Marathon County staff give Budget 101 orientation; supervisors set priorities for July 'bucket' exercise

Marathon County staff delivered a Budget 101 orientation for newly seated supervisors, walking through how the county builds its operating and capital budgets, the limits imposed by Wisconsin’s levy rules and the calendar leading to a November budget adoption.

Lance, a county staff member presenting the fiscal framework, said the operating levy — distinct from debt, library and bridge/culvert levies — is governed by Wisconsin’s levy limit and funds day-to-day services such as personnel and fringe benefits. "The operating levy is important because that's governed by Wisconsin's levy limit," Lance told the board, explaining why equalized value changes can lower the tax rate even as levy dollars rise.

Sam Wrench, a county staff member who covered historical levy and revenue charts, said the county continues to budget conservatively for sales-tax receipts to preserve capital rollover funds. "On this slide we have the historical levy information," Sam said, noting that although levy totals have generally grown since 2014, the county’s tax rate has often fallen when equalized values rise.

Administration officials summarized the sources of county revenue: property taxes and sales taxes together account for a large share of locally controlled revenue, while shared state and federal aid and program fees make up the balance. Staff described the different funding tools: operating revenues support services and staff; capital projects (buildings, rolling stock) can be financed through borrowing. Because Wisconsin limits levy growth, officials said some counties shift costs to capital borrowing or seek alternative revenue to preserve operating capacity.

Staff identified three principal drivers of equalized-value growth: tax-increment-district timing, net new construction and broad housing-value inflation. Sam said the county will report a preliminary net-new-construction estimate in August; current staff estimates discussed during the meeting put that figure at about 1.61%, worth roughly $850,000–$900,000 in levy capacity for the operating levy.

The board also heard a summary of the county’s fund-balance policy. Administration described new working-capital guidance that sets a 25% minimum and a 30% maximum target of operating expenditures; if the county falls below that range it must be addressed in the next budget cycle. The policy and conservative revenue forecasting help the county roll excess year-end funds into the capital-improvement plan (CIP). Staff reported 2027 CIP rollover on track to be just under $5 million, supplemented by project underruns and sales-tax receipts.

On debt, officials reviewed the county’s outstanding general-obligation schedule and noted several years (around 2029–2031) when debt service declines, creating capacity for new projects. Administrator Leonard described a potential funding path for a proposed highway shop: the county has $30 million already allocated from highway reserves and would need an additional estimated $20–$25 million. Leonard said one option is to reallocate payments that North Central Health Care currently uses to service previously issued debt, apply that debt service to the highway project, and avoid new borrowing — a move staff estimated could save $6 million–$12 million in borrowing costs.

For capital planning, Chris (county staff) said the five-year CIP process has been strengthened; tentative project lists have been presented to the Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee and staff will return to the board with a prioritized list in light of available funds.

Looking ahead, staff outlined a July "bucket" allocation exercise to help supervisors prioritize limited new dollars across competing needs — salary and step increases, health insurance, the sheriff-deputy contract and program expansions such as Crisis Assessment Response Team (CART) initiatives. The administrator plans to present the formal budget in September and the board will adopt it in November, with committee review in the interim.

Supervisors questioned the administration on expenditure restraint (the county is not eligible), the allocation of interest income across funds (statutory restrictions apply), and how fee increases affect lower-income residents. Several supervisors warned that raising user fees can disproportionately affect residents with limited means; staff agreed to support requests for impact information at the committee level.

The meeting closed with procedural business and directions for staff to return with requested data and follow-ups. The board’s next steps are the July bucket exercise, committee-level fee/priority reviews, and presentation of the administrator’s budget in September for committee consideration before the November adoption.

The board voted on several routine and CIP amendments later in the meeting (see "Votes at a glance" article for specifics).