Marathon County officials spent the bulk of their meeting reviewing options for the county’s aging ice arena and asked staff to convene user groups to define a community funding ask.

County Administrator Lance Leonard presented a decision‑framework memo and a consultant analysis that identified four broad paths: a two‑sheet, year‑round facility; a single year‑round sheet plus a seasonal second sheet; refurbishing and continuing operations at the existing location; or the county exiting provision of ice services. "We need some direction from you because otherwise we are absolutely gonna fail," Leonard said, urging the committee to clarify whether Marathon County will remain "in the ice business."

Jamie, a parks staff member involved in the feasibility work, said the feasibility study is complete and that the MAT system installed this year has kept the rink operational. She told the committee the packet contains projected operational numbers and revenue offsets; the staff materials show a projected revenue offset of about $660,000 under a two‑sheet year‑round scenario and a projected operating cost near $800,000, resulting in a projected early shortfall in the initial years that staff expects would diminish if usage grows.

Supervisors raised fiscal and timing questions. "I have some concerns over the cost if we go with the 2, new rings at 54,000,000," Supervisor Robinson said, noting that fundraising timelines and foundation cycles can stretch one to two years. Supervisor Boots referenced a prior March resolution that required community‑led support and financial assistance for long‑term capital work and said the county should be clear about what it is being asked to fund. Vice Chair Dickinson stressed public sensitivity to tax increases, saying the timing — with recent tax statements arriving in some households — required careful outreach.

Several speakers urged convening user groups rather than deciding the county’s contribution immediately. Administrator Leonard recommended staff arrange an end‑of‑season meeting with user‑group leadership to present the consultant findings and ask those groups to work collaboratively on a funding plan. "We can convene that user group meeting and ask them to start having those conversations and working collaboratively," Leonard said.

The committee did not adopt a formal funding commitment. Instead it agreed that staff should return next month with a proposed engagement plan and suggested a target for a user‑group report within the next several months to inform the 2027 budget process. The committee emphasized they want a clearer "ask" for community partners — the specific funding level the county would be expected to match or support — before launching wider outreach.

Next steps: Administrator Leonard will return to the executive committee at the next monthly meeting with a refined engagement approach and proposed timeline for convening user groups; supervisors indicated they expect to use that input to inform the 2027 budget calendar.