On July 23 the Monona Public Safety Committee voted to recommend that the city pursue acquisition of a used armored rescue vehicle offered by the City of Madison, using restricted asset‑forfeiture funds.
The vehicle is a 2005 armored pickup described by staff as a heavy pickup with an armored shell and roughly 40,000 miles on the odometer. Police staff said the vehicle would be acquired through the asset‑forfeiture account and would not use the city’s general fund.
Committee members and staff framed the proposal as a narrowly scoped public‑safety tool. Detective Sergeant Brian Losby, who led the presentation, called it “a unique, very rare opportunity” and described the vehicle as “essentially a very large pickup truck ... an f 150 ... with an armored shell.” Losby said the vehicle could be used to approach and protect people and officers in armed standoffs and to extract or rescue persons under fire.
Police leadership described recent local incidents where officers confronted armed suspects and said an armored vehicle could have provided additional protection. “This tool, which protects anyone inside almost a 100%, could have been utilized,” Losby said, describing recent calls involving weapons and extended negotiations.
Staff explained legal and administrative constraints for spending the funds. Committee members were told federal forfeiture rules require the money be kept in a separate account, used for law‑enforcement purposes, and audited; staff named department fiscal contacts who sign the account. According to staff, the department typically receives a share of forfeiture proceeds and federal partners (for example U.S. Marshals) may receive a portion under established practice.
Officials described next steps and limits: Madison must place the vehicle for bid under its policy; Monona would have to follow bidding rules and obtain mayoral approval before final acquisition. The police chief told the committee he would seek a recommendation to pursue the purchase, then work with the mayor’s office on formal authority and any required council actions.
The committee motioned, seconded and approved a recommendation to acquire the vehicle and asked staff to proceed with the administrative steps needed to bid and, if successful, purchase the unit. The committee’s vote was a procedural recommendation; final authority rests with the mayor and any required council approvals.
Use, maintenance and mutual aid: staff said the vehicle would be operated by trained officers, most likely assigned to the department’s Community Response Team (CRT) but available to patrol as needed. Staff said the vehicle could be made available for mutual‑aid requests within limits, but that the department would evaluate out‑of‑area requests case by case to ensure local availability. Staff also said seized funds could be used for operating expenses for the vehicle where allowed by federal guidance.
Committee members raised questions about vehicle age and maintenance; staff noted the Madison vehicle was reportedly in good mechanical condition and not being sold because of defects. Officials also said the acquisition would not change routine staffing levels.
What happens next: the committee’s recommendation will be reported to the mayor; acquisition would proceed only after the city follows procurement rules, confirms legal permissibility under federal forfeiture requirements, and secures any approvals the mayor or council require.