The Best for County Board
Wisconsin State Journal Editorial
March 22, 2026
This retired airline captain who loves the Token Creek Nature Conservancy says Dane County can continue to grow and add needed housing without eating up farms. We like her balanced approach to needed development. A Windsor resident, she is skeptical of data centers because of their heavy use of water and energy. So are we. So are a lot of the people she seeks to represent in northeast Dane County. DeForest recently rejected a sprawling data center request. She seems more independent and open-minded than the conservative incumbent she’s trying to unseat: Jeff Weigand, of Marshall, who works for a health insurance company. Weigand didn’t participate in our meetings. We recommend Brandmeier for well-rounded representation.
Editorial | For a progressive, experienced Dane County Board
Cap Times editorial
Mar 18, 2026
District 20: Paula Brandmeier — Deeply rooted in this eastern Dane County district, Brandmeier is committed to protecting the character of rural areas and the villages she seeks to represent. A supporter of a moratorium on the construction of AI data centers, she recognizes that, “Data centers in their current form are an inefficient way to store and process data and, without innovation, they will require an insatiable and unsustainable amount of land, energy, and water.” She’s a superior candidate to incumbent Jeff Weigand.
Water Quality a Top Priority, Paula Brandmeier says
Link I March 10, 2026
Paula Brandmeier, a newly-retired airline pilot and United States Air Force veteran, is running this spring to represent the Sun Prairie area on the Dane County Board. She’ll face off against incumbent supervisor Jeff Weigand in the April 7th election.
Also a member of the Token Creek Conservancy Committee, Brandmeier told our News Producer Faye Parks last week that she’d be an advocate for water quality and sustainable growth on the county board.
County board seat reduction proposal irresponsible
By Paula Brandmeier, Candidate for Dane County Board - March 2, 2026
Link to Article
A recent proposal by the incumbent Dane County Board member, Jeff Weigand, to reduce the number of seats on the board is being presented as a cost-savings measure. In reality, it is fiscally irresponsible, weakens representation for smaller communities, and distracts from the real work of serving our residents.
County redistricting is required by law to be done every ten years in conjunction with the Federal Census. This was last accomplished in 2021, a year late due to the pandemic and will be done again in 2030. This latest proposal suggests cutting 10 board members and re-drawing district maps to save $130,000. In actuality though, the cost to taxpayers to redistrict mid-cycle will far exceed any savings.
Since a 2016 ordinance change, any updates to district maps are now done by a separate subcommittee, not the County Board. This committee would need to be re-implemented and trained. Precise population counts are required by law, which may necessitate a local census. Cost estimates for a census of our county’s population of 600,000+ residents exceed $500,000.
Add to that the expense of meetings, staff time and public hearings. It is a lengthy process and these changes would not go into effect until 2028, only to have to start the whole redistricting process again in 2 years with the 2030 census.
The second part of this proposal introduces a merit-based bonus system for the Sheriff’s Department. While it may appear well-intentioned, it is an under- developed and insufficiently thought through proposal. Who determines the recipient? How would it be distributed fairly throughout the County? If there actually were any savings, it would be better used for an additional Sheriff position or Crisis Response and Intervention training for more of our officers.
Fewer supervisors means fewer districts. District maps are based on population, so rural districts like our District 20 will become even larger resulting in less voice, less accessibility and less representation in County decisions.
And finally, being a board member requires teamwork, collaboration, communication and cooperation. The premise of this proposal was framed as an accusation, calling into question the work ethic of fellow board members. That’s a highly ineffective way to lead, drive change or influence decisions.
Serving on the board isn’t about the optics of symbolic tax cuts. It’s about showing up, doing the work and helping our community.
I believe in smart budgeting, strong representation and real service. This proposal delivers none of this.