Dane County committee forwards Natasha Iverson claim to county board with recommendation to deny

Dane County’s PP & J committee on a claim related to the April 10, 2024, home invasion at a Stoughton residence heard emotional testimony from the homeowner, family members, law enforcement and remediation experts before voting to forward the claim to the full County Board with a recommendation to deny.

The committee heard from Natasha Iverson, the homeowner who said smoke-control agent canisters (CS) were deployed by law enforcement in her home during a standoff and that her family’s house remains uninhabitable. "I don't know where to begin or where to go," Iverson said, describing what she said were months of unsuccessful remediation and out-of-pocket costs.

The hearing drew multiple witnesses who described both the traumatic criminal event and the technical difficulty of removing CS contamination from a lived-in home. Steve Lyons, a family friend and volunteer, said the family “still live in trailers on the premises because they cannot inhabit their home.” Gwen Rupert, a detective with the Dane County Sheriff’s Office who responded to the incident, confirmed both OC and CS agents were used and said she could still smell residue in parts of the house during a September inspection. Scott Faustell, a Marine Corps veteran who has trained with riot-control agents, testified that CS is a fine particulate that can linger in porous materials and is difficult to remediate.

Risk manager Joshua Coutelier told the committee the county’s process is governed by state law that requires notice of a claim within 120 days of the triggering event. Coutelier described the county’s external administrator (WIMIC) role in investigating demands and said late filing exposes the claim to denial on statutory grounds. "Notice related to damages and litigation are handled by the guidance of Wisconsin statute 893.8," he said, summarizing the county’s legal constraints.

Committee members questioned whether the family had realistic options during the 120-day window while simultaneously managing an active insurance claim. Victim-services staff and the family said they were still working with State Farm, Servpro and third-party testing firms months after the incident and had not been able to produce a final, fully documented dollar amount at the committee meeting. Julie Foley, victim services with the Dane County District Attorney’s Office, told the committee she had been working with the family and had pushed additional documentation to county staff after an initial review.

After discussion, Supervisor Rose moved to forward the claim to the county board with a recommendation of denial. The committee approved that motion on a roll call vote and the matter will move to the County Board for final action. Risk management and the county’s insurer (WIMIC) told the committee that if the county board nonetheless voted to pay it would likely face legal and statutory obstacles; the family’s remaining recourse would be to pursue litigation in circuit court.

Key details reported to the committee included: the family said 10 canisters were deployed (9 were inside the house, 2 of which reportedly did not function; witnesses said 7 canisters discharged inside the residence), multiple rounds of gas and so-called scatter devices were used during a protracted standoff, and remediation contractors and the homeowner reported persistent CS odor and residue in porous items. The homeowner provided interim cost figures at the meeting — a demolition invoice of about $25,000, an estimated kitchen replacement of about $46,000, stated out-of-pocket costs “about $108,000,” a camper purchase on credit to house the family (reported $33,000 loan) and daycare and energy expenses the homeowner said she was incurring — and said contents that stayed in storage returned with contamination. Those figures were presented as the homeowner’s estimates and remain subject to formal invoices and contractor bids.

Committee members and staff repeatedly emphasized the difference between a claim filed with the Clerk’s Office (or risk management) within 120 days and the ongoing insurance process with the homeowner’s private insurer. Joshua Coutelier advised that a claimant may file notice without full documentation, but that failure to provide timely notice is a statutory defense to payment. He also said WIMIC or outside counsel would handle investigative and litigation matters if the claimant appeals by filing suit.

The committee’s vote forwards the claim to the County Board with a recommendation of denial. That action does not bar the family from pursuing further legal remedies; as staff explained to the committee, a claimant may file suit for monetary relief and the case would be adjudicated in circuit court. The family and advocates at the hearing urged the county to consider alternatives or discretionary remedies. Members asked staff about nonlitigation assistance but were told statutory limits and insurance-administration rules constrain the county’s options.

The committee’s proceeding combined victim statements, technical testimony and risk-management advice; the full County Board will take up the recommendation at a later meeting.