Resident Raises Flock Data Allegation as Price County Reviews 2027 Budget Draft
Last updated: November 2026
During the September 10, 2026 Price County Executive Committee meeting, a resident raised concerns about Flock Safety cameras and alleged that residents’ information was being sold to other companies. The committee also reviewed an initial 2027 budget draft, library funding and county finances.
Correction: An earlier version presented the resident’s data-sale allegation as established fact, misstated a library usage figure, and described preliminary budget proposals and legal authority too broadly. This article has been revised to distinguish allegations and meeting estimates from independently established facts and final decisions.
Public comment on cameras
According to the meeting transcript, Waldemar Madsen of Phillips questioned the county’s camera program and alleged that Flock was selling residents’ information to other companies. That allegation has not been independently verified for Price County, and the meeting record alone does not establish that it occurred. A vendor response was not reviewed for this update.
Madsen also raised concerns about how the camera program was presented in a prior budget reallocation. The transcript records his account; it does not independently establish the accuracy of the allegation or resolve any legal questions about the program.
First budget draft, not an adopted budget
Officials presented a first draft of the 2027 county budget. The September discussion was preliminary; it is not evidence that the figures or proposals below were ultimately adopted.
The draft included an assumed 2% wage-scale increase, with an estimated cost of $268,739, and officials described $306,840 in departmental cost pressures. They cited an increase in radio maintenance from about $36,000 to almost $80,000 annually following the expiration of a contract, and Microsoft licensing from about $1.50 to $5.50 per person per month for each program. These were estimates given during the meeting, not independently audited costs.
Officials discussed a proposal involving $480,000 in borrowing for property, automobile and liability insurance. That was a proposal, not proof the county borrowed the money. Wisconsin’s section 67.04(5) generally restricts county debt proceeds for general-fund operating expenses while specifying an exception for certain liability and property insurance or risk-management services; the statute does not broadly authorize borrowing for all operating costs.
The presentation gave a proposed total levy of $13,734,138 and a previous figure of $13,564,311. Their difference is $169,827; the transcript separately reports an increase of $168,629. The two figures do not reconcile on their face, so the proposed increase requires clarification from the underlying budget.
Library funding and equipment
Committee members discussed a first-draft library funding level of 70% and recommended 80%, the level officials said had been used the prior year. This was a recommendation at the meeting, not proof of the adopted budget.
A Phillips library representative initially referred to about 2,200 active users, then clarified that the figure was approximately 2,200 people with library cards and that the active-user count was not available. Park Falls library staff reported 15,695 building uses or entries; that should not be read as a count of unique visitors.
The committee also discussed whether to increase the debt levy for equipment and other projects. The highway department’s discussed list included a loader, patch trailer, mower, traffic signals and tractor. The discussion did not by itself establish that all of those purchases or additional borrowing were approved.
Tax parcels and cash flow
During the September meeting, county officials reported that one payment had reduced a group of 15 tax parcels to 14 and described plans for a subsequent auction. Those were dated reports and plans, not confirmation of an auction outcome or the parcels’ present status.
Officials said county cash was about $7.4 million, approximately 25% below the same time the preceding year. They discussed the timing of a large asphalt payment, high-cost placements and lower forestry receipts as factors. Those meeting figures are historical, not a current statement of county cash.
Sources
This update was checked against a locally retained automated meeting transcript; the recording was not independently listened to, and automated transcripts can misrecognize words and numbers.