Residents approved two levy scenarios instead of one. The November 3 referendum picks which comes into play.
The district paid off its 2009 referendum debt in June and is debt free. That’s why school taxes would fall about 8.4% if the referendum fails, and rise about 21% if it passes.
The gap between a yes and a no vote is roughly $176 per $100,000 of home value for next year — about $1,000 a year on a median Whitefish Bay home, $1,200 on the average one.
At Wednesday night’s annual school district meeting the residents in attendance did something a little unusual: they approved two tax levy scenarios instead of one. What happens on the November 3 referendum will decide which takes effect.
If the $90 million referendum fails, the total school tax levy would be $20.5 million. That is about $1.9 million less than this year, a drop of 8.4%.
If it passes, the levy would be $27.2 million. The additional funds would then start servicing the new debt issuance. That total is about $4.8 million more than this year, or 21% higher.
Why taxes go down if the referendum fails
The district made its last payment on the 2009 referendum in June and is now debt free. That payment had been costing about $2 million a year on the tax roll, and it’s gone. So without new borrowing, the school portion of your bill drops.
If the referendum passes, the new debt payments fill in some of that space and then some.
It’s worth noting what the district managed inside a relatively flat operating budget. This year’s spending plan adds five class sections at the elementary schools to bring down class sizes, at a cost of $550,000, and gives all staff a 2.63% raise (plus an extra $500 for teachers). Much of that new spending was covered by an increase to state aid to the district rather than being picked up by local property owners.
The school portion of the tax bill this past year was $611 for every $100,000 your home is worth.
If the referendum passes, the district estimates that goes to $736 for every $100,000, about $125 more per $100,000.
If it fails, the rate drops to somewhere around $560 per $100,000 by my back of the napkin math. The district didn’t publish that figure Wednesday, so consider it my estimate ($611 less an 8.4% decrease). That would mean the difference between a yes and a no vote would come to a net of $176 per $100,000, or approximately $1,200/year for the mean home in the village and $1,000/year for the median home.
The below chart shows the school district’s estimated gross property tax amount that would show up on the 2026 December bill under the two scenarios:
Under the Current 6.11 mill rate
If Referendum Passes at 7.36 mill rate
If Referendum Fails at 5.60 mill rate
Median Home ($575k)
$3513
$4232
$3220
Mean Home ($686k)
$4191
$5048
$3841
A few things to keep in mind. This is a WFB Buzz estimate and most certainly won’t be the actual number on the bills come December. There are a number of moving parts that aren’t known at the moment. As an example, the district’s assumptions state that property values are expected to rise about 5.5% this year, which spreads the levy over more value and would nudge the rate a bit lower than the estimates above. Also, these figures don’t account for the state’s School Levy Tax Credit, which knocks hundreds of dollars off the school line on most bills — though it applies either way, so it doesn’t change the gap between a yes and a no vote.
What happens next
The school board can still technically adjust the levy until November 1. Additionally, state aid figures aren’t confirmed until mid-October.
Voters will then decide which tax levy will come into play for the December 2026 property tax bill.
Detached garage rules could loosen significantly. A proposed ordinance would allow finished second-floor space above detached garages for the first time.
The ADU question is lurking underneath. Board discussion touched on whether Whitefish Bay should eventually consider full accessory dwelling units.
Nothing is final yet. Monday’s vote simply referred the draft ordinance to the Plan Commission — the standard next step before any zoning change comes back to the board for a final vote.
Living in a village where every square foot matters, the Village Board discussed loosening its rules on finishing space above and inside detached garages this week. If you’ve ever wanted a home office, workout room, or hangout space, a reasonable solution could be found above your two-car garage in the future.
The Current Rule
Right now, Village code prohibits “improved space” (defined as any area with finished walls, finished ceiling, and electrical outlets or fixtures) in accessory buildings almost entirely. The one exception: a single area up to 220 square feet on the ground floor of a garage, and only if at least 440 square feet (roughly two full stalls) remains available for vehicle parking.
Second-floor space above a detached garage isn’t permitted to be finished at all under current rules. Sleeping in an accessory building is prohibited outright, regardless of any other conditions.
What’s Being Proposed
The board discussed a proposed ordinance amendment that would meaningfully expand what homeowners can do:
Second-floor improved space would be allowed for the first time, subject to four conditions: the garage must conform to zoning coverage limits and an 18-foot height cap, the improved space can’t extend beyond the garage’s footprint, the ground floor must still be maintained for vehicle parking, and access must be via an interior stairway (no exterior stairway may face the street).
The parking requirement would be cut in half from 440 square feet down to 220 square feet (roughly one stall) to allow ground-floor improved space alongside it.
The cap on ground-floor improved space would be removed entirely.
Cooking facilities and plumbing fixtures remain prohibited — no sanitary sewer lateral may be extended to an accessory building.
No sleeping, dwelling occupancy, or separate lease from the principal residence — the ordinance is explicit that this cannot become a second housing unit.
Board Discussion: The ADU Question Lurking Underneath
The board’s conversation ranged well beyond the mechanics of this specific draft ordinance, including debate over whether dedicated garage parking should even be required. At points the discussion edged into a bigger and closely related question: should there be a discussion in Whitefish Bay about allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — full second housing units on a single-family lot, with their own kitchen and bathroom — the way a growing list of neighboring communities already have?
The board didn’t take up the ADU question directly Monday, acknowledging it as a logical but separate future conversation, but it appears to be on the radar.
It’s also very much on the radar of neighboring communities.Wauwatosa already permits ADUs, part of a wave of Milwaukee-area communities — including the City itself, South Milwaukee, and Oconomowoc — that have amended their zoning in recent years specifically to encourage more ADU construction as a tool for adding housing stock without new subdivisions.
Shorewood has also already crossed that bridge. There, the Village Board formally adopted an ADU ordinance on May 4, 2026. Under Shorewood’s new rules, homeowners can add one ADU per lot, internal, attached, or detached, up to the size of the principal dwelling and up to 20 feet tall if detached. Owner-occupancy is required, no parking is mandated for either the ADU or the principal home, and short-term rentals under seven days are explicitly prohibited.
For now, Whitefish Bay’s Monday vote doesn’t touch ADUs directly. But between the garage ordinance’s built-in guardrails against becoming a “dwelling unit,” the board’s own passing conversation, and what’s happening in the area, this feels like a topic that will be back before the board before too long.
What Happens Next
No formal ordinance vote happened Monday as this was a referral. The Village Board voted to send the draft ordinance to the Plan Commission for review, the standard next step before any zoning code change comes back to the board for final action.
If you’ve been eyeing that empty space above your garage for a home office, this is very much still in progress, but the direction of travel is toward “yes, with conditions.”
Assessors began fieldwork this month to conduct a village-wide property revaluation. This is Whitefish Bay’s first physical revaluation since 2019.
New values hit the December 2027 tax bill, not this next one.
A revaluation/assessment doesn’t raise the tax levy; it changes how the levy is divided. With assessments running at 88% of market, expect most values to rise — what matters is whether yours rises faster than your neighbors’.
If you read the insert that came folded into your December tax bill last year, you saw a small blue box near the bottom of page two announcing that Associated Appraisal Consultants took over as the Village’s assessor on January 1, 2026.
It read like housekeeping, though it really wasn’t. This month, field staff from that firm began walking Whitefish Bay properties with tape measures and cameras — the first physical inspection of the village’s housing stock since 2019. The 2024 revaluation was done using a “computer assisted appraisal system”, as the prior contract states.
The Village posted a revaluation FAQ explaining the work, and I’d encourage Villagers to read it. Also, the Village’s prior assessor is currently defending a negligence lawsuit from another Milwaukee County municipality alleging it didn’t properly check property records.
Here’s the whole picture: what’s happening, why it’s happening now, and what it will and won’t do to your tax bill.
First, what an assessment actually is
A property assessment is not an appraisal in the sense most homeowners may know the word. When you purchase or refinance your house, a licensed appraiser typically spends time inside your house and writes a report about your house specifically. A municipal assessor does mass appraisal: modeling thousands of properties at once using sales data, square footage, lot size, age, condition, and location, then applying that model more or less across the whole community.
The goal isn’t to nail your individual home to the dollar. The goal is relative accuracy — making sure your house and a neighbor’s house three doors down carry proportional shares of the tax burden. Wisconsin law requires assessments be based on fair market value, and values are set as of January 1 each year.
There are two flavors of the work, and Whitefish Bay signed contracts for both:
Annual maintenance is the routine year workup. The assessor picks up new construction, additions, demolitions, teardowns, and properties that changed significantly, while more or less leaving others alone — this is what we’ll get for this coming tax year.
Revaluation reviews every taxable property in the community to reset values to the current market. Under state law, a municipality has to bring all major classes of property within 10% of full value in the same year at least once every five years. Note that this does not mean it’s done every five years, but must be done at least once every five. Miss that window long enough and the Department of Revenue steps in and orders one, on its schedule and at the municipality’s expense.
According to the contract with Associated Appraisal Consultants, Whitefish Bay is getting an exterior revaluation for the December 2027 tax bill that puts a person on the sidewalk to inspect and photograph the outside of every improved property.
Why now
Whitefish Bay’s 2026 assessment level is about 88% of market value, which the Village acknowledges puts it outside the range state law requires. Assessed values here have drifted meaningfully below what properties actually sell for, which is what happens when a hot market runs ahead of a valuation done in 2024.
In 2025, the Village Board decided to move to a two-year revaluation cycle as a deliberate response to what happened when the Village went five years between updates and residents opened notices showing significant increases in their home assessments. Smaller, more frequent adjustments are easier to absorb than one enormous one.
When the Village put out an RFP for appraisal services and selected Associated, the firm shared that it was willing to go one year (this year) without a full revaluation but not longer. A village official stated at a 2025 board meeting that Associated had concerns about the accuracy of the property data it was inheriting and wanted to verify it on the ground before building valuations on top of it. That was a condition of taking the work, and staff noted the firm had been upfront about it from the start.
The firm that had the job before
Whitefish Bay’s assessor through the end of 2025 was Accurate Appraisal, LLC, of Menasha. In February 2025, the City of Franklin sued the company in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
The allegations, as reported by the Journal Sentinel, are worth reading carefully — because they describe the potential misses that the exterior inspection Whitefish Bay signed on for should be able to catch.
Franklin, which hired Accurate in 2022 for maintenance and revaluation work, alleges the firm skipped required field inspections, relied on old or unverified property data, failed to maintain measurements and sketches, and used trending factors on non-residential property without documenting the calculations. Homeowners had complained to the city that their assessments included features their houses didn’t have — a basement, in one example cited in the complaint. The suit further alleges that when owners complained, Accurate sometimes adjusted values with no supporting data or record, and that the firm wouldn’t produce the underlying documentation when the city asked for it. Franklin says it now faces substantial costs rebuilding property data it should have had all along. It named the company, its owner, its assessor, and the firm’s insurer, and asked for a jury trial.
Franklin ended the relationship and hired a different firm. Accurate Appraisal remains the contracted assessor in a substantial number of Wisconsin municipalities.
It should be noted that these are allegations in pending litigation, not findings. Nothing in that lawsuit concerns Whitefish Bay directly.
When this hits your tax bill
Fieldwork is happening now, in the back half of 2026.
The new values land on the 2027 assessment, which will affect the tax bills mailed in December 2027 and will be paid beginning in early 2028.
One more distinction the Village would like to make, according to the FAQ page: the revaluation and the upcoming referendum are separate from each other. A revaluation changes how the tax burden is divided among properties. A referendum changes how much the school district is authorized to collect in the first place. If a referendum passes in November, that increase shows up on the December 2026 bills payable in 2027, a full year before the revaluation shows up.
What a revaluation does and doesn’t do
This is where people seem to frequently jump to inaccurate conclusions, so let’s be blunt: a revaluation does not raise the tax levy.
Assessments determine how the levy is divided, not how big it is. If every property in the Village doubled overnight and the levies stayed flat, the tax rate would simply be cut roughly in half and most bills would land in about the same place. What actually changes is your share. If your assessment rises more than the village-wide average, your share goes up. Less than average, your share goes down. Right at the average, you’re roughly where you started.
The Village’s FAQ looks to a pizza pie to explain this — a revaluation doesn’t make the pizza bigger, it changes how it’s sliced. It’s a good metaphor and I’ll allow it. The thing to notice is that somebody’s slice does get smaller and somebody’s does get bigger, and given that assessments here are running at 88% of market, expect most values to rise. Rising is not the same as rising faster than your neighbors, which is the comparison that touches your bill.
Top residential tax bills in WFB
As an interesting tidbit, from the Village’s 2026 completed real estate assessment roll (all 713 pages!) I took a look at the highest assessed properties and noted their 2025 tax bills. Here’s how much the top five residential properties pay in annual taxes.
$104,521
$84,445
$67,457
$64,107
$59,804
You probably won’t be surprised that each of these five houses can be found along Lake Drive, but you’ll have to do the leg work to figure out the exact address, if interested.
One additional item worth noting
While reviewing this year’s assessment roll, I noticed that the Village’s cited average home value of $685,800 is consistent with a mean, not a median. The median assessed value in Whitefish Bay works out to roughly $575,000, about $110,000 lower. If my calculations are correct, nearly two-thirds of the village’s 4,800+ residential parcels are currently assessed below $685,800.
One implication of this is that most homeowners would pay less than the widely cited $857 per year if the school referendum passes in November. That figure isn’t wrong, to be clear, but it would be just as accurate, and perhaps more reasonable, to say that half of all residential properties would pay more than about $719 a year and half would pay less, using the district’s own assumptions, should the referendum pass.
Referendum question was unanimously adopted and will include the renovate-in-place option for the middle school, updates to the HVAC and fire system at the high school and updates to the fire systems at the elementary schools.
Well folks, we have a new referendum question. Four months after voters rejected a $135.6 million facilities referendum by roughly 300 votes, the Whitefish Bay School Board unanimously adopted a resolution Wednesday night authorizing up to $90 million in general obligation bonds and will place the question before voters on November 3rd.
It is not the April plan with a smaller number attached. In the months since that measure failed, the school board ran focus groups, fielded a community survey, and worked through several revised options before landing on a one-third smaller price tag and a middle school that gets renovated in phases on its current site rather than replaced outright at the former Armory site.
A few of the board members read prepared statements before the final vote. School Board President Dr. Kristin Bencik-Boudreau’s statement can be found at the end of the post.
The question voters will actually see
The full ballot text, as adopted:
Shall the School District of Whitefish Bay, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin be authorized to issue pursuant to Chapter 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes, general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $90,000,000 for the public purpose of paying the cost of a school building and facility improvement project consisting of: construction of additions, renovations, partial removal of the existing building and site improvements at the Middle School on its current site; building infrastructure and capital maintenance improvements at the High School; fire protection and alarm system updates and replacement at the High School, Cumberland and Richards Elementary Schools; and acquisition of furnishings, fixtures and equipment?
What’s in the plan
Middle school — renovate-in-place. As shared in my last school board update, this renovate-in-place option will keep the students in the school during construction and will come in phases. This option will create a mostly new middle school when finished.
High school — full mechanical replacement. New HVAC system for both heating and cooling, as well as a full update of the fire protection system.
Cumberland and Richards — fire protection and alarm systems. Sprinklers and a new alarm system at both elementaries.
District Wide —Furnishings, fixtures and equipment directly tied to the improvements above.
The tax picture
Business Services Director Ben Irwin shared that his modeling assumes $90 million borrowed across two issuances, one in 2026 and a second in 2028, amortized over 22 years.
The rate assumption is now 4.5%, down from the 5% to 5.25% range used in April. Irwin called that conservative given the district’s credit rating, which he described as effectively as strong as a Wisconsin district can hold.
With the 2009 referendum’s debt now paid off, the estimated net impact: $125 per $100,000 of assessed value. On the village’s stated average home value of $685,800, that works out to $857 per year. This would be down from the $1,783 per year for the average home from the April referendum.
Taxpayers would see the impact for the first time on the December 2026 tax bill (first installment due January 2027).
What comes next
The district is moving immediately into an information campaign. Its stated goal is neutral, factual information.
Community sessions will be held in person on September 15th at 6pm (at the Middle School), September 28th at 6pm (High School), October 15th at 6pm (Middle School), and November 2nd at 6pm (Middle School).
Online: a rebuilt referendum section of the district website is now live (though more additions will be made in the near future), with FAQs, tax impact information, floor plans, and a site plan. https://www.wfbreferendum.org/
The district will reuse the question-submission form from the April campaign, which fielded more than 130 questions over roughly two months with most answered within three to four days. Mailings — somewhere between two and four — pocket guides, and short social videos are also planned.
Voters will then have their say on November 3rd, 2026.
School Board President Dr. Kristin Bencik-Boudreau read a prepared statement before the vote. In full:
I am in full support of the referendum as outlined. I would like to explain how I personally came to the decision that this was the right referendum at this time for the Whitefish Bay School District.
As most know, the district embarked upon a detailed evaluation of all of our facilities starting years ago. The Facility Advisory Committee then brought forth the recommendations. The result was a $135.6 million referendum. The plan the school board brought forth in April was the best plan to accomplish all of the facilities needs of the district in a single referendum. I’m deeply grateful for all those community members who worked tirelessly to try and help pass the referendum, and I truly believe the reason it was so close was because of their actions.
However, in the end, the referendum was simply too much money for our community. At that point, as a board, we had to pivot and turn to our community to hear why the referendum failed and what they wanted us to do moving forward. We organized focus groups that resulted in over 12 hours of listening sessions, and we did a complete community survey. As we mentioned, it was no surprise to us that over 86% of the survey responders said it was simply too much money, and the overwhelming majority of the focus group members agreed.
The one thing that came as a surprise, however, was the opposition to the Armory site and the preference for renovate in place. Prior to the community survey and the focus groups, I felt there was only a small minority of residents who opposed the site — the neighbors directly affected, and those who had close ties to the Armory. We felt we had the support of the Friends of the Armory group going into the referendum. However, as the survey showed us, 48.65% of those who voted no did so because of the location of the proposed middle school. The focus groups with Friends of the Armory also clearly detailed that there was simply no support for changing the Armory site, and there would actually be an active campaign against it.
Finally, I have been asked multiple times via email and in focus groups why we couldn’t re-look at the middle school renovate-in-place option. The original project was rejected because of the impact on student learning with temporary classrooms for a prolonged period of time. This was a non-starter for our board. The new project will keep kids and staff in fully furnished classrooms for the entirety of their middle school experience. We will continue to work with staff at the middle school and our builders to do everything possible to mitigate the effects of construction on learning.
Most importantly, this is an option that will result in a brand new middle school for Whitefish Bay. This is not a light renovation. It is taking down and building a new school. The only original part of the school, as we’ve mentioned multiple times tonight, is our historical gym, which will be opened up into a beautiful gathering center and cafeteria.
Our survey results clearly showed, as did our experts who interpreted this survey, that our community would only support up to a $90 million referendum. This has forced us to prioritize all the needs of the district, and that has come down to HVAC and high school infrastructure and the new middle school. We also will be adding the fire safety at the elementary schools.
As I said last meeting and has been reiterated tonight, we are going to have to go back to a referendum again in the near future to address the needs of the elementary schools. Those needs that were brought forth before have not gone away.
The option presented today is the best compromise for passing a referendum that will result in completion of two hugely needed facility projects. By doing so, it will lower our operational costs so we can continue to support our teachers in the way we most want to.
I also want to acknowledge the concerns of parents for the renovate-in-place project. As you’ve heard, our administration feels strongly that we can continue to provide the highest educational experience and the safest environment during this time. I challenge all of you to be part of the process. Please come to our educational sessions regarding the project. Give us your feedback and work with us so together we can bring this most needed project to fruition.
Flock Safety cameras have been in the news a lot lately — nationally, statewide, and here in Milwaukee County. With that attention has come a fair number of questions from readers about whether Whitefish Bay uses them. The short answer is yes, and has since early 2023.
Here’s what we found.
What is Flock and why is the technology drawing attention?
Flock Safety is an Atlanta-based company founded in 2017 that sells automated license plate reader systems, usually shortened to ALPR. It began by selling to homeowners associations and moved into contracts with governments and police departments in 2020. It now operates roughly 120,000 cameras nationwide and contracts with about 7,000 law enforcement agencies — around 40 percent of departments in the country. An ALPR is a fixed camera, often solar-powered and mounted along a roadway, that photographs every passing vehicle and reads the plate out of the image. According to Flock’s website, its cameras also log make, model, color and identifying details. Each sighting is time-stamped and location-stamped and feeds into a searchable database, so an officer can enter a plate number or vehicle description and see where and when that vehicle was photographed. The system also sends automatic alerts when a camera spots a plate on a “hot list,” such as the FBI’s database of stolen vehicles.
Two features generate the most discussion. First, retention: Flock’s default had been 30 days, though departments could adjust it. On August 13th, amid national backlash, Flock announced it was cutting its recommended default to seven days, but existing customers keep their current retention periods unless they opt in. Second, sharing: if a department wants to search cameras outside its own network, it must in turn share access to its own. Most agencies search and share nationally according to the NY Times.
Locally, two Milwaukee police officers have been charged with abusing the system. Last month an MPD officer pleaded guilty to using the department’s Flock system to track an ex-girlfriend and her partner, the Journal Sentinel reported. Urban Milwaukee reported in July that a second MPD officer (one of the internal affairs investigators on the first case) faces felony misconduct charges for similar misuse.
Supporters of the cameras make a straightforward case. Former Ozaukee County Sheriff Maury Straub argued in a Journal Sentinel op-ed in May that the technology captures plates on public roads rather than tracking individuals, and that documented misuse is an argument for stronger rules/policies rather than full removal. Flock now requires an audit tool that flags unusual search patterns and logs each search along with who ran it and why.
Critics focus less on individual misuse than on what a 120,000-camera network makes possible. Barry Friedman, an NYU law professor who directs the Policing Project, told the NY Times the practice amounts to “indiscriminate data collection, not targeting specific crimes.” The ACLU has raised similar objections, noting the absence of a warrant requirement and the fact that searches aren’t limited to serious crimes.
The North Shore picture
North Shore screenshot from deflock.org, August 2026. Each blue dot represents a user-indicated camera. The cluster to the south is at UW-Milwaukee.
A crowdsourced website called DeFlock.org lets anyone log the location of an ALPR they spot on a pole. Zoom into the North Shore and the map shows reported cameras in Bayside, Brown Deer, Fox Point and Glendale, plus a few at the edges of Whitefish Bay. Shorewood and River Hills show none — and going back through public documents for both, the WFB Buzz could not find any budgeted dollars going to Flock Safety from those two communities. One caveat: the map is user-reported rather than official, so a blank spot means no one has logged a camera there, not necessarily that none exists.
What Whitefish Bay has and what it costs
Flock camera on a stop light post in Whitefish Bay.
The Whitefish Bay Police Department confirmed to the WFB Buzz that the Village leases three Flock cameras. Those are located on Silver Spring at Lydell, on Oakland at Glendale Avenue, and a third on Hampton at Estabrook Park — the last of which actually sits within the City of Milwaukee rather than the Village (PD did not confirm the exact locations). The department signed a contract with Flock in late 2022 and the cameras were installed in early 2023. The initial contract covered three cameras for four years and was paid for through a grant from the Wisconsin Department of Administration, accounting for a $31,050 check recorded in the Village ledger in January 2023. That term expires toward the end of this year. The Village has since moved to a one-year agreement, with $7,500 budgeted for 2026.
Who can search the data
Flock’s system lets each department decide whether to share its data. The WFB Police Department told the WFB Buzz that any outside agency must request access to the Village’s camera data, and that the department can revoke it at any time. The reverse applies as well: Whitefish Bay must request access before searching another agency’s database.
How the department uses them
The Police Department told us that the cameras are a useful tool, citing their role in investigating retail thefts from local businesses, package thefts from residences, and motor vehicle thefts. The department has also used the system to locate people reported missing/endangered due to mental health issues, as well as one case of a missing person under the state’s Silver Alert program.
In 2024, after a pediatric wheelchair was taken from the curb outside a Whitefish Bay home, officers used Flock to identify the vehicle involved, locate it, and return the wheelchair to the child’s family.
Stolen vehicles are one of the more measurable use cases. According to the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer, Whitefish Bay police reported 17 stolen vehicles in 2024 and 2025 combined — a figure the department confirmed. All 17 were recovered. Asked whether Flock played a role, the department said it could not attribute any specific recovery solely to the cameras, but described the system as an investigative tool used routinely that can and has helped narrow down where to look.
The damaged camera at Estabrook Park
Flock camera along Hampton Ave. There appears to be a sticker on the camera as of August 17th.
In March, the Village-owned camera near Estabrook Park was damaged. Asked for an update on the investigation, the Police Department said it had none to provide.
The incident drew coverage from TMJ4 at the time, which reported it as part of a broader pattern of Flock cameras being vandalized in Milwaukee County and in several other states. The station’s story quoted a Whitefish Bay resident who said he hadn’t been aware the cameras were in the community, and who was frustrated that someone had chosen to deface the camera rather than discussing it with the Village in a reasonable manner.
A WFB Buzz visit on August 17th found the camera has been recently defaced again, this time with a sticker.
The Village’s original four-year term expires later this year, and the cameras will now come up for renewal annually. The Police Department shared that they were not aware of any resident raising the topic at any public meetings over the past few years.
