Public testimony and staff presentations at the Dane County Land and Water Committee centered on a proposed amendment (labeled C‑O‑1) that would reduce the county’s 2026 conservation fund capital allocation from the county executive’s $10,000,000 proposal to $5,000,000. Committee members did not vote on the amendment; the chair said amendments and votes will take place at the committee’s Oct. 22 budget meeting.

Martha Gibson, who said she is vice chair of the Dane County Towns Association, told the committee: "There's never been a more important time for conservation in Dane County." Gibson argued a cut would undermine the county’s ability to use purchase‑of‑development‑rights (PDRs), conservation easements and matching funds to keep farmland available and protect open space, and said local nonprofits currently have a pipeline of projects they cannot complete without matching funds.

Tracy Wicklund, a Town of Dunn resident, opposed the amendment and asked the committee to keep the conservation fund capital budget at the $10,000,000 level the county executive proposed. "Citing the carryover balances... justification for reducing the conservation fund budget by 50% is ignoring the long view needed in conservation," Wicklund said, urging the committee to consider land values and multi‑year timelines for conservation deals.

Tony Abate, senior director of conservation for Groundswell Conservancy, said Groundswell has protected more than 7,700 acres in Dane County to date and has projects it expects to close in 2026 that rely on county matching dollars. "Most of our projects in Dane County include contributions from the Dane County Conservation Fund," Abate said, adding that partner allocations historically allowed up to 20% of the budget for partner groups to leverage matching state, federal and town funds.

Laura (last name not stated), a Land and Water Department presenter, summarized the department’s 2026 operating and capital requests and explained why staff had requested $5,000,000 for the conservation fund while the County Executive included $10,000,000 in the executive budget. Laura said the department is neutral in committee deliberations but stressed that land transactions are unpredictable: carryover balances are used as a buffer so the county can respond when opportunities arise. She provided estimated carry forwards for related programs: an estimated $11,000,000 carry forward in the conservation fund, $1,300,000 in conservation practice implementation (cost‑share to farmers), $3,000,000 in continuous cover, $8,500,000 for legacy sediment removal, $2,200,000 for the urban water quality grant program, and $4,300,000 for Yahara River sediment removal.

Committee discussion framed the amendment as a fiscal response to a countywide structural deficit the chair said is roughly $31,000,000; the chair argued that the department asked for $5,000,000 while the executive increased that to $10,000,000 and that the committee should be cautious when adding capital dollars in a tight fiscal environment. Staff and several supervisors noted that budgeting money does not obligate immediate spending; each land purchase requires separate board approval.

No vote on the amendment occurred. The committee chair said amendments would be considered and voted at the committee’s next meeting on Oct. 22, and that public commenters who spoke tonight would be allowed to speak again when the matter returns to the committee.