County staff outline debt and cash options for proposed $50M highway shop; committee asks for a financing plan

Marathon County Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee · November 10, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Marathon County’s administrator and financial adviser presented two scenarios to finance a hypothetical $50 million highway shop — issuing roughly $20.33 million in new debt or using annual North Central Healthcare payments — and the committee asked staff to develop a detailed plan, schedule of values and cash-flow analysis.

Marathon County officials on Nov. 1 discussed how to finance a potential $50 million highway shop but took no action, asking staff to return with a plan that balances tax impact and project timing.

Administrator Leonard and Kristen Hansen of PFM presented two high-level scenarios. In the first, the county would issue roughly $20.33 million of general obligation promissory notes (staff used an illustrative 5% interest-rate assumption), producing annual principal-and-interest payments of about $1.6 million and total interest costs in the range of $9 million to $11 million over 20 years. Hansen noted borrowing yields an immediate lower near-term tax impact but higher cumulative interest and issuance costs.

In the second scenario staff modelled using North Central Healthcare (NCHC) annual payments — roughly $3 million as presented — to pay down the project over a shorter period (about five years in staff scenarios). That approach avoids long-term interest but requires phasing and would not provide a $20 million lump sum up front; staff noted it could give the county capacity to address other deferred capital needs.

Sam in finance illustrated homeowner impacts under the assumptions used: a cash-based approach versus borrowing produced an illustrative difference of about $175.58 to the average homeowner over the modeled period. Staff also presented the county’s outstanding debt profile, legal debt limit and equalized-value history to frame borrowing capacity.

Committee members asked for concrete next steps, including a "schedule of values," project cash-flow projections, options for short-term borrowing to meet construction cash flow if needed, and a multi-year levy ramp (e.g., five- or seven-year options) to avoid a single-year levy spike. Administrator Leonard said staff will prepare a hybrid plan and circulate the slides and underlying assumptions to the committee for further review.

What’s next: Staff will provide a schedule of values and cash-flow analysis and return with financing options before broader budget decisions for 2027.