Marathon County’s proposed 2027 budget would shift $3.5 million in North Central Health Care (NCHC) payments onto the property-tax-supported debt levy. County officials have described the County’s financial situation as one in which delaying that shift would cause financial pain.
But there is another part of the County’s financial picture that deserves closer examination: its investment earnings.
According to Marathon County’s 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), the County reported more than $30.5 million in unrestricted investment earnings over the three-year period from 2023 through 2025.
That is a substantial amount of reported investment income. It raises reasonable questions about how much of that income is recurring, how it is distributed among County funds, and how it is considered when the County makes decisions about borrowing, reserves, capital projects, and property taxes.
I want to be clear about something at the outset: I am not suggesting that all investment earnings are available to spend, or that investment income alone can solve the County’s budget challenges. Some funds have restrictions, and reported investment earnings can include changes in the market value of investments rather than cash interest actually received.
But when taxpayers are being asked to accept a significant increase in the debt levy, shouldn’t they be given the full picture of the County’s financial resources?
More Than $30 Million in Reported Investment Earnings in Three Years
The ACFR’s Statistical Section reports the following unrestricted investment earnings:
| Year | Governmental Activities | Business-Type Activities | Combined Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | $8,468,000 | $1,247,000 | $9,715,000 |
| 2024 | $6,847,000 | $3,276,000 | $10,123,000 |
| 2025 | $7,039,000 | $3,629,000 | $10,668,000 |
| Three-year total | $22,354,000 | $8,152,000 | $30,506,000 |
These are countywide figures covering governmental and business-type activities. They are not General Fund earnings alone, and they should not be interpreted as money that can automatically be transferred to the General Fund or used to reduce property taxes.
Nevertheless, the figures are significant. The County reported an average of more than $10 million per year in unrestricted investment earnings during this period.
How much of that income is recurring? How much is attributable to changes in the value of investments? And how much is actually available to support County operations and capital projects?
Those are important questions when the County is making decisions that affect taxpayers for years to come.
The 2025 Budget Report Raises Additional Questions
The County’s FY2025 financial reports (unaudited) provide another useful perspective. They show the amended budget and actual year-to-date amounts for the account titled “Interest on Investments.”
The figures are striking:
| Department or Fund | 2025 Amended Budget | 2025 Actual |
|---|---|---|
| General Fund departments and cost centers | $151,443 | $2,718,389 |
| Social Improvement Fund | $54,000 | $490,309 |
| Opioid Fund | $0 | $95,297 |
| Parks Fund | $23,700 | $66,336 |
| Grants Fund | $1,040 | $819,617 |
| Debt Service Fund | $152,300 | $0 |
| Capital Projects Fund | $0 | $179,932 |
| Landfill Fund | $25,000 | $562,131 |
| Central Wisconsin Airport Fund | $24,000 | $325,601 |
| Highway Fund | $300,000 | $3,066,905 |
| Employee Benefits Insurance Fund | $0 | $741,552 |
| Property and Casualty Insurance Fund | $0 | $245,297 |
| ADRC Fund | $0 | $11,755 |
| Total | $731,483 | $9,323,121 |
The General Fund figure is the total of the departments and cost centers that reported interest in this account. The remaining entries are separate County funds.
The County budgeted approximately $731,000 in interest on investments across these reports, but actual reported interest was more than $9.3 million—over $8.5 million above budget.
Two entries stand out. The Highway Fund reported approximately $3.07 million against a $300,000 amended budget. The General Fund’s County Non-Departmental account alone reported approximately $2.58 million, despite having no amended budget for that revenue.
These figures do not establish that the County could have used all of this income to reduce the tax levy. They do, however, demonstrate why taxpayers and Supervisors should want a better understanding of how investment income is forecast and accounted for.
Why was the budget so far below actual investment income? How much of the difference was interest actually earned? How much resulted from changes in investment values? And how are those earnings incorporated into the County’s financial planning?
Not All Investment Earnings Are the Same
There is an important qualification to the numbers above.
Marathon County invests money belonging to multiple County funds. Its ACFR explains that investments are reported at fair value, and changes in fair value are recorded as increases or decreases in investment income.
That accounting treatment matters.
When interest rates rise, the market value of existing bonds that pay lower interest rates generally declines. I remember that during my time on the County Board, the County experienced substantial investment losses as interest rates increased. My understanding at the time was that much of those losses were unrealized market-value losses: the County expected to hold the bonds rather than sell them at depressed prices.
As interest rates and market conditions subsequently changed, the market value of some of those investments could recover.
Consequently, the investment earnings reported in recent years may reflect more than interest actually received. They may include ordinary interest income, realized gains or losses from investments sold, and unrealized gains or losses resulting from changes in market value.
At this point, I do not have the information necessary to determine how much of the County’s recent reported earnings came from each of those sources. I also cannot say how much of the recent earnings represents recovery of earlier market-value losses.
It would be a mistake to assume that all $30.5 million represents new, recurring cash income. But it would be equally mistaken to ignore the earnings simply because some portion may reflect changes in investment values.
The public deserves to know what the numbers actually represent.
Why This Matters to the 2027 Budget
This is not an abstract accounting question. It is directly relevant to the funding decisions before the County Board.
The proposed 2027 budget moves the full $3.5 million NCHC payment onto the debt levy. That means the property-tax-supported debt levy increases by that amount.
County officials have argued that the County needs to implement this strategy to avoid financial pain and maintain its ability to fund other priorities. But the County also has a substantial investment portfolio generating significant reported earnings.
The 2025 ACFR reports approximately $185 million in total deposits and investments at year-end. Not all of that is invested in the same way, and not all of it is available for any particular purpose. Still, it is a substantial financial resource that deserves to be understood when the County evaluates its options.
If the County’s investment earnings are largely recurring interest income, that is useful information. If a substantial portion comes from market-value recovery or other one-time changes, that is useful information too.
The answer matters when evaluating the County’s financial flexibility and the choices available to the Board.
The point is not that investment income should automatically replace property taxes. The point is that taxpayers should not be asked to accept a major tax increase without a clear explanation of the County’s overall financial position.
A Request for Answers Before the November 10 Budget Vote
There is not much time left before the County Board votes on the 2027 budget. I believe Supervisors should ask Finance Director Fenske to provide a clear breakdown of the County’s 2025 investment earnings before that vote.
Specifically, I believe the Finance Director should be asked to provide:
- Actual interest income: How much interest was actually earned and received on the County’s investments in 2025?
- Realized gains and losses: How much resulted from investments that were sold during the year, including any realized gains or losses?
- Unrealized fair-value adjustments: How much of the reported investment income resulted from increases or decreases in the market value of investments that the County continued to hold?
- Allocation among funds: How were the earnings and fair-value adjustments allocated among the General Fund, Highway Fund, Debt Service Fund, and other County funds?
- Availability and restrictions: Which portions of the earnings are available to support County operations or capital projects, and which are restricted or otherwise committed to particular purposes?
I would also ask the Finance Director to reconcile the approximately $9.32 million reported as actual “Interest on Investments” in the FY2025 budget financial schedules with the approximately $10.67 million in unrestricted investment earnings reported in the ACFR. These reports may measure different things, but the County should be able to explain the difference.
This is not an unreasonable request. The County maintains these records, and the information is directly relevant to the budget decision Supervisors are about to make.
Waiting until after the budget is approved would defeat much of the purpose. Supervisors need this information before they vote, so they can evaluate the County’s financial flexibility with a more complete understanding of its investment income.
Taxpayers Deserve the Full Picture
I support construction of the new Highway facility. I also support the goal of financing the remaining project cost without additional borrowing.
But supporting the project does not mean accepting every proposed funding strategy without asking questions.
The County has reported more than $30 million in unrestricted investment earnings over three years. Its 2025 financial schedules show actual interest on investments substantially exceeding the amended budget. Those figures deserve an explanation, particularly when the County is telling taxpayers that its financial circumstances leave little room for alternatives.
We need to understand how much of this income is recurring, how much reflects changes in investment values, how it is distributed among County funds, and how much financial flexibility it provides.
I am not claiming that these numbers prove the County can avoid the proposed tax increase. I am saying that we should not make a decision affecting taxpayers for years to come without first understanding them.
Before the November 10 budget vote, I hope Supervisors will ask the Finance Director to provide the breakdown and reconciliation described above. Taxpayers deserve to know the full financial picture before being asked to pay more.
Primary sources
- Marathon County 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)
- Statistical Section, Schedule 2, Changes in Net Position, Last Ten Fiscal Years, printed page 106/ pdf page 158.
- The 2 rows titled Unrestricted Investment Earnings provides the 2023, 2024, and 2025 figures used in the article:
- 2023: $9.715 million
- 2024: $10.123 million
- 2025: $10.668 million
- Note 3, Deposits and Investments, explains the County’s investment reporting, fair-value measurement, and allocation of investment income.
- Marathon County Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee packet — March 24, 2026
- Financial reports identified as FY2025 – Dec.
- Account 48110, Interest on Investments.
- The reports provide the amended budget and actual amounts used for the $9,323,121 total.
- The individual figures can be verified in the following reports:
- General Fund departments and cost centers: County Non-Departmental, Clerk of Courts, Treasurer, Library, and Sheriff.
- Other County funds: Social Improvement, Opioid, Parks, Grants, Debt Service, Capital Projects, Landfill, Central Wisconsin Airport, Highway, Employee Benefits Insurance, Property and Casualty Insurance, ADRC, and Investment Pool.
- Marathon County 2027 Proposed Budget
- Page 18 and the associated debt-service and capital-project budget schedules.
- These are the sources for the proposed $3.5 million shift of NCHC payments to the debt levy.
- Marathon County ACFR — Note 3, Deposits and Investments,
- This is particularly important for understanding why reported investment earnings do not necessarily equal cash interest received.
- It explains the County’s fair-value accounting and investment practices.
- Printed page 28/ pdf pate 70
The FY2025 budget-report figures and the ACFR investment-earnings figures come from different financial reporting schedules. They should not be treated as identical measures. The Finance Director should be asked to explain and reconcile the difference.