Marathon County’s new Highway facility is needed. The question is how the County should pay for it—and how much of the cost should be shifted onto property taxpayers in 2027.
On November 10, the Marathon County Board of Supervisors will vote on the County’s 2027 budget. One of the most consequential decisions in that budget concerns the financing of the new Highway Department facility in Kronenwetter.
I want to be clear about where I stand: I support building the new facility. I support the decision to avoid additional borrowing for it. I am not challenging the project’s estimated cost of approximately $55 million.
My concern is the financing strategy—and, specifically, the decision to move the entire $3.5 million North Central Health Care (NCHC) payment onto the County’s debt-service levy in 2027.
I believe this decision deserves more discussion before the Board commits to it.
How the financing strategy works
The County has already designated $30 million in Highway reserves for the new facility. The remaining funding gap is approximately $25 million.
NCHC makes annual payments to the County under an agreement involving the Lake View Campus buildings. In the past, those payments helped offset the County’s debt payments associated with the buildings. Under the new financing strategy, the NCHC payments will instead be used to help pay for the Highway facility and other capital projects.
That means the County’s debt payments do not disappear. Instead, the debt-service levy paid by property taxpayers must cover the amount that NCHC previously helped pay.
For 2027, the NCHC payment is approximately $3.5 million. The proposed budget shifts that full amount to the debt-service levy in the first year.
This is not a separate tax like the wheel tax. It is a change in how the County pays its existing debt obligations. But the effect is real: more of the debt payment is being collected through property taxes rather than being offset by NCHC payments.
Was the full shift supposed to happen in one year?
When the Board considered Resolution R-49-26 in August, the resolution called for a “phased implementation” of NCHC revenues within the project budget.
At the August 6 Infrastructure Committee meeting, County Administrator Lance Leonhard described the strategy as moving eligible amounts onto the debt levy “over time,” explaining that the goal was to avoid a large spike in the tax rate.
The County’s financial adviser, PFM, also presented scenarios that phased in the shift over two or three years. According to the Wausau Pilot & Review, those scenarios would have added approximately $1.67 million to $2.89 million to the 2027 debt-service levy.
The proposed 2027 budget instead shifts the full $3.5 million in the first year.
The County has offered an explanation for the change. Administrator Leonhard said the earlier scenarios were based on assumptions about future property-value growth. Actual growth was sufficient, he said, to move the full payment onto the debt-service levy while keeping the tax rate from increasing.
That is an important part of the discussion. The proposed County tax rate is approximately $3.48 per $1,000 of equalized value, slightly below the 2026 rate. But the total property-tax levy is increasing by approximately $5 million, and the debt-service levy is increasing from about $4.51 million to $7.71 million.
A lower tax rate does not necessarily mean a lower tax bill. Property values have increased, and the County’s own figures show that the average homeowner will pay more in County property taxes.
The question for supervisors is not simply whether the County can move the full payment onto the levy without increasing the tax rate. It is whether doing so immediately is the best decision for taxpayers and the County’s long-term financial position.
The County’s argument deserves consideration
There are legitimate reasons the County wants to make the shift now.
The County plans to lend itself up to $25 million from its General Fund as construction expenses come due. That internal loan will need to be repaid. According to the County, delaying the shift to the debt-service levy would make it harder to repay that loan, reduce the money available for annual capital projects, and potentially increase the need to borrow for other projects in future years.
Administrator Leonhard described the consequences of delaying the strategy as “stretching out the pain” of not being able to fund other capital improvement projects.
Finance Director Samantha Fenske also explained that money set aside for the Highway facility is currently held in County investments. Repaying the internal loan sooner would restore investment income that the County relies on.
These are important considerations. The County has significant capital needs, and I do not dismiss the consequences of delaying projects or the possibility that borrowing could become necessary.
But those arguments do not eliminate the need to examine other available resources and consider whether the full shift must happen in 2027.
The long-term impact goes beyond the Highway facility
There is another part of this strategy that deserves attention.
The County’s financial projections show that the additional amounts shifted to the debt-service levy accumulate over many years. PFM’s slowest phase-in scenario projected approximately $62.9 million in additional debt levy through 2042. The Wausau Pilot & Review calculated that moving the full payment in 2027 would bring the cumulative amount to approximately $65 million.
Those figures are not a $63 million or $65 million tax increase in one year. They represent cumulative amounts projected to be collected through the debt-service levy over a period of years.
The Highway facility’s approximately $25 million funding gap is projected to be covered by 2033. But the County’s plan is not intended to stop there. The strategy is also intended to provide funding for other capital improvement projects.
At the August 12 Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee meeting, Finance Director Fenske discussed the possibility that, once the approximately $25 million facility funding gap is paid off, continuing the strategy could provide nearly $4 million annually for the County’s capital improvement program, in addition to whatever rollover funds might be available.
The County says its capital needs exceed that amount. That is why the strategy has implications well beyond the new Highway facility.
I am not arguing that the County should not fund future capital needs. I am arguing that residents and supervisors should understand the long-term commitment being made and have a meaningful discussion about whether this is the best way to do it.
Are there other resources that should be considered?
I have also asked whether the County can reduce the amount that must be financed through NCHC payments by examining other available resources.
For example:
- Highway reserves: The June 2026 Highway reserve information includes a $6.75 million estimate for the 2027 budget. Finance Director Fenske explained that approximately $1.91 million is designated for equipment, with the remainder likely to be spent in 2028 because of timing. She also said supervisors will consider after the annual audit how much Highway reserve money can be applied to the facility. Any additional amount would shorten the internal loan.
- County-owned property: The County has properties that may generate proceeds, including the current Highway Department site on West Street, the 28th Avenue parcels, and properties on River Drive and Thomas Street. Those properties have not yet generated proceeds, and a sale is not guaranteed. But the County has acknowledged that future proceeds could help repay the internal loan.
- Regional Forensic Science Center funds: Administrator Leonhard said that leftover funds from the project could potentially be applied to the Highway facility after the audit, although he cautioned that the County has other capital needs to consider.
I am not suggesting that all of these funds are immediately available or that they should all be directed to the Highway facility. The point is that the County has identified several possible resources, and supervisors should understand what is available before deciding how much of the NCHC payment needs to be shifted onto taxpayers immediately.
The Board still has a choice
The County has emphasized that delaying the shift could reduce the money available for other capital projects and increase the risk of borrowing in future years. That concern should be weighed seriously.
But the Board also has a responsibility to examine the timing and long-term consequences of the financing strategy. The fact that the full $3.5 million can be shifted to the debt-service levy in 2027 without raising the tax rate does not, by itself, establish that it is the best choice.
I believe the Board should consider phasing in the shift over two or three years, as PFM originally modeled, while taking a closer look at Highway reserves, property-sale proceeds, and other potential resources that could reduce the internal loan.
This is not a request to cancel the Highway facility. It is not a request to borrow more money. It is a request to take a closer look at how the County implements a major financial decision that will affect taxpayers and future capital budgets for many years.
Please contact your County Supervisor before November 10
The Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee is scheduled to consider budget amendments on Monday, November 9, at 3 p.m. The full County Board is scheduled to vote on the 2027 budget Tuesday, November 10, at 6 p.m.
If you share these concerns, please contact your County Supervisor before the vote.
Ask them to consider an amendment that phases in the $3.5 million NCHC payment shift over two or three years rather than placing the full amount on the 2027 debt-service levy. Ask them also to examine available Highway resources and potential property-sale proceeds before finalizing the financing plan.
I support the new Highway facility. I support avoiding additional borrowing for it. But I believe taxpayers deserve a more deliberate discussion of the financing strategy and its long-term consequences.
The Board has the authority to decide how much of the NCHC payment is shifted to the debt-service levy in 2027. I hope supervisors will use that authority carefully.
Sources and References
County resolutions and budget documents
- Marathon County Resolution R-49-26, Authorizing Staff to Proceed with Phase III Construction of the Proposed New Highway Facility. This resolution describes the $30 million Highway reserve allocation and calls for phased implementation of NCHC revenues within the project budget.
- Marathon County, 2027 Proposed Administrator’s Budget, including:
- The proposed 2027 NCHC payment of approximately $3.5 million and its use in the Highway facility financing strategy.
- The 2027 debt-service levy and overall property-tax levy.
- The County’s capital improvement funding plan and discussion of working capital.
- Marathon County Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee, June 23, 2026 packet, A Supervisors’ Guide to Government Budgeting & Fund Balances, Appendix III, pages 13–15. The Highway Fund balance analysis lists the $8.5 million infrastructure/state-match reserve, $3.345 million in machinery/equipment/projects encumbrances, $4.65 million Equipment Replacement Fund, $6.75 million estimated 2027 budget allocation, $30 million Highway Shop allocation, and $6.682 million working-capital calculation.
County committee meetings
- Marathon County Infrastructure Committee, August 6, 2026, approximately 46:00. County Administrator Lance Leonhard discusses moving eligible amounts onto the debt-service levy over time to avoid a large tax-rate spike.
- Marathon County Infrastructure Committee, August 6, 2026, approximately 51:23. Leonhard discusses the timing of the $30 million Highway reserve allocation and the opportunity to plan future budgets.
- Marathon County Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee, August 12, 2026, approximately 1:52:38. Finance Director Sam Fenske discusses the potential for nearly $4 million annually in capital improvement funding after the Highway facility funding gap is paid, if the strategy continues.
News coverage
- Kevin O’Brien, Record Review, November 4, 2026, “Highway funding plan questioned,” page 18.
- Shereen Siewert, Wausau Pilot & Review, November 4, 2026, “Former supervisor questions highway shop plan that could shift more than $60 million to taxpayers.” The article discusses the County’s explanation of the financing strategy, PFM’s phase-in scenarios, the internal loan, Highway reserves, potential property-sale proceeds, and the projected cumulative debt-service levy.