The Marathon County Board of Supervisors voted 23–9 on Dec. 18 to approve an amended resolution authorizing a $5,000 county contribution to a regional site‑readiness market study by Centergy (transcript also uses the spellings “Synergy” and “Senergy”). The amended motion conditions Marathon County’s payment on Centergy receiving funding commitments from at least three of the five counties represented and requires Centergy to present study results to the board.

The item was returned to the floor after a successful motion to reconsider. Supervisor Kurth moved to reconsider (seconded by Supervisor Marsh); the motion passed and reopened Resolution 77‑25 for discussion. Supervisor Marash then offered the substitute amendment that the board ultimately approved; the amendment was seconded by Supervisor Rosenberg before a recorded vote.

Supporters, including Supervisor Marash, said the study — part of a broader $130,000 regional effort — would help local communities understand site readiness, utilities, infrastructure and workforce factors that attract large employers. “If this would be a way to attract a new industry to come and create new jobs, I think $5,000 is just a drop in the bucket for what we could gain,” Marash said.

Opponents framed the request as discretionary spending that sets a low bar for taxpayer-funded projects. Supervisor Endres called it “special interest corporate welfare” and said a market analysis is not the same as direct economic development. Supervisor Poole, who opposed the amendment, said he was concerned about discretionary spending amid tight county finances and argued the county should prioritize core services and capital projects over small grants.

Other supervisors raised concerns about the county being the only funder and the need for clear accountability if public funds are used. The substitute amendment addressed some of those concerns by requiring other counties to participate and by directing that the funding come from the administrator’s 2025 special projects fund rather than contingency.

The board debated budget pressures and the relative impact of a $5,000 expenditure. Supervisor Fifrick called the contribution “an investment” that could help land larger projects and spur property‑tax and sales‑tax growth; Supervisor Robinson said the project is consistent with state statutes that allow counties to invest in economic development activities and could help the county compete for development.

The chair clarified that the vote on ending debate met the procedural thresholds and that the final vote was on the amended resolution. The amendment passed by a recorded 23–9 vote; the resolution as amended authorizes the payment, specifies the funding source and requires Centergy to report back on results and intended uses.

The board also heard that Centergy had or sought additional grant funding from the state and that similar contingencies had been used by other counties. The board did not adopt additional spending beyond the $5,000 as part of this action.

What happens next: the county administrator will process the $5,000 disbursement from the specified special projects fund after confirming that Centergy meets the funding contingency and will schedule a presentation of study findings to the board.