Barron County officials say state law limits their power over Chapter 980 supervised-release placements as neighbors demand transparency

Barron County corporation counsel told the Barron County Board of Supervisors during its meeting Monday that the county has no legal authority under state law to prevent placements of people released under Chapter 980 and that the board’s options are limited to seeking legislative change or offering nonbinding resolutions.

The issue arose during agenda item 7, a statement on “chapter 9 80 supervised release,” and drew extended questions from supervisors and several minutes of public comment from neighbors who said they learned only days earlier that two people under supervised release were living near them.

The corporation counsel summarized the legal position plainly: “The simple answer is nothing. I mean, the simple answer is that you are a county board, and a county is a political subdivision in the state of Wisconsin. You derive your authority from what is granted to you by state statute.” He added that the county could draft a resolution urging legislative change, but cautioned board members that any proposal would need to specify what statutory change they wanted. “Change it to what?” he said.

Counsel described how the civil-commitment and supervised-release process works under Chapter 980: people convicted of specified offenses may be committed for treatment and can petition for release; supervised release includes a required residence, strict rules and monitoring. “They are in that residence for the first year. They can't leave the residence without a chaperone,” he said, and noted a “24/7 monitor” and alarms that alert the sheriff if an individual leaves the residence.

County officials said the Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Department of Corrections coordinate these placements and that DHS typically contracts vendors who locate and rent residences that meet the statutory criteria. Counsel said locating compliant sites is difficult: vendors reportedly reviewed “between 1 and 2,000 specific locations” statewide to find acceptable housing. He also said the county had looked at all parcels it owns and had been searching for years; the county was under a court timetable that could have forced it to buy or build housing if an acceptable site were not found.

Several supervisors pressed for clarification about municipal authority, housing options and alert systems. Supervisor Mullin asked whether a person apprehended in Rice Lake who had contacts in the Twin Cities would be the county’s responsibility; counsel and other officials responded that responsibility generally follows the charge and terms of release. Supervisor Vaughn and Sheriff Fitzgerald discussed the county alert system that notifies enrolled neighbors by phone; Fitzgerald said the alert sends a message to a phone number (it does not track a family’s location) and that the county had tested the system with one household.

Residents at the meeting expressed anger and fear. Walter Herman, who identified himself as a Barron resident, said he was upset that neighbors learned of placements only 10 days prior and demanded access to the residential lease and other records. “We should be able to have a copy of the lease…we're paying the taxes, we're paying the $3,500,” Herman said, referring to a monthly rent figure discussed at the meeting. He also criticized what he called secrecy and asked officials to consider building county-owned facilities near the jail. Dennis Rochelle, another resident, asked for open-meeting minutes and said he would seek records if they were not provided quickly.

County counsel acknowledged the common public concerns—costs, transparency and public safety—but reiterated legal limits. He said counties are preempted from passing ordinances that would bar Chapter 980 placements and warned that if the county refused to comply with a court order it could face fines or contempt. “If we told the court, no, we're not gonna do that, well, then not only were you looking at possible fine, we're also looking at possible contempt,” counsel said.

Officials and counsel also described enforcement and oversight: there are roughly 158 Chapter 980 placements in the county, according to counsel’s remarks; vendors negotiate rental rates with DHS and rental amounts vary by location and circumstance. Counsel said the program includes roughly 75 specific rules for residents on supervised release and that violations can return individuals to a more restrictive setting.

The exchange highlighted tensions between state-managed civil-commitment procedures and local expectations. Several supervisors praised the sheriff’s department and counsel for handling the process professionally but acknowledged neighbors’ anger and questions about transparency and oversight. Residents at the meeting demanded copies of leases and records; county staff said they would provide available public records according to law.

The county did not take formal action on Chapter 980 at the meeting. Officials repeatedly pointed to state agencies—DHS and the courts—as the entities with primary authority over commitment, placement and monitoring.