Marathon County directs staff to draft deed‑restriction policy, advances housing inventory and tax‑delinquent property work

Marathon County officials received an update on steps taken under Resolution 66‑23 to address the county’s housing shortage and asked staff to draft policy language that would prioritize housing uses for county‑owned and tax‑delinquent parcels.

The committee was told staff has begun mapping roughly 50 county parcels for housing potential, coordinated with municipalities that identified parcels they want, and has pursued sales to local nonprofits and developers; members also discussed using deed restrictions or covenants to require owner‑occupied or long‑term residential use of properties sold after tax foreclosure.

The committee’s request for a draft policy follows months of administrative work funded through the county budget, and discussion that drew on Bayfield County’s recent experience restricting resale and short‑term rental eligibility for parcels sold out of tax foreclosure.

County staff summarized steps taken so far: compiling a remnant‑parcel list and an inventory of county‑owned land near utilities, engaging municipalities through a regional development meeting, and using the treasurer’s office and a partnership with Wisconsin Surplus to return tax‑delinquent parcels to active use. “I don’t have time to be a realtor part time,” a county staff member said, arguing for a dedicated position to move the work forward; the committee was told a temporary position will be posted once budgeted funds are available.

Kelly Westland, who presented Bayfield County’s approach to the committee, described several tools other counties have used, including deed restrictions that prohibit short‑term rentals for a set period after sale and requirements that buildable lots receive residential structures within a fixed time frame. “No short‑term rentals on those foreclosure properties for 10 years after the sale,” Westland said, summarizing the restriction Bayfield has used after selling foreclosed properties.

Committee members discussed technical and legal limits. County Administrator Lance Leonard and county staff cautioned that restrictive covenants can reduce fair‑market value and may require property‑by‑property appraisal to calculate any compensation owed to former owners under Wisconsin law. The committee also heard examples and numbers intended to illustrate the local market: staff referenced an initial parcel list of about 50 properties, outreach letters to “more than 1,000” delinquent‑tax owners, and a Bayfield funding example of $90,000 over three years that expanded local capacity.

Members pressed on implementation details. Supervisors asked whether the county controls zoning on parcels taken by tax deed (staff answered usually not if the parcel lies within an incorporated municipality) and whether deed restrictions could be written to require owner occupancy, prohibit short‑term rentals or allow only long‑term rental uses. Staff said those policy choices are possible but require legal review and may affect sales proceeds and any repayment to former owners.

Staff and presenters reviewed timing and examples from other projects to set expectations: multi‑family developments that seek Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) can take multiple years (developers estimated two to six years from initial RFP to lease‑up); a Bayfield example cited a 40‑unit project on a 10‑acre site where the first phase used six acres and a second‑phase RFP will target the remaining four acres. Staff also described an example where a tax‑foreclosed home sold for about $30,000, was renovated, and later listed for about $280,000 — presented as evidence of value recovery when parcels are returned to productive use.

After discussion, the committee indicated by consensus that staff should prepare draft resolutions and ordinance language to (1) specify how the county will handle surplus and tax‑foreclosed properties to prioritize residential development and (2) include deed‑restriction models similar to Bayfield’s approach (for example, build‑within timelines and short‑term rental restrictions). Staff said they will return with draft language for the committee’s and HR Finance & Property Committee’s consideration.

Votes at a glance: committee members later approved a routine motion to adjourn (motion by Hagen; second by Rosenberg; unanimous voice vote in favor).

The county will circulate the drafts and supporting legal and valuation analysis at a future meeting; staff also plans to post a temporary housing coordinator position to advance parcel inventorying, municipal engagement, and developer outreach.