Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
The Board of Estimates convened on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, to discuss and finalize the recommended 2027 Operating Budget. The meeting began with a public hearing where multiple residents expressed strong opposition to funding for FLOC/ALPR surveillance technology. Following the public hearing, council members debated two budget scenarios: Scenario #1, which used reserve funds to avoid a tax increase, and Scenario #2, which included a modest tax increase. After deliberation, the board rejected Scenario #1 and approved Scenario #2.
Laura Abelara (La Crosse resident): Expressed strong opposition to tax dollars going toward FLOC and ALPR technology. Argued that funds should be invested in libraries, parks, youth programming, and harm reduction services. Raised concerns about privacy, civil liberties, disproportionate impact, and legal risks from a recent federal court ruling on Fourth Amendment violations. Noted that over 40 Wisconsin jurisdictions have ended FLOC contracts.
Roxanne Marina (La Crosse resident): Described the panopticon effect and argued that mass surveillance is a form of surveillance capitalism that normalizes constant observation, harming mental health. Acknowledged cameras may aid law enforcement but emphasized the shadow side of control and oppression.
Justin Urness (La Crosse resident): Stated disagreement with FLOC cameras and surveillance, citing potential for misuse and no actual increase in safety.
Elaine Stevens (La Crosse resident), software engineer: Opposed any ALPR technology. Highlighted costs beyond installation, including maintenance, lawsuits due to misuse, and security vulnerabilities such as unencrypted data and easy system compromise.
Sadie Kuhl (North side La Crosse resident): Opposed using tax dollars for surveillance, noting that effective crime-reducing services have been cut. Referenced a letter from the People's Council. Questioned why La Crosse is considering continuing the contract when more conservative communities are ending theirs.
Andrew Sherman (La Crosse resident): Strongly opposed to surveillance funding. Emphasized that systems are easily compromised, data enters a national database accessible by many agencies, and the potential for bad actors. Mentioned the Fourth Amendment ruling as a legal risk to the city.
Jake Fischer (La Crosse resident): Opposed spending on FLOC and ALPRs. Characterized constant surveillance as a tactic of control rather than public safety. Urged investment in community services that are proven to reduce crime.
Anna Sprague (La Crosse resident, mother of three): Expressed concerns about misuse of surveillance data, particularly regarding AI-generated content and access by bad actors. Did not support tax dollars for these systems.
Kevin Hundt (La Crosse resident): Cited multiple examples of police officers across Wisconsin abusing FLOC systems to track ex-partners. Argued that FLOC constitutes mass surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Warned that lawsuits from civil liberties organizations are likely.
Nicholas Padesky (downtown La Crosse resident): Raised privacy and financial concerns. Noted that while other city departments face cuts, investing in constitutionally questionable technology is fiscally irresponsible. Encouraged private investment in evidence-based programs like Pathways Home.
Tommy Means (La Crosse resident): Opposed surveillance spending, urging the council to consider which side of history they want to be on regarding citizens' rights.
Note: The official minutes list 10 public speakers, while the transcript includes an additional speaker (Tommy Means). All speakers were unanimously opposed to FLOC/ALPR funding.
Council members debated two budget scenarios: Scenario #1 (use $681,000 from reserves to avoid a tax increase) and Scenario #2 (implement a modest tax increase of approximately $13.06 per $100,000 of property value).
Councilmember Sleznikow and Janssen opposed using reserves, arguing it sets a bad precedent and that the city should instead implement gradual tax increases to address structural deficits. Councilmember Trost supported using reserves, noting the fund balance exceeds the 20% minimum and that it could ease the tax burden on residents.
Councilmember Janssen suggested potential cuts to memberships and travel budgets but did not make formal motions.
Mayor Washington-Spivey defended the use of reserves, highlighting that the city's unassigned fund balance is $5 million over the required 20%, and that state shared revenue constraints put municipalities in a difficult position.
Councilmember Newberry suggested a reserve fund policy with a ceiling (e.g., 30%) and expressed reluctance to tap reserves while below that threshold.
Discussion also addressed public comments regarding the FLOC contract. Councilmembers sought clarification on the current contract status and the city's response. Mayor Washington-Spivey stated he would take the comments and consult with the police department.
Councilmember Northwood asked about additional costs related to FLOC, such as officer and IT time, and called for full accounting of the system's true cost.
Good afternoon, everyone. We're gonna call it a lot of things. We're gonna start with the item. Uh I think to begin this meeting, we'll start with public hearing and then move into the conversation with the council about the budget. So I will need a motion to open public hearing. Motion made by McKenzie Councilmember Mendel. And second by Councilmember Northwood. Any discussion? All in favor or please vote. I get that. All right, my motion passes. Uh before we begin an open public hearing, I just want to read the rules so that everybody is um understanding of the procedure. So public hearings shall be limited to 30 minutes when there are opposing viewpoints in the absence of opposing viewpoints, it is only 15 minutes. All speakers uh will speak no more than three minutes. There will be a timer monitoring you. We also have our city clerks that will be taking note of opposing view and uh similar views. And the chair shall call registered speakers to the podium in random order. And when you come to the podium after I say your name, I would ask that you would say your name and state the municipality in which you live in. And that's how we're gonna do this. Any questions from Board of Estimate members? All right, seeing none. Our first um person is Laura Abarella. Sorry, there's a little human face. Yes, thank you. Okay. Okay, Laura Avalera. Um, I live in the city of La Crosse. Um, as a community member, it's been difficult to understand when and how to give meaningful input on this part of the budget discussion cycle, so I'm grateful that you all chose to allow public comment today. As a longtime resident, homeowner, neighbor, and someone who maintains extremely high hopes and expectations for what this city can be. I would like to communicate my strong opposition to my hard-earned tax dollars going toward FLOC and any other ALPR technology here in my community. I am also not under the delusion that cutting Flock and ALPR contracts will solve our budget crisis. However, I do believe that when I have an opportunity to weigh in on what ethical decision making can look like in our city, I should not pass up that opportunity. This is a public comment about funding and resource allocation related to our operational budget, yes, but it is also one of the rare opportunities that community members get to express a very real concern for privacy safety and the surveillance practices that have been normalized to the detriment of so many in our community. I want to share just a few things that I ask you all to consider while making enormous decisions about what our community needs so often without our most vulnerable community members in the room with you. One, frankly, cutting the flat contract that we have here isn't even a big amount of money. I believe we should invest our dollars in public safety opportunities proven to reduce crime like libraries, parks, youth programming, and harm reduction services. In so many other fields of work, it would be egregiously irresponsible to enter into contracts for service with a technology company without every person who uses that technology, being able to articulate clear, accessible answers to the following questions, as well as the people it is being used upon, being able to clearly understand the answers to the following questions. How exactly does the surveillance technology operate? What is the proposed purpose of the technology? How may practical usage and application of this technology differ from that stated purpose? What is the fiscal impact of the surveillance technology, both immediately and with regard to maintenance?