A detailed analysis of the U.T.A.V. agenda request for the May 19, 2026 Price County Board meeting. What’s solid, what’s shaky, and what the board should ask Read more Price County stories from across the web.
—
On May 19, 2026, the Price County Board of Supervisors will convene for a regular meeting. On the agenda, if the board accepts the request, will be a presentation from Brittany L. Volkman, Executive Director of U.T.A.V. (United Together Against Violence). Volkman has submitted a formal request for agenda placement accompanied by a supporting document called “The Price County Files: 28 Year Audit,” which cites 148 sources across 7 pages.
The proposal covers four distinct policy areas. Each one touches on real problems in Price County. But the gap between the problems identified and the solutions proposed varies dramatically from item to item. Here is a detailed breakdown.
Agenda Item 1: Firearm Surrender Compliance
The Claim: There is a “fractured working relationship” between law enforcement and domestic violence advocacy agencies in Price County. A recent fatal domestic violence incident in neighboring Taylor County involved a firearm. Volkman proposes a formal board resolution to strictly enforce mandatory firearm surrender hearings and ensure compliance with existing firearm surrender laws in domestic abuse injunctions, closing “administrative loopholes” and restoring the collaborative relationship between the justice system and crisis advocates.
What the Law Says: Wisconsin Statute 813.1285 already requires firearm surrender in domestic abuse injunctions. The issue is enforcement, not legislation. A board resolution calling for stricter enforcement is procedurally straightforward.
The Hard Part: A county board resolution is symbolic. It cannot compel the Sheriff’s Department to change operations. Real enforcement requires the Sheriff’s buy-in, judicial cooperation, and potentially additional staff or resources. If the “fractured relationship” claim is accurate, a resolution alone will not fix it.
What’s Missing: No specific data on firearm surrender compliance rates in Price County. No documentation of which agencies are failing to comply and how. No evidence that U.T.A.V. has approached the Sheriff’s Department directly before requesting a board resolution.
Assessment: Moderate feasibility. The problem is real. The solution is incomplete.
Agenda Item 2: The Starlink Initiative
The Claim: Price County faces a “severe infrastructure crisis” combining rural broadband failure with law enforcement communication gridlock. Volkman proposes reclassifying Starlink receivers as “Emergency Medical and Safety Communication Devices,” brokered through U.T.A.V. as a nonprofit intermediary, using reallocated stalled broadband funds to deploy receivers to rural households and mobile units in Sheriff’s squad cars. Low-income families would use a “state Internet Lifeline program” to offset costs.
The Critical Problems:
Legal foundation. Reclassifying Starlink receivers as emergency medical devices for grant eligibility is a creative legal theory, but it is untested. Federal grant programs like BEAD and USDA ReConnect have strict eligible equipment definitions. This would likely require FCC or USDA rule interpretation, not just county reclassification.
Conflict of interest. A nonprofit proposing itself as the procurement intermediary for a county-funded initiative is a governance red flag. U.T.A.V. is asking the county to route public money through its own organization. The board must scrutinize this carefully.
Grant compliance. “Stalled broadband funds” are typically earmarked for specific purposes like fiber buildout. Reallocating them to satellite internet would likely violate grant terms and require FCC and NTIA approval. The proposal does not specify which funds are being referenced, making the reallocation claim impossible to evaluate.
Expired subsidies
Expired subsidies. The FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program expired in mid-2024 and was not renewed. The “state Internet Lifeline program” offset claim needs verification.
Wrong tool for radio problems. Sheriff radio communication problems are typically VHF and UHF radio infrastructure issues, not broadband problems. Starlink provides IP connectivity. It does not solve radio dead zones. These are different problems requiring different solutions.
What’s Missing: No Starlink or SpaceX documentation cited. No FCC or NTIA guidance on satellite receiver reclassification. No data on Price County broadband coverage gaps from the FCC Broadband Map. No Price County Sheriff’s Department radio system documentation. No cost estimate for equipping rural households and squad cars. No documentation of the “mathematical modeling” referenced.
Assessment: Low feasibility. Creative idea, weak foundation, conflict of interest.
Agenda Item 3: Economic Resilience
This item contains three sub-proposals bundled together.
Brownfield Liability
The Claim: Hold owners of the Lionite Mill and Phillips Plating Corporation fiscally accountable for environmental remediation. Prevent taxpayers from subsidizing “private environmental negligence.”
Reality Check: Holding property owners accountable under CERCLA/Superfund law is legally sound in principle. But the county’s use depends on specific property ownership structures, prior environmental assessments, and existing liability shields. Price County purchased the Lionite Mill property for approximately $2 million and received a $1.68 million EPA brownfield cleanup grant. If the county already owns the contaminated site, the question becomes whether Georgia-Pacific or predecessor operators can be held liable for cleanup costs. This is a multi-year legal process, not a board discussion item.
United Pride Dairy Contingency
The Claim: Given active federal litigation against United Pride Dairy (EEOC case 3:25-cv-1030), prepare for potential “catastrophic economic fallout” of a federal shutdown. Create a community-owned agricultural Co-Op to transition displaced dairy employees.
Reality Check: An EEOC lawsuit, even a serious one, does not typically result in a “federal shutdown” of a dairy operation. The case involves TN Visa discrimination and sexual harassment allegations against Mexican nationals. Federal enforcement could result in fines, consent decrees, or operational changes, but the “catastrophic economic fallout” framing overstates the likely timeline and severity. The Co-Op proposal provides no specifics on structure, funding, land acquisition, equipment, market access, or timeline.
Assessment: Low feasibility. The concern is valid but the solution is vague and the framing overstates the risk.
The Foreclosure Crisis
The Claim: The county is simultaneously locking up 92,000 acres in carbon contracts while executing tax foreclosures on nearly 60 Price County families. This is a macroeconomic policy contradiction.
Reality Check: This is the most substantive sub-item. The tension between locking forest land into long-term carbon contracts and pursuing tax foreclosures against residents is a genuine policy contradiction. Price County’s carbon credit contract with Bluesource/Anew Climate covers approximately 92,000 acres and was executed in December 2021. As of June 2023, no payments had been received by the county. The most recent Amended Verified Petition for tax liens on 2022 taxes was filed April 20, 2026. If families are losing their homes while the county’s forest assets generate no revenue from a contract they cannot easily exit, the fiscal priority question is legitimate and urgent.
Assessment: Moderate-high feasibility. This is where the proposal has the most traction.
Agenda Item 4: WCMIC Escrow Transparency
The Claim: Request a formal on-the-record explanation of the county’s use of the WCMIC (Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation) Deductible Escrow Account. Specifically, why taxpayer funds were used to pay settlements and legal fees in civil defamation lawsuits initiated by the elected Sheriff against his political opponents. Request immediate unredacted release of all open records regarding these settlements and documented complaints of non-compliance regarding open records requests within the Sheriff’s Department.
What We Know About WCMIC: The Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation is a mutual insurance company owned by member counties, founded in 1988 after Colonial Penn cancelled policies for 23 counties. Approximately 75 percent of Wisconsin’s 72 counties are insured through County Mutual. The Wisconsin Counties Association is corporate management while Aegis Corporation handles claims administration. The county liability policy provides $10 million per occurrence coverage, specifically including law enforcement liability for assault, battery, and intentional acts.
The Transparency Gap: WCMIC is a private
The Transparency Gap: WCMIC is a private mutual insurance corporation, not a public entity. Claims data, settlement amounts, and litigation details are handled through Aegis Corporation. This creates a transparency black hole. County residents cannot easily find out how much was paid on a sheriff’s misconduct claim, a jail death suit, or a civil rights violation. The WCA’s dual role as both lobbyist and corporate manager for WCMIC creates incentives to minimize public scrutiny of claims.
The Hard Part: If settlements involved ongoing litigation, some records may be legally protected. The Sheriff is an independently elected constitutional officer in Wisconsin, so the county board’s use is limited to budgetary oversight, not operational control.
What’s Missing: No WCMIC documentation beyond the assertion that escrow funds were used for Sheriff’s settlements. No case numbers for the defamation lawsuits referenced. No evidence that U.T.A.V. has already submitted formal open records requests and received a response.
Assessment: Moderate feasibility. The transparency request is legally strong under Wisconsin’s open records law. The specific claims about Sheriff’s settlements need documentation.
The Source Document: 148 Citations, Mixed Quality
The “Price County Files: 28 Year Audit” cites 148 sources. Here is how they break down:
Highly relevant (directly applicable to Price County): Sources 58 through 61 from My Northern Wisconsin cover the Sheriff’s lawsuit, Lionite property questions, carbon credit non-payment, and forest carbon offset projects. Sources 75 through 94 include Price County official documents, proceedings, audits, budgets, and department information. Sources 133 through 142 include Wisconsin statutes and legislative documents.
Comparative (useful but from other counties): Sources 22 through 29 reference Bayfield County’s carbon offset and forestry programs extensively. These are relevant as comparison but Price County has different forest compositions, budgets, and governance structures.
Marginally relevant (broad context only): Approximately 30 sources appear tangential or irrelevant. These include the Banco de Mexico financial stability report, TotalEnergies corporate reports, World Bank reports, the NYC Board of Education Annual Complete Financial Report, and the NY State HCRA elector list. They inflate the source count without adding evidentiary value.
Notably absent: No Starlink or SpaceX documentation
Notably absent: No Starlink or SpaceX documentation despite Item 2 being entirely about Starlink deployment. No FCC or NTIA guidance on satellite receiver reclassification. No Price County broadband coverage data. No Price County Sheriff’s Department radio system documentation. No carbon contract terms for the 92,000-acre claim. No WCMIC documentation. No domestic violence statistics specific to Price County. No firearm surrender compliance data.
Questions the Board Should Ask
About U.T.A.V.: When was it established? Is it a registered 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4)? What is its operational track record? How is it funded? Does U.T.A.V. have any existing contracts or financial relationships with Starlink, SpaceX, or any broadband provider?
About Item 2 specifically: Which specific stalled broadband funds are being referenced? What is the total cost estimate? Has the Sheriff’s Department confirmed that Starlink would solve radio communication problems? Why must procurement go through U.T.A.V. rather than the county purchasing directly?
About the carbon contract: What specific carbon contracts does the 92,000-acre figure refer to? When were they executed? With whom? What are the terms and exit provisions? How many tax foreclosures are actually pending right now, and over what timeframe?
About WCMIC: What specific defamation lawsuits are being referenced? What were the case numbers, outcomes, and amounts paid? Were settlements paid from the WCMIC escrow, the general fund, or the Sheriff’s departmental budget? Has U.T.A.V. already submitted formal open records requests, and what was the county’s response?
Bottom Line
The U.T.A.V. proposal raises legitimate issues. The foreclosure and carbon contract tension is real. The WCMIC transparency request is legally sound. The firearm surrender enforcement gap is a genuine concern.
But the proposal overpromises on solutions and underprovides on evidence. The Starlink initiative is built on untested legal theory, expired subsidy programs, and a conflict-of-interest structure. The CAFO contingency is vague. The source document pads its bibliography with international financial reports that have nothing to do with Price County.
The strongest move for the board on May 19 would be to engage seriously with Items 3 and 4, request documentation on Item 1, and ask hard questions about Item 2. The county deserves a real conversation about carbon contracts, tax foreclosures, and insurance transparency. It does not need to become a Starlink pilot program brokered through an untested nonprofit.
—
This analysis is part of an ongoing investigative series by Northwoods Explorer covering Price County governance, transparency, and accountability. Related coverage: The Hastings Resignation, Firearm Surrender Gap, Starlink Proposal, Carbon Credits and Foreclosures, WCMIC Escrow Transparency.
Sources: U.T.A.V. formal agenda request and supporting document “The Price County Files: 28 Year Audit” (148 cited sources), Price County official website (co.price.wi.us), WCMIC official website (wisconsincountymutual.org), Wisconsin Statutes 813.1285 and 19.31-19.39, EPA Brownfield Grant Program documentation, My Northern Wisconsin, APG-WI Price County Review.
Related Coverage
This analysis connects to our ongoing investigative series:
- Who Pays? The WCMIC Escrow, Sheriff Schmidt’s Lawsuits, and Price County’s Transparency Question
- Carbon Credits, Brownfields, and Foreclosures: Price County’s Economic Crossroads
- Satellite Solutions or Sky-High Promises? The Starlink Proposal for Price County
- When Laws Exist But Aren’t Enforced: Price County’s Firearm Surrender Gap
See also: our complete Price County fishing guide, our guide to free camping in Wisconsin, what makes Price County communities special, our guide to Price County public records and our ATV trail guide for Price County
See also: our investigation into the Bug Tussel broadband deal
See also: our complete Price County dining guide
See also: our guide to every town in Price County
Last updated: May 2026
See also: our Price County Board 2026 roster and meeting tracker
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the ATV/UTV regulations being debated in Price County?
Price County has seen ongoing debates about ATV/UTV route designations on town and county roads. Proposals have included expanding route access, setting speed limits, and designating which roads are open to off-highway vehicles — with some residents advocating for expanded tourism access and others raising safety and road maintenance concerns.
How does ATV/UTV access affect Price County’s economy?
ATV and UTV tourism is a significant economic driver for Price County, bringing visitors who spend money at local businesses including gas stations, restaurants, and lodging. Proponents of expanded route access argue it directly supports the county’s tourism-dependent economy.
What safety concerns have been raised about ATV/UTV routes?
Concerns include road damage from off-highway vehicles, speed differential between ATVs and regular traffic, dust and noise for residents along designated routes, and potential for accidents at intersections. The county board has weighed these safety factors against economic benefits in their deliberations.
How can residents participate in ATV/UTV policy decisions?
Residents can attend Price County board meetings where route designations are discussed, contact their district supervisors, and submit public comments. Town boards also hold separate votes on whether to allow ATV/UTV traffic on town roads within their jurisdiction.
📊 Price County Data & Demographics
Live stats on population, income, housing, employment, and more — updated monthly from Census data.