Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marathon County officials flag wage-study costs, fees and reserves as budget planning priorities
Summary
County staff told the Infrastructure Committee that implementing a recent wage study could cost roughly 7.65% of payroll, prompting recommendations to raise many user fees and to consider reserves and borrowing strategies to cover capital and service-cost pressures.
Marathon County officials told the Infrastructure Committee on Aug. 7 that implementation of a recent wage study and rising health-insurance costs are central to 2026 budget planning and likely will require fee increases, use of reserves or program cuts.
Administrator Leonard said staff expect implementation of the county’s updated wage study will require a shift “about 10%” in the wage scale and that staff’s current best estimate of the cost to implement is about 7.65%. Leonard said equalized property values in the county have risen — recent figures showed approximately a 9% increase — but net new construction is projected at about 1.61%, limiting new property-tax capacity to absorb personnel cost increases. “If we don't do that, we are effectively subsidizing increasing our subsidy with respect to those services,” Leonard said.
The administrator also cited health-insurance renewal pressure in the region and nationally: staff noted market increases in the range of 8–10%, and Leonard contrasted a Portage County self-funded renewal he said was 22% with a city renewal near 18%. Committee members said those combined cost pressures make a near-term fee increase likely. "My best back-of-the-napkin math right now is in the neighborhood of 10% when you roll compensation along with those health insurance costs together," Leonard said.
Supervisor Robinson, who also attends HR, Finance and Property Committee meetings, said the county’s roughly $200 million budget depends on a levy component of about $55 million to $57 million; the remainder is funded by fees, grants and other sources. He said levy limits constrain the county’s ability to use property tax increases to cover rising costs, increasing pressure to raise fees, use reserves or cut programs. "If we don't keep pace with the fees, we can't keep pace with the levy because of the levy limits," Robinson said.
Officials told the committee they will direct department heads to identify fee changes and service-level adjustments and will return with specific recommendations. Staff said some fees cannot be raised to cover capital costs because of market sensitivity — for example, tipping fees at the solid-waste operation could drive haulers to other counties if set too high.
Committee members discussed financing capital needs, including whether to use highway reserves for planning and preconstruction work to avoid higher borrowing costs. Staff noted previously committed uses of reserves, including an $8 million loan to a local project (described in the packet), have reduced rollover funds available for capital, and that borrowing costs are materially higher than in recent years. "We're probably looking at 2 to 3 times" the interest rate compared with prior favorable market conditions, staff said.
Staff said HR, Finance and Property Committee will make implementation policy recommendations soon; the Infrastructure Committee will see more specific fee and program recommendations as the budget process progresses.
No formal vote or budget adoption occurred at the Aug. 7 meeting; the item was an update and direction to staff to continue drafting options.
