Committee adopts revised tax‑delinquent land rules, adds committee oversight for restrictive covenants

The Human Resources, Finance & Property Committee voted to adopt edits to Marathon County Code section 3.2 that align the county with a Wisconsin Counties Association model ordinance for handling tax‑delinquent land.

Attorney Mike (corporation counsel) explained the changes: the ordinance delegates oversight and operational authority to the county administrator (who may further delegate to staff), requires appraisals prior to sale, adopts timelines to comply with statutory requirements and authorizes the county to use Wisconsin Surplus for sales. The revised text also permits the county to record deed restrictions or restrictive covenants when properties are sold, at the administrator’s discretion.

Administrator Leonard emphasized the operational goal: speed up proceedings for tax certificates and reduce recurring write-offs. Leonard said the county still has many outstanding tax certificates (examples in the packet: 2014 — 53 outstanding; 2015 — 69; 2016 — 90; 2021 — 211) and that the county has previously written off substantial sums (he cited a $98,000 write-off in a recent year). The ordinance changes require appraisals and set timelines intended to ensure compliance with the legal requirement to put acquired parcels back on the tax roll and to sell them within the statutory window.

Several supervisors asked about the impact on sale price and legal risk if restrictive covenants were imposed (for example, requiring residential use). Corporation counsel said the ordinance preserves the option but that selling below appraised value on the first listing could raise litigation risk in light of recent case law (the memo cited the Hennepin County decision). To address those concerns, the committee adopted a single amendment: proposed deed‑restriction documents would be subject to the review of the HR Finance & Property Committee (rather than left solely to administrator discretion).

Committee members and administration discussed use of Wisconsin Surplus for sales (administration said prior coordination with Wisconsin Surplus has worked well) and the need for transparent reporting; the administrator said he would provide the committee with lists of properties in the workflow and recommendations about whether a covenant should be attached to any given parcel.

Following those edits, Supervisor Gibbs’s motion to adopt the ordinance changes (as amended to add committee oversight of covenants) was seconded and passed by the committee.