements captured and stored for each image event, including images, metadata, and any derived vehicle or plate information. 9. Historical query capabilities, including any scope, time, or functionality limitations. Points Based 15 (14.3% of Total) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 32 10. Geofence or location-based query capabilities, including any constraints. 11. How and where data is stored, including hosting provider, region, encryption in transit, encryption at rest, and data residency. 12. Standard and configurable data retention settings. 13. Data deletion controls, including who may delete data, how deletion permissions are managed, whether deletion events are logged, and whether deleted data can be recovered. 14. Conformance with applicable FBI CJIS Security Policy requirements, including supporting documentation. 15. Current third-party security assessments, attestations, and certifications for the proposed platform, including SOC reports, ISO certifications, penetration tests, and vulnerability assessments. 16. Audit logging capabilities for user access, searches, administrative actions, exports, and deletion events. 17. Availability of a publicly accessible trust, security, or compliance portal documenting current security and privacy certifications and reports Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 33 4. Platform Integration with Existing Agency Public Safety Technology Platforms The Proposer shall describe the proposed software platform, hosting model, architecture, and security controls. At a minimum, the response shall address the following: 1. The overall hosting model, including whether the platform is fully cloud- hosted, hybrid, or on-premises. 2. Any required on-premises components, including servers, appliances, local gateways, agents, or client software. 3. Whether the solution is fully web- based or requires software installation for administrative or end- user access. 4. Whether local servers are required for application functionality, storage, processing, or alerting. 5. A high-level system architecture diagram identifying major components, interfaces, data flows, hosting environment(s), and third- party dependencies. 6. The expected turnaround time from image capture to hot-list alert notification under normal operating conditions. 7. The method(s) used to deliver alerts and any factors that may affect notification timing. 8. The data elements captured and stored for each image event, including images, metadata, and any derived vehicle or plate information. 9. Historical query capabilities, including any scope, time, or functionality limitations. Points Based 10 (9.5% of Total) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 34 10. Geofence or location-based query capabilities, including any constraints. 11. How and where data is stored, including hosting provider, region, encryption in transit, encryption at rest, and data residency. 12. Standard and configurable data retention settings. 13. Data deletion controls, including who may delete data, how deletion permissions are managed, whether deletion events are logged, and whether deleted data can be recovered. 14. Conformance with applicable FBI CJIS Security Policy requirements, including supporting documentation. 15. Current third-party security assessments, attestations, and certifications for the proposed platform, including SOC reports, ISO certifications, penetration tests, and vulnerability assessments. 16. Audit logging capabilities for user access, searches, administrative actions, exports, and deletion events. 17. Availability of a publicly accessible trust, security, or compliance portal documenting current security and privacy certifications and reports. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 35 5. Mobile Application Capabilities The Proposer shall describe the mobile application capabilities of the proposed solution. At a minimum, the response shall address the following: 1. Whether the proposed solution supports mobile applications for iOS, Android, or both. 2. Whether the mobile application is part of the proposer’s broader public safety platform, a standalone ALPR/LPR application, or a separate companion application. 3. Any functional differences between mobile operating systems or application versions. 4. The mobile application’s support for real-time alerts, real-time or near- real-time queries, historical searches, and related LPR functions. 5. Any limitations on mobile functionality based on user role, device type, operating system, or network connectivity. 6. How alerts are delivered to the mobile application and what information is included in each alert. 7. Any available user-configurable alert settings or notification preferences. 8. How the mobile application functions in remote, offline, or limited- connectivity environments, including support for offline inquiries, cached data, synchronization behavior, and operational limitations. 9. Security controls applicable to mobile application data stored or accessed on the device Points Based 10 (9.5% of Total) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 36 6. Data Ownership, Access, Retention, Privacy, and Legal Compliance The Proposer shall describe the proposed platform’s approach to data ownership, data use, privacy, retention, access control, and legal compliance. At a minimum, the response shall address the following: 1. Ownership of all LPR data, images, metadata, audit records, and related records created, collected, stored, or processed under the contract, including whether DCSO retains exclusive ownership. 2. Whether the proposer pools, aggregates, analyzes, resells, licenses, shares, or otherwise repurposes DCSO data for any purpose outside performance of the contract. 3. Any circumstances under which DCSO data may be used, disclosed, or accessed by federal agencies, state agencies, private entities, subcontractors, or other third parties. 4. Whether the proposer sells, resells, transfers, discloses, or otherwise makes DCSO data available to any third party, and if so, under what authority and for what purpose. 5. Whether the platform offers a public- facing transparency portal or similar feature, and who controls the content, publication settings, and availability of that feature. 6. How non-evidentiary data is purged or deleted, including whether such purging is automatic, manual, rule- based, or administrator-controlled. 7. Who controls retention settings and whether DCSO may independently define retention periods and deletion rules. Points Based 10 (9.5% of Total) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 37 8. The access control model used by the platform, including role-based permissions, authentication controls, and administrative management capabilities. 9. Whether DCSO may define access levels, roles, groups, and group membership without vendor intervention. 10. The data elements captured for each detection. 11. Whether the system captures images of faces, drivers, passengers, pedestrians, or other non-plate subjects, and any related limitations or controls. 12. Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and policies. 13. Security controls used to protect County data, including encryption, audit logging, access monitoring, and related safeguards. These safeguards shall include, at a minimum, those outlined in section 4.10.10 of the RFP's Project Scope of Work. 14. Proposer shall provide proof of independent third-party auditing of their system's privacy and security protections with public disclosure findings. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 38 7. AI Use, Surveillance Limitations & Civil Liberties Protections The Proposer shall describe any artificial intelligence, biometric, surveillance-related, and auditability features associated with the proposed platform, as well as the safeguards in place to protect privacy, civil liberties, and accountability. At a minimum, the response shall address the following: 1. Whether any component of the system includes, supports, or enables facial recognition, face detection, biometric identification, biometric verification, or other person-based recognition capabilities. 2. Whether any such capabilities are native, optional, third-party, separately licensed, or disabled by default. 3. Whether the system permits passive, persistent, automated, or bulk surveillance of individuals, vehicles, or patterns of movement. 4. Any capabilities that support monitoring over time, repeated- detection alerting, pattern-of-life analysis, travel pattern analysis, geospatial monitoring, or similar surveillance functions. 5. The administrative, technical, and policy controls available to limit, disable, supervise, or audit such capabilities. 6. How the system identifies authenticated users and attributes searches, access events, administrative actions, exports, and deletions to specific users. 7. The audit logging capabilities of the platform, including logged event types, timestamps, user attribution, and reviewability. Points Based 5 (4.8% of Total) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 39 8. Whether any access or system activity is not reviewable or auditable, and if so, the nature and scope of that limitation. 9. The tools available to administrators and supervisors to review activity, investigate misuse, and support accountability. 8. Cost Points Based 20 (19% of Total) 9. Local Vendor Preference Points Based 5 (4.8% of Total) Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 40 6. Pricing Proposal ALPR SYSTEM PRICING In the table below, please provide costs per the description and unit of measure. If there is a need to breakdown the unit cost further (example: Camera Hardware may consist of multiple pieces of equipment per installed unit), please provide the breakdown via a separate cost proposal and attach via question #1.3 on the vendor questionnaire. Line Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total 1 Per-Camera Hardware Costs (May be itemized via separate Cost Proposal and attached via Question #1.3 on the vendor questionnaire) 26 Ea 2 Total Installation and Site Survey Cost 1 Ea 3 Training Costs 1 Ea 4 Integration fees, for connection to DCSO's existing platforms (AXON Mobile Evidence and Spillman) 1 Ea TOTAL ANNUAL SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE Line Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total 5 Annual Support & Maintenance (Year 1) 1 Year 6 Annual Support & Maintenance (Year 2) 1 Year 7 Annual Support & Maintenance (Year 3) 1 Year 8 Annual Support & Maintenance (Year 4) 1 Year Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 41 Line Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total 9 Annual Support & Maintenance (Year 5) 1 Year TOTAL ANNUAL SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION Line Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total 10 Annual Software Subscription (Year 1) 1 Per Year 11 Annual Software Subscription (Year 2) 1 Per Year 12 Annual Software Subscription (Year 3) 1 Per Year 13 Annual Software Subscription (Year 4) 1 Per Year 14 Annual Software Subscription (Year 5) 1 Per Year TOTAL Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 42 7. Vendor Questionnaire 7.1. RFP DOCUMENT UPLOADS 7.1.1. Single Proposal Submission* Only 1 proposal is allowed to be submitted per Vendor Account. This means if you are submitting multiple proposals, you must follow the instructions set forth within the Section 2.2 RFP Guidelines and Overview - Multiple Proposals & Acceptance. It is understood that if multiple proposals are uploaded using 1 vendor account, the entire submission will be subject to disqualification. ☐ Please confirm *Response required 7.1.2. RFP Response Document - Upload your Proposal* Please DO NOT include Cost information in this section. *Response required 7.1.3. RFP Response - Supplemental Document Upload Upload any additional or required information documents that supplements this solicitation. 7.1.4. RFP Cost Proposal - Supplemental Document Upload If applicable, upload any documents providing further clarification of the submitted pricing from the Pricing Table. This is not required. 7.1.5. W9 Upload* Upload your company's W9 form. NOTE: The W9 is required to be signed within the past 12 months *Response required 7.2. VENDOR INFORMATION 7.2.1. Local Vendor Preference * Select a Local Vendor Preference: Vendors located within Dane County automatically receive five points toward the evaluation score. Vendors located within the counties adjacent to Dane County (Columbia, Dodge, Green, Iowa, Jefferson, Rock, Sauk) automatically receive two points toward the evaluation score. Vendors located outside of Dane County and the 7 counties adjacent to Dane County would choose "No Preference". NOTE: A post office box address does not qualify as an established place of business. ☐ No Preference ☐ Yes - Dane County Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 43 ☐ Yes - Columbia County ☐ Yes - Dodge County ☐ Yes - Green County ☐ Yes - Jefferson County ☐ Yes - Iowa County ☐ Yes - Rock County ☐ Yes - Sauk County *Response required 7.2.2. Fair Labor Practice Certification * Has your company been found by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") or the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission ("WERC") to have violated any statute or regulation regarding labor standards or relations in the seven years prior to the date this bid submission is signed? If yes is answered, a copy of any relevant information regarding such violation is required to be uploaded with your bid submission. Additional information about the NLRB and WERC can be found using the following links: www.nlrb.gov and http://werc.wi.gov. ☐ No, our company has NOT been found by the NLRB or the WERC to have violated any statute or regulation regarding labor standards or relations in the seven years prior to the date this bid submission is signed. ☐ Yes, our company HAS been found by the NLRB or the WERC to have violated any statute or regulation regarding labor standards or relations in the seven years prior to the date this bid submission is signed. *Response required 7.2.3. Cooperative Purchasing* Reference Guidelines - Section F. Does your company agree to furnish the commodities or services of this bid to municipalities and state agencies? ☐ Yes ☐ No *Response required 7.2.4. Designation of Confidential and Proprietary Information* Please specify what information you wish to designate as confidential and proprietary. Please identify section/ pages/ topic /documents, etc. NOTE: Pricing sections cannot be designated as confidential and proprietary. If nothing will be designated, simply type "None" in the section below. *Response required Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 44 7.3. DEVIATIONS 7.3.1. Specification/Requirement Deviation* If there are no specification deviations, write in "None" If there are deviations, provide/reference the spec # or section # and deviation explanation for each deviation. *Response required 7.4. RFP ADDENDA 7.4.1. I understand that if any addendum is issued I will have to acknowledge the posted addendum. * ☐ Please confirm *Response required 7.4.2. If an addendum is posted after I have submitted my proposal response and the resulting addendum requires action to be taken either in the Specification Section or Pricing Section, I understand that:* 1. I will have to unsubmit my proposal response. 2. I will have to acknowledge the posted addendum. 3. I will have to take action in responding to the changes on either the Specification Section or Pricing Section. 4. I will then have to resubmit my proposal response. Further instructions on addendum(a) postings can be found here. ☐ Please confirm *Response required 7.5. SIGNATURE DECLARATION 7.5.1. RFP Solicitation Response Declaration* In submitting and confirming this solicitation response, we certify that we have not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any agreement or participated in any collusion or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competition; that no attempt has been made to induce any other person or firm to submit or not to submit a solicitation response; that this solicitation response has been independently arrived at without collusion with any other vendor competitor or potential competitor; that this solicitation response has not been knowingly disclosed prior to the opening of bids to any other vendor or competitor; that the above statement is accurate under penalty of perjury. Further, by submitting this solicitation response, firm agrees with all the terms, conditions, and specifications required by the County in this solicitation and declares that the corresponding solicitation response and pricing are in conformity therewith. I have read and understood the entire document. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 45 I declare under penalty of false swearing under the law of Wisconsin that the foregoing is true and correct. ☐ Please confirm *Response required 7.5.2. Signed on: * Write in month, day, year and city/state in which the submission occurred.Example: June 27, 2025 in Madison, WI *Response required 7.5.3. Electronically signed by:* Provide First Name, Last Name and Title *Response required 7.6. BID DEVIATIONS Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 46 8. Standard Terms and Conditions 8.1. APPLICABILITY The terms and conditions set forth in this document apply to Requests for Proposals (RFP), Bids and all other transactions whereby the County of Dane acquires goods or services, or both. 8.2. ENTIRE AGREEMENT These Standard Terms and Conditions shall apply to any contract, including any purchase order, awarded as a result of this request. Special requirements of a resulting contract may also apply. Said written contract with referenced parts and attachments shall constitute the entire agreement, and no other terms and conditions in any document, acceptance, or acknowledgment shall be effective or binding unless expressly agreed to in writing by the County. Unless otherwise stated in the agreement, these standard terms conditions supersede any other terms and/or conditions applicable to this agreement. 8.3. DEFINITIONS As used herein, “vendor” includes a provider of goods or services, or both, who is responding to an RFP or a bid, and “bid” includes a response to either an RFP or a bid. 8.4. SPECIFICATIONS The specifications herein are the minimum acceptable. When specific manufacturer and model numbers are used, they are to establish a design, type of construction, quality, functional capability or performance level, or any combination thereof, desired. When alternates are proposed, they must be identified by manufacturer, stock number, and such other information necessary to establish equivalency. Dane County shall be the sole judge of equivalency. Vendors are cautioned to avoid proposing alternates to the specifications that may result in rejection of their bid. 8.5. DEVIATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS Deviations and exceptions from terms, conditions, or specifications shall be described fully in writing, signed, and attached to the bid. In the absence of such statement, the bid shall be accepted as in strict compliance with all terms, conditions, and specifications and vendor shall be held liable for injury resulting from any deviation. 8.6. QUALITY Unless otherwise indicated in the request, all material shall be first quality. No pre-owned, obsolete, discontinued or defective materials may be used. 8.7. QUANTITIES The quantities shown herein are based on estimated needs. The County reserves the right to increase or decrease quantities to meet actual needs. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 47 8.8. DELIVERY Deliveries shall be FOB destination freight prepaid and included unless otherwise specified. County will reject shipments sent C.O.D. or freight collect. 8.9. PRICING Unit prices shown on the bid shall be the price per unit of sale as stated on the request or contract. For any given item, the quantity multiplied by the unit price shall establish the extended price, the unit price shall govern in the bid evaluation and contract administration. 1. Prices established in continuing agreements and term contracts may be lowered due to market conditions, but prices shall not be subject to increase for the term specified in the award. Vendor shall submit proposed increases to the Purchasing Division thirty (30) calendar days before the proposed effective date of the price increase. Proposed increases shall be limited to fully documented cost increases to the vendor that are demonstrated to be industry wide. Price increases may not be granted unless they are expressed in bid documents and contracts or agreements. 2. Submission of a bid constitutes bidder’s certification that no financial or personal relationship exists between the bidder and any county official or employee except as specially set forth in writing attached to and made a part of the bid. The successful bidder shall disclose any such relationship which develops during the term of the contract. 8.10. ACCEPTANCE-REJECTION Dane County reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids, to waive any technicality in any bid submitted and to accept any part of a bid as deemed to be in the best interests of the County. Submission of a proposal or a bid constitutes the making of an offer to contract and gives the County an option valid for 60 days after the date of submission to the County. 1. Proposals must be submitted via the County's eProcurement Portal. THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS POLICY. 8.11. METHOD OF AWARD Award shall be made to the lowest responsible responsive bidder conforming to specifications, terms, and conditions, or to the most advantageous bid submitted to the County on a quality versus price basis. 8.12. ORDERING/ACCEPTANCE Written notice of award to a vendor in the form of a purchase order or other document, mailed or delivered to the address shown on the bid will be considered sufficient notice of acceptance of bid. A formal contract containing all provisions of the contract signed by both parties shall be used when required by the Dane County Purchasing Division. 8.13. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT In no event shall the making of any payment or acceptance of any service or product required by this Agreement constitute or be construed as a waiver by County of any breach of the covenants of the Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 48 Agreement or a waiver of any default of the successful vendor, and the making of any such payment or acceptance of any such service or product by County while any such default or breach shall exist shall in no way impair or prejudice the right of County with respect to recovery of damages or other remedy as a result of such breach or default. 8.14. TAXES The County and its departments are exempt from payment of all federal tax and Wisconsin state and local taxes on its purchases except Wisconsin excise taxes as described below. The State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue has issued tax exempt number CES 008-1020421168-06 to Dane County. 1. The County is required to pay the Wisconsin excise or occupation tax on its purchase of beer, liquor, wine, cigarettes, tobacco products, motor vehicle fuel and general aviation fuel. The County is exempt from Wisconsin sales or use tax on these purchases. The County may be subject to other states’ taxes on its purchases in that state depending on the laws of that state. Vendors performing construction activities are required to pay state use tax on the cost of materials. 8.15. GUARANTEED DELIVERY Failure of the vendor to adhere to delivery schedules as specified or to promptly replace rejected materials shall render the vendor liable for all costs in excess of the contract price when alternate procurement is necessary. Excess costs shall include administrative costs. 8.16. APPLICABLE LAW AND VENUE This contract shall be governed under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, and venue for any legal action between the parties shall be in Dane County Circuit Court. The vendor shall at all times comply with and observe all federal and state laws, local laws, ordinances, and regulations which are in effect during the period of this contract and which in any manner affect the work or its conduct. 8.17. ASSIGNMENT No right or duty in whole or in part of the vendor under this contract may be assigned or delegated without the prior written consent of Dane County. 8.18. NON-DISCRIMINATION/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: During the term of this Agreement the vendor agrees, in accordance with sec. 111.321, Wis. Stats., and Chapter 19 of the Dane County Code of Ordinances, not to discriminate against any person, whether an applicant or recipient of services, an employee or applicant for employment, on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, religion, color, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, cultural differences, ancestry, physical appearance, arrest record or conviction record, military participation or membership in the national guard, state defense force or any other reserve component of the military forces of the United States, or political beliefs. The vendor shall provide a harassment- free work environment. These provisions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff, termination, training, including apprenticeships, rates of pay or other forms of compensation. Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 49 1. Vendors who have twenty (20) or more employees and a contract of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) or more must submit a written affirmative action plan to the County’s Contract Compliance Officer within fifteen (15) working days of the effective date of the contract. The County may elect to accept a copy of the current affirmative action plan filed with and approved by a federal, state or local government unit. 2. The vendor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available for employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this Agreement as they relate to affirmative action and nondiscrimination. 3. Failure to comply with these Terms and Conditions may result in the vendor being debarred, termination of the contract and/or withholding of payment. 4. The vendor agrees to furnish all information and reports required by Dane County’s Contract Compliance Officer as the same relate to affirmative action and nondiscrimination, which may include any books, records, or accounts deemed appropriate to determine compliance with Chapter 19, D.C. Ords. and the provisions of this Agreement. 5. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: The vendor agrees to the requirements of the ADA, providing for physical and programmatic access to service delivery and treatment in all programs and activities. 8.19. PATENT, COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT The vendor guarantees goods sold to the County were manufactured or produced in accordance with applicable federal labor laws, and that the sale or use of the articles described herein do not infringe any patent, copyright or trademark. The vendor covenants that it will, at its own expense, defend every suit which shall be brought against the County (provided that such vendor is promptly notified of such suit, and all papers therein are delivered to it) for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright or trademark by reason of the sale or use of such articles, and agrees that it will pay all costs, damages, and profits recoverable in any such suit. 8.20. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS All materials, equipment, and supplies provided to the County must fully comply with all safety requirements as set forth by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce and all applicable OSHA Standards. 1. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET: If any item(s) on an order(s) resulting from this award(s) is a hazardous chemical, as defined under 29 CFR 1910.1200, provide one (1) copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet for each item with the shipped container(s) and one (1) copy with the invoice(s). 8.21. DATA PRIVACY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 1. Reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards must be implemented to protect any personal, confidential, or sensitive data accessed, processed, or stored. At minimum, the following safeguards are required: 1. Breach Notification Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 50 1. Dane County must be notified of any known or suspected data breach within seventy- two (72) hours of discovery. 2. Access Controls 1. Data access must be restricted to authorized personnel only, with mechanisms in place to prevent unauthorized data exposure. 3. Data Use Prohibition 1. No personal, confidential, or sensitive data will be sold, used, or rented without explicit written authorization from the Dane County. 4. Data Disposal or Return 1. Upon completion or termination of the project/contract, all County data must be securely disposed of or returned to Dane County. 5. Compliance with Laws 1. Vendor must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal privacy laws throughout the duration of the project/contract. 2. The Vendor shall provide documentation upon request to demonstrate compliance with these requirements and shall fully cooperate with any audits or assessments conducted by Dane County to verify adherence to data privacy obligations. 8.22. WARRANTY Unless specifically expressed otherwise in writing, goods and equipment purchased as a result of this request shall be warranted against defects by the vendor for one (1) year from date of receipt. An equipment manufacturer’s standard warranty shall apply as a minimum and must be honored by the vendor. 8.23. INDEMNIFICATION & INSURANCE 1. Vendor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend County, its boards, commissions, agencies, officers, employees and representatives against any and all liability, loss (including, but not limited to, property damage, bodily injury and loss of life), damages, costs or expenses which County, its officers, employees, agencies, boards, commissions and representatives may sustain, incur or be required to pay by reason of vendor furnishing the services or goods required to be provided under this Agreement, provided, however, that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to liabilities, losses, charges, costs, or expenses caused by or resulting from the acts or omissions of County, its agencies, boards, commissions, officers, employees or representatives. The obligations of vendor under this paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 2.. In order to protect itself and County its officers, boards, commissions, agencies, agents, volunteers, employees and representatives under the indemnity provisions of the subparagraph above, vendor shall, at vendor’s own expense, obtain and at all times during the term of this Agreement keep in full Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 51 force and effect the insurance coverages, limits, and endorsements listed below. When obtaining required insurance under this Agreement and otherwise, vendor agrees to preserve County’s subrogation rights in all such matters that may arise that are covered by vendor’s insurance. Neither these requirements nor the County’s review or acceptance of vendor’s certificates of insurance is intended to limit or qualify the liabilities or obligations assumed by the vendor under this Agreement. The County expressly reserves the right to require higher or lower insurance limits where County deems necessary. 2.1 Commercial General Liability. Vendor agrees to maintain Commercial General Liability insurance at a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Coverage shall include, but not be limited to, Bodily Injury and Property Damage to Third Parties, Contractual Liability, Personal Injury and Advertising Injury Liability, Premises-Operations, Independent vendors and Subcontractors, and Fire Legal Liability. The policy shall not exclude Explosion, Collapse, and Underground Property Damage Liability Coverage. The policy shall list DANE COUNTY as an Additional Insured. 2.2. Commercial/Business Automobile Liability. Vendor agrees to maintain Commercial/Business Automobile Liability insurance at a limit of not less than $1,000,000 Each Occurrence. Vendor further agrees coverage shall include liability for Owned, Non-Owned & Hired automobiles. In the event vendor does not own automobiles, vendor agrees to maintain coverage for Hired & Non-Owned Auto Liability, which may be satisfied by way of endorsement to the Commercial General Liability policy or separate Business Auto Liability policy. 2.3. Environmental Impairment (Pollution) Liability Vendor agrees to maintain Environmental Impairment (Pollution) Liability insurance at a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, property damage, and environmental cleanup costs caused by pollution conditions, both sudden and non-sudden. This requirement can be satisfied by either a separate environmental liability policy or through a modification to the Commercial General Liability policy. Evidence of either must be provided. 2.4. Workers’ Compensation. Vendor agrees to maintain Workers Compensation insurance at Wisconsin statutory limits. 2.5. Umbrella or Excess Liability. Vendor may satisfy the minimum liability limits required above for Commercial General Liability and Business Auto Liability under an Umbrella or Excess Liability policy. There is no minimum Per Occurrence limit of liability under the Umbrella or Excess Liability; however, the Annual Aggregate limit shall not be less than the highest “Each Occurrence” limit for the Commercial General Liability and Business Auto Liability. vendor agrees to list DANE COUNTY as an “Additional Insured” on its Umbrella or Excess Liability policy. 3. Upon execution of this Agreement, vendor shall furnish County with a Certificate of Insurance listing County as an additional insured and, upon request, certified copies of the required insurance policies. If vendor's insurance is underwritten on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date shall be prior to or coincide with the date of this Agreement, the Certificate of Insurance shall state that professional malpractice or errors and omissions coverage, if the services being provided are professional services coverage is claims-made and indicate the retroactive date, vendor shall maintain coverage for the Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 52 duration of this Agreement and for six (6) years following the completion of this Agreement. Vendor shall furnish County, annually on the policy renewal date, a Certificate of Insurance as evidence of coverage. It is further agreed that vendor shall furnish the County with a 30-day notice of aggregate erosion, in advance of the Retroactive Date, cancellation, or renewal. It is also agreed that on claims- made policies, either vendor or County may invoke the tail option on behalf of the other party and that the extended reporting period premium shall be paid by vendor. In the event any action, suit or other proceeding is brought against County upon any matter herein indemnified against, County shall give reasonable notice thereof to vendor and shall cooperate with vendor's attorneys in the defense of the action, suit or other proceeding. Vendor shall furnish evidence of adequate Worker's Compensation Insurance. In case of any sublet of work under this Agreement, vendor shall furnish evidence that each and every subcontractor has in force and effect insurance policies providing coverage identical to that required of vendor. In case of any sublet of work under this Agreement, vendor shall furnish evidence that each and every subcontractor has in force and effect insurance policies providing coverage identical to that required of vendor. 4. The parties do hereby expressly agree that County, acting at its sole option and through its Risk Manager, may waive any and all requirements contained in this Agreement, such waiver to be in writing only. Such waiver may include or be limited to a reduction in the amount of coverage required above. The extent of waiver shall be determined solely by County's Risk Manager taking into account the nature of the work and other factors relevant to County's exposure, if any, under this Agreement. 8.24. CANCELLATION County reserves the right to terminate any Agreement due to non-appropriation of funds or failure of performance by the vendor. This paragraph shall not relieve County of its responsibility to pay for services or goods provided or furnished to County prior to the effective date of termination. 8.25. FINANCIAL INTEREST PROHIBITED Under s. 946.13, Wis. Stats. COUNTY employees and officials are prohibited from holding a private pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any public contract. By executing this Agreement, each party represents that it has no knowledge of a COUNTY employee or official involved in the making or performance of the Agreement that has a private pecuniary interest therein. It is expressly understood and agreed that any subsequent finding of a violation of s. 946.13, Wis. Stat. may result in this Agreement being voided at the discretion of the COUNTY. 1. PUBLIC RECORDS ACCESS: It is the intention of the County to maintain an open and public process in the solicitation, submission, review, and approval of procurement activities. Bid openings are public unless otherwise specified. Records are not available for public inspection prior to issuance of the notice of intent to award or the award of the contract. Bid results may be obtained by visiting the Dane County Purchasing Office Monday – Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Prior appointment is advisable. 2. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: If the vendor asserts any of its books and records of its business practices and other matters collectively constitute a trade secret as that term is defined in s. 134.90(1)(c), Wis. Stats., and County determines that such records are trade secrets, County will not release the records to the public without first notifying the vendor of the request for the records and affording the vendor an opportunity to challenge in a court of competent jurisdiction the requester’s Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 53 right to access such records. The entire burden of maintaining and defending the trade secret designation shall be upon the vendor, and vendor agrees to hold County harmless for any costs or damages arising out of withholding the records. The vendor acknowledges and agrees that if the vendor shall fail, in a timely manner, to initiate legal action to defend the trade secret designation or be unsuccessful in its defense of that designation, County shall be obligated to and will release the records. 3. Any material submitted by the vendor in response to this request that the vendor considers confidential and proprietary information and which vendor believes qualifies as a trade secret, as provided in section 19.36(5), Wis. Stats., must be identified on a designation of Confidential and Proprietary Information form. Pricing will not be held confidential after award of contract. 4. Data contained in a bid, all documentation provided therein, and innovations developed as a result of the contracted commodities or services cannot be copyrighted or patented. All data, documentation, and innovations shall be the property of the County. 8.26. RECYCLED MATERIALS Dane County is required to purchase products incorporating recycled materials whenever technically and economically feasible. Vendors are encouraged to bid products with recycled content which meet specifications. 8.27. PROMOTIONAL ADVERTISING Reference to or use of Dane County, any of its departments or sub-units, or any county official or employee for commercial promotion is prohibited. 8.28. ANTITRUST ASSIGNMENT The vendor and the County of Dane recognize that in actual economic practice, overcharges resulting from antitrust violation are in fact usually borne by the Purchaser. Therefore, the successful vendor hereby assigns to the County of Dane any and all claims for such overcharges as to goods, materials or services purchased in connection with this contract. 8.29. RECORDKEEPING AND RECORD RETENTION-COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS Where payment to the vendor is based on the vendor’s costs, vendor shall establish and maintain adequate records of all expenditures incurred under the contract. All records must be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures. The County contracting agency shall have the right to audit, review, examine, copy, and transcribe any pertinent records or documents relating to any contract resulting from this bid/proposal held by the vendor. The vendor will retain all documents applicable to the contract for a period of not less than three (3) years after final payment is made. 8.30. COMPLIANCE WITH FAIR LABOR STANDARDS During the term of this Agreement, vendor shall report to the Controller, within ten (10) days, any allegations to, or findings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or Wisconsin Employment Relations commission (WERC) that vendor has violated a statute or regulation regarding labor standards or relations within the seven years prior to entering this Agreement. If an investigation by the Controller Request For Proposal #2026-RFP-054-PR Title: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System With Fixed Infrastructure and C loud-Based Evidence Management 54 results in a final determination that the matter adversely affects vendor’s responsibilities under this Agreement, and which recommends termination, suspension or cancellation of this agreement, the County may take such action. 1. VENDOR may appeal any adverse finding by the Controller as set forth in sec. 25.08(20)(c) through (e). 2. VENDOR shall post the following statement in a prominent place visible to employees: “As a condition of receiving and maintaining a contract with Dane County, this employer shall comply with federal, state and all other applicable laws prohibiting retaliation for union organizing.” Subject: Outlining a Joint Committee Process for Creating an ALPR Oversight Policy Purpose: Ensure all three committees—Community Affairs/Council Policy, Public Safety, and Finance—collaborate effectively in the creation of a Policy for the Procurement, Evaluation, and Oversight of ALPR and/or Other Surveillance Technologies. 1. CACP develops initial policy framework a. Purpose b. Scope deHnition c. Governance process d. Vendor and safety/privacy audit criteria e. Public engagement requirements f. Contract safeguards g. Other? 2. Joint informational meeting a. CACP presents initial framework to Public Safety and Finance committees 3. Public Safety Committee reviews and makes recommendations 4. Finance Committee reviews and makes recommendations 5. CACP integrates Public Safety + Finance revisions 6. Public engagement period a. Options: joint listening session or town hall; presentation of policy overview; written public comment period; traditional public hearing; facilitated Q&A (not limited to 3 minutes) 7. CACP integrates public feedback 8. Final committee reviews and recommendations a. CACP b. Public Safety c. Finance 9. Council consideration and decision Subject: Creating a Policy for the Procurement, Evaluation, and Oversight of ALPR and/or Other Surveillance Technologies 09.01.26 discussion guidance 1. Establish a preliminary draft of the committee’s purpose for the policy. To guarantee thorough review, public transparency, and City Council oversight for technologies that collect or track video footage, still images, or other data. 2. Establish a preliminary scope and de@nition that the policy will cover. Discuss whether to include: - ALPR technology - Police surveillance tools - Non-police security cameras (e.g., parks, municipal buildings, etc.) - AI-enabled monitoring tools - Cloud-based or vendor-controlled systems - Tools with incidental data collection - Closed loop vs. external network systems 3. Establish a preliminary outline of the process departments would follow before acquiring, deploying, or upgrading the technology to be de@ned in the policy. Discuss and begin to map the procedural steps, for example: - Intake submission by department - Required description of tech + intended use - Safety and constitutional audit - Vendor vetting - Public engagement requirements - Committee review - Council review - Contract review + legal oversight - Renewal, upgrade, or sunset triggers CITY-PROVIDED CELLULAR PHONES POLICY In recognition of the fact that department heads and certain supervisory personnel with on -call responsibility are expected to be available for City business outside of normal working hours , and many city staff work away from a physical desk during business hours. 1) Carrying of city-issued cellular phones a) Department heads and supervisory personnel delegated with on-call responsibility shall be required to carry the City cell phone at all times. b) City staff that are issued city phones but are not on-call or salaried are not required to carry their city-issued phone when not working. 2) Personal use of city-issued cellular phones a) Any personal long distance calls that result in a charge to the City shall be reimbursed by the employee. b) Routine analysis of monthly cell phone invoices will continue, to guard against excessive personal use of the phones. c) Use of city phones can be subject to records requests and employees should be mindful on content stored on the phones d) Use of the mobile browsers and applications on city phones should be conducted in accordance with the electronic communications policy in regards to content and appropriateness of the content 3) Cell Phone Plans a) The IT/Media Services director will manage the City of Stoughton Cellular Accounts for all non-utilities employees. The Utilities Director or his/her designee will manage cellular accounts for Stoughton Utilities. b) Department heads may request that devices be purchased at their expense with service costs covered by the requesting department. Any staff requesting changes should address the changes with their department head. c) Terminating employees are required to turn in their city issued cellular devices immediately upon termination and provide either a fully factory reset device or the device pin or iCloud information for iOS devices. Replacement devices purchased by the city due to an employee’s refusal to provide this information could result in reimbursement from the terminated employee COMMON COUNCIL COMPUTER POLICY In an effort to reduce printing costs and improve the Common Council's ability to have the best tools to do their jobs, the Common Council adopts the following policy: Council members will be issued an electronic device at the beginning of their term of office. The devices will be issued only one time per three-year term. If a Council member does not fulfill their initial three -year term they will be required to return the device in acceptable working condition. 1. The device will become the property of the Council member at the end of their term. 2. The device is intended to be a tool provided to the council member for the purpose of agenda and packet distribution. 3. The City will no longer provide paper copies of agendas or packets to Council members. Council members will receive an email notifying them that agendas are ready for download, which will contain a link to the agenda and packet materials. Council members will be required to download agendas and packet materials from the City's website. 4. Device maintenance is the responsibility of the Council member. If the device is damaged or lost, it is the responsibility of the Council member to repair or replace the device at his or her own expense. 5. The same rules which apply to record retention for other City electronic devices will apply. As a general rule , what is downloaded on this electronic device will apply to the public records laws. 6. Policies on Council Conduct, Electronic Communication, and Ethics are applicable to the use of the electronic device . An attachment containing more information on these policies is included and becomes part of this document. COMMON COUNCIL COMPUTER POLICY ADDENDUM City Of Stoughton Standards of Prohibited Communications for Stoughton Elected or Appointed Officials and Employees Electronic media (including tablets provided to individuals and departments) cannot be used for knowingly transmit ting, retrieving, or storing any communications that are: a. Discriminatory or harassing; b. Derogatory to any individual or group; c. Obscene as defined in Wis. Stats. § 944.21; d. Defamatory or threatening; or e. Engaging in any purpose that is illegal or contrary to the City's policy or business interests. I have read the Common Council Computer Policy and the Addendum, accept the Netbook computer, and agree to abide by the policy. Signature Date 1 City of Stoughton Social Media Policy Adopted TBD BACKGROUND The City of Stoughton authorizes the Mayor, Common Council, and City departments to communicate, collaborate, and exchange information to support the City’s mission, using social media technologies. Interactive social media platforms offer opportunities to City residents to interact directly with their City government. Using these tools, constituents may request services, report problems in their neighborhoods, or express opinions to elected officials and policymakers. Moreover, by opening more direct channels of communication with residents, the City will enhance its ability to respond more quickly to their needs. The use of social media platforms, however, gives rise to administrative legal responsibilities. The City has established this Social Media Policy to facilitate the use of social media and address related challenges and responsibilities. DEFINITIONS “Authorized User” – City Employees authorized by the Mayor, the Common Council or their Department Head, pursuant to this Policy, to establish, create, edit or maintain any City- supported Social Media Site. “City Employee” – any individual employed by the City of Stoughton, as well as any contractor, vendor or agent working for or representing the City but no in City employ. “City Official”- any individual holding an elected City office. “City-related Content”- social media content related to City activities; determined on the substance of the information or materials posted, rather than the identity of the poster, the equipment used, or the Social Media Site on which it is posted. “City-supported Social Media Site”- a Social Media Account created or Social Media Site approved for use by City Officials or Authorized Users pursuant to this Policy. “City Website”- https://www.cityofstoughton.com “Department Head”- the head of any City Department, or their designee. “Inappropriate Content”- as defined in the User Responsibilities section of this Policy. “Social Media Account”-any registration, login credential, tool, forum, website, or network that is created or maintained by a department to establish or perpetuate a social media presence. 2 “Social Media Sites”- interactive online pages or web applications that allow for multiple postings or interactions and whose information is constantly altered by its readers and producers. Examples of these sites include, but are not limited to, blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, and web sites and applications such as Facebook, Twitter, GovLoop, YouTube, LinkedIn and Flickr. “Social Media Content”- any information or materials posted to Social Media Sites. AUTHORIZATION AND ACCESS No City-Supported Social Media Site may be created or used without the approval of the Mayor, the Common Council or a Department Head. Any Social Media Account or Social Media Site in use by any City Official or City Employee for City-related Content (excepting personal accounts or sites) on the date this Policy is adopted shall be discontinued unless use of the account or site is approved by the Mayor, Common Council or a Department Head within 45 days after the date this Policy is approved by the Common Council. Department Heads who authorize the creation or use of social media must designate an Authorized User (who may be the Department Head) who shall be responsible for monitoring and administering the Social Media Site, and who shall serve as the legal custodian of the Social Media Content on the Social Media Site. Before approving the creation or use of a Social Account or Social Media Site, the Department Head must: (1) determine that their Department can effectively administer the Social Media Site in accordance with the Policy and comply with Wisconsin laws governing the retention of and access to public records; (2) determine how often the Authorized User should monitor the Social Media Site; and, (3) notify the City Director of Information Technology of the social media site. City Employees must have prior authorization from their Department Head before creating City-related Content on a City-supported Social Media Site. Department Heads should routinely review access privileges for City Employees to determine if continued access to City-supported Social Media Sites remains appropriate. Decisions on allowing continued access should be based on the need of the department and the City Employee’s job responsibilities. The City of Stoughton reserves the right to deny access to post information of City-sponsored Social Media Sites to any City Employee who violates this Social Media Policy. If the Mayor authorizes the creation or use of a Social Media Account or Social Media Site, the Mayor must designate an Authorized User (who may be the Mayor) who shall be responsible for monitoring and administering the Social Media Site, and who shall serve as the legal custodian of the Social Media Content on the Social Media Site. Before approving the creation or use of a Social Media Account or a Social Media Site, the Mayor must determine that the Authorized User can effectively administer the Social Media Site in accordance with this Policy and comply with Wisconsin laws governing the retention of and access to public records. 3 If the Common Council authorizes the creation or use of a Social Media Account or Social Media Site, the Common Council must designate an Authorized User who shall be responsible for monitoring and administering the Social Media Site, and who shall serve as the legal custodian of the Social Media Content on the Social Media Site. Before approving the creation or use of a Social Media Account or Social Media Site, the Common Council must determine that the Authorized User can effectively administer the Social Media Site in accordance with this policy and comply with Wisconsin laws governing the retention of access to public records. The IT/Media Services Director is an Authorized User of the City Website, is responsible for monitoring and administering the City Website, and is the legal custodian of public records on the City Website. City Employees other that the IT/Media Services Director must be approved by Their Department Director as additional Authorized Users of the City Website before they may post to or otherwise modify the City Website. OFFICIAL AND ACCEPTABLE EMPLOYEE USE Once granted access, City Employees may post to City-supported Social Media Sites in an official capacity only information that pertains to City of Stoughton business or operations. City Employees, in their role as designated representatives of the City, must never post personal information to a City-sponsored Social Media Site. City employees must use strong passwords for all City-supported Social Media Sites. City employees are encouraged to use 2 factor authentication for all City-supported Social Media Sites, if allowed by the platform. The same principles and polices that govern interactions with the public generally apply to City- sponsored social media. City Employees representing the City of Stoughton on Social Media Sites must, at all times, conduct themselves in accordance with all state and local laws and all existing City policies. The City requires all employees who participate in social media on behalf of their departments to adhere to and follow all existing work rules and the City’s Code of Ethics. City Employees posting official information to City-supported Social Media Sites generally do so only for the department they represent. They may post information or links to information already published on existing City web pages or social media sites, but may not post any new or original materials relating to the activities or operations of other City departments, governments, organizations, or individuals without prior approval from the group or person discussed. City Employees should refer any questions, comments, or discussion outside of their department’s responsibility or their personal expertise to an appropriate responder within their own or another City department. City Employees posting on City-supported Social Media Sites should act as they would if interacting with citizens or other employees in person. City Employees must respond honestly to appropriate questions and should not become hostile or argumentative. City Employees should 4 always exercise good judgement regarding how to maintain confidentiality (omitting addresses, phone numbers, and other personal data) of posted information. City Employees and Elected Officials must refrain from using social media tools to express personal opinions or concerns. They may never use their access to City-sponsored Social Media sites for personal gain, or to promote private endeavors of others. City Employees and Elected Officials also may not post information on City-sponsored Social Media Sites that constitute defamation, obscenity, publication of private facts, or speech that violates copyright or trademark laws. Notwithstanding other provisions of this policy, this policy does not restrict the ability of City Employees or City Officials to speak as private citizens on matters relating to City business. City Employees and City Officials may post comments, questions, or opinions on social media sites, including City-sponsored Sites, so long as they make clear that they are acting as private citizens and that their statements in no way represent the official position of the City. When appropriate, Social Media Content should direct users to relevant information and resources on the City Website. Authorized Users assigned responsibility for monitoring City-Supported Social Media Sites must periodically monitor material posted to Social Media Sites as directed by the authorizing Department Head to: • Respond promptly to questions or replies; • Replace stale, outdated, and/or incorrect information; and • Remove Inappropriate Content. USER RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Stoughton participates in and provides information through City-supported Social Media Sites as a public service. The City anticipates that users will use such sites to convey useful information to and engage in productive discourse with Elected Officials and City Employees. The City expects that all participants on City-sponsored Social Media Sites will display respect and civility when posting comments or information. The City of Stoughton will not remove or hide any comments regardless of content unless it violates the law or the explicit terms and conditions of the social media platform by reporting the comments to the platform. Social Media Best Practices indicate that comments on posts should be set to off or the most restrictive setting the platform allows. Freely open comments generally creates a public forum and removing comments could be seen as a violation of the users first amendment rights. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Under Wisconsin law, Social Media Content that is created by City Employees or City Officials, or that is kept on a City-supported Social Media Site, constitutes a public record subject to record 5 retention and public access requirements. Designated legal custodians of public records on City- Supported Social Media Sites will be responsible for compliance with record retention requirements and requests for access to public records. Communication among members of governmental bodies using social media may constitute a “meeting” under the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. Such “meetings” would trigger a host of legal requirements and expenses for the City. For this reason, members of the Common Council and City Committees, Boards and Commissions should avoid interactions among one another on topics related to City business. Various social media sites adhere to their own policies regarding the privacy of site users. The City of Stoughton makes no claim to protect or preserve the privacy of social media users. Further, the City of Stoughton retains the right to review all information or materials written or contributed by City Employees on City-supported Social Media Sites; therefore, City Employees should have no expectation of privacy when posting to City-supported Social Media Sites. The content of all communications posted by City Employees on City-sponsored Social Media Sites is the sole property of the City of Stoughton. Subject to the terms of service enforced by social media sites that the City uses, posting made by other users may also be considered City property. Violation of this policy by a City Employee may result in discipline up to and including discharge. Violation of this policy by a citizen posting on City-supported Social Media Sites may result in the removal of that citizen’s comment from a City-supported Social Media Site. Subsequent violation by a citizen may result in the banning of that citizen from all City- supported Social Media Sites. Users should be aware that the information made available by the City of Stoughton Social Media Sites may not be timely, accurate or complete. Any communication from or to the City through these sites will not be considered legal or official notice for any purpose. 6 The City of Stoughton reserves the right to revise or modify this policy at any time, without prior notice. WEBSITE PRIVACY & LINKING POLICY I. PRIVACY POLICY Committed to your privacy: The City of Stoughton, Wisconsin maintains this website as a public service and is committed to protecting your privacy. The following is intended to explain our current Internet privacy protection practices. The City of Stoughton monitors overall site traffic to ensure users of the City's Internet site s are able to access information in an effective manner. By monitoring overall site traffic, the City is able to continually improve the site to better suit the users’ needs. While the City of Stoughton monitors overall site traffic, it does not collect individual user information from those who only browse or download information. The City of Stoughton does not collect personal information about you unless you voluntarily participate in an activity that asks for information (i.e. sending an email, participating in a survey, or filing an online application). If personal information is requested on the web site or volunteered by the user, state law and the federal Privacy Act of 1974 may protect it. However, this information is a public record once you provide it and may be subject to public inspection and copying if not protected by federal or state law. The City of Stoughton does not sell, rent or otherwise distribute visitor information, including e - mail addresses, to any outside company or organization. We do not reveal specific information about subscribers or other personally identifiable data to unaffiliated third parties for their independent use, except if required to do so law. When you link to another site, you are no longer on the City of Stoughton's Internet site and this Privacy Notice will not apply. II. DISCLAIMER A. Website Content You are hereby advised that any reliance upon materials on this Internet site shall be at your sole risk. The City of Stoughton has made every attempt to ensure the information on this site is correct. However, the City of Stoughton makes no representations or warranties as to the truth, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of any statements, information or materials that may be contained in the City of Stoughton Internet site. The City of Stoughton reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without obligation, to make amendments to, or correct any error or omission in, any portion of these materials at any time. In no event will the City of Stoughton be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, special, incidental or consequential damages arising from the use of the City of Stoughton Internet site. Should you find any information that is incorrect, please email webmaster@cityofstoughton.com so that errors may be corrected. B. Outside Web Pages While browsing this site, you may find links to outside web pages that are not under the control of the City of Stoughton. The City of Stoughton makes no representations concerning any endeavor to review the content of sites of outside web pages and is not responsible for the accuracy, copyright compliance, legality or decency of material contained in outside web pages. III. CONTACT INFORMATION To offer comments about the City of Stoughton's Internet sites, or about the information presented in this notice, you may contact the City of Stoughton by: A. TELEPHONE: 608.873.6677 B. EMAIL: webmaster@cityofstoughton.com IV. CITY OF STOUGHTON WEB SITE LINKING POLICY A. Purpose The purpose of the City of Stoughton's web site is to use the Internet to connect residents and others with convenient and timely information on City programs, services, policies, events and objectives. It is not intended to be a public forum but is maintained for the exclusive use of the City for communicating matters of general public interest. At its discretion, the City will consider link requests to external websites that it deems to be compatible with the goals of the site, and mission of the City. The City reserves the right to determine how, where, and for how long links will appear on its site. The City is NOT responsible for the format, content, accuracy or privacy practices of these outside links (specifically: any site not part of the domain "www.cityofstoughton.com"). The City is providing these links only as a convenience to visitors of the site. The City reserves the right to refuse to post any web site links or to delete existing links in conformance with this policy, without notice. B. Linking Criteria The City of Stoughton generally limits external links to outside government agencies and other non-commercial organizations actively supported by the City. On rare occasions the City may link to private organizations that are in partnership with the City. These will be decided upon on a case-by-case basis. 1. The City will consider links to websites for: a. Other government entities, including local, state and federal government sites, or sites operated by agencies of any of those entities. b. Educational institutions operating within the City. c. Not-for-profit organizations created, funded or supported by the City that promote the economic welfare, tourism and industry of the City. d. Private utilities that have a franchise with the City. e. Non-partisan websites that promote the participation of residents in government. f. Organizations partnering with the City to meet the City's strategic or operational goals. g. Arts, cultural, sports, major festivals and similar organizations of general interest to City of Stoughton citizens. Such links are generally to non-profit organizations. 2. Linking sites must meet these criteria: a. The focus of linking sites must be to educate and inform, rather than persuade or sell. The site may include advertising but must be free from intrusive advertising. b. The site's owner or sponsor must be easily identified along with contact information, including name, email address and phone number. c. The site must not promote specific political, religious or other social agendas. d. The information must be significant and timely, and managed in a professional manner (fully operational and available most of the time). 3. The City will not link to websites for: a. Candidates for local, state or federal office. b. Political organizations, special interest groups or other organizations supporting or seeking to defeat any candidate for elective office, or ballot issue. c. Individual or personal home pages. d. Sites that are inappropriate or inconsistent with the City's goals, or sites which offend common standards of decency and propriety. C. Requests for Links To request a link on the City's web site, please send information on your organization to: webmaster@cityofstoughton.com. This information must include: 1. How the site benefits City of Stoughton citizens, businesses or visitors. 2. The name, address and contact information for your organization. 3. A description of the goods or services your organization provides. D. Linking to City of Stoughton's Web Site Persons wishing to link to the City web site may contact the Webmaster at webmaster@cityofstoughton.com for permission and linking procedures. Please point to the City's homepage as internal pages are periodically changed. Do not incorporate any content from this site into your site, or otherwise present our content as your own (e.g., by in-lining or capturing our pages within your frames). You should not link to individual graphics or tables within our pages, especially in an effort to place the downloading burden on our servers. Such an action may be considered a misuse of city resources. V. USE OF MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE From time to time, people ask to use material, including graphics, contained on this site for other purposes. The design of this site and the original content provided are copyrighted by the City of City of Stoughton. For requests to use any part of this site please contact the Webmaster by e - mail at webmaster@cityofstoughton.com by telephone at (608) 873 -7523, or by mail at Webmaster, City of Stoughton, 207 S. Forrest St., Stoughton, Wisconsin 53589 APPROVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL: MEDIA PRODUCTION POLICIES & PROCEDURES I. MISSION / VISION OF THE CITY OF STOUGHTON MEDIA PRODUCTION The IT/Media Services Department seeks to provide a meaningful service for all residents and members of the Stoughton community utilizing all three aspects of PEG (Public, Education, and Government). The mission of the video production team is to: A. Provide a video communications service that reflects the mission of The City of Stoughton. B. Maintain a laboratory for community members, students and staff in learning how to communicate more effectively through television. C. Develop informative programming through the production of forums for the discussion of ideas, issues, values, and concerns of members of the Stoughton Community. D. Develop programming that recognizes individual and group achievement and supports and encourages the development of local talent. E. Develop programming that enhances the creative, cultural and aesthetic environment for the Stoughton Community. F. Provide a channel of communication that helps to bridge interests and concerns throughout the community. Write, direct and produce special projects for the City In order to meet this mission, activities will include the following prioritized programming and services: A. Local governmental legislative meetings, i.e. City Council B. Predetermined Local governmental boards, committees, commissions C. Non-cablecast video productions which further the missions of City departments and other organizations D. Programs on current events or particular community issues, with a cultural or educational element. Including community local access opportunities. E. Programs regarding local government services F. Reports to the citizens from elected or appointed public officials G. Productions which feature community services, issues and/or special governmental meetings. H. Productions with a cultural or educational element I. State government meetings of special local interest. J. Programming obtained from outside sources. K. Providing video production training for other City agencies. L. Serving as a central information point for the planning, acquisition, and uses of video pro