County board adopts revised TIF resolution
A resolution seeking greater scrutiny of TIF districts in Marathon County was adopted by the county board Tuesday after two attempts to toughen the language failed.
Supervisors voted 25 to 7 to approve a resolution recommended by the Extension, Education and Economic Development Committee (EEEDC), which endorsed a version of the document that was at odds with the original author, Peter Weinschenk of Edgar, who called for more stringent limits on the use of tax-incremental financing (TIF).
The revised resolution first came before the board in June, but it was sent back to the EEEDC for further discussion after Weischenk and others raised concerns about what they saw as watered-down language written by supervisor Randy Fifrick. Members of the committee voted 5-1 to send the same wording back to the full board for another vote.
Supervisor Tom Rosenberg, the only member of the EEEDC to vote against recommending the resolution, proposed two amendments at Tuesday’s meeting that were both defeated. One of those amendments would have required the county’s representative to apply 10 standards set by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue when voting on the creation, extension or alteration of any TIF district in the county.
TIF districts are designated areas within a municipality where the property taxes generated by any new developments are used to pay for local infrastructure improvements and other economic incentives instead of being shared with the county, school district and technical schools. Marathon County currently has 40 active TIF districts (also called TIDs), with a combined total of nearly $1.3 billion in property value that is essentially off-limits to normal taxation, leaving taxpayers outside TIDs to make up the difference.
The county’s finance director, a position currently filled by Sam Fenzke, has traditionally represented the county on Joint Review Boards (JRBs), which are made up of taxing jurisdictions that are asked to forfeit tax revenue on new developments.
Rosenberg said the county’s JRB representatives have always been “informed, thoughtful and knowledgeable,” but he hopes the resolution will prompt other JRB members (from municipalities, school districts and tech schools) to “more closely examine” their votes on TIF proposals.
Supervisor Stacey Morache, chair of the EEEDC, expressed concerns about inserting the word “require” into a resolution.
“When you use the word require in municipal resolutions, it can act as a regulator or possibly mandate conduct with the same force and effect as an ordinance,” she said. “It could face legal challenges if the resolution was not enacted with the same formalities as an ordinance.”
Corporation counsel Michael Puerner said he believes the word “require” can be used in a resolution, but it could be seen as conflicting when the resolution is also directing the county’s representative to use his or her own discretion when evaluating TIF proposals.
County administrator Lance Leonhard wondered how Fenzke was supposed to answer some of questions posed by the 10 DOR standards, such as “the general opinion of county residents” about a TIF proposal or how a new TID will “affect the demand for services” in the county.
Morache said the resolution, as revised, accomplishes the goal of providing additional guidance to Fenzke, who has already used the 10 standards when casting votes at JRB meetings.
“This is not meant to reform how TIFs are managed in this county,” she said. “If reform is what is desired, that has to happen at the state level. There’s only so much that we can do.”
Rosenberg’s first motion failed on a 5-26 vote. His second amendment would have required the county rep to only vote for TIF districts that repay taxpayers within 38 years of their creation.
Some supervisors raised concerns about the 38-year timespan conflicting with state statute, but Puerner said that number does, in fact, correspond with the “sum total” of years that a TID can remain open under the current law, which allows for limited extensions beyond 20 years under certain circumstances.
Supervisor John Robinson reminded other board members that the county’s representative is one of five voting members on a JRB, and the county can only direct that one representative on how to vote while trying to encourage greater discussion among the other four members. He referred to Fenzke as “the new sheriff in town” who is now applying the county’s preferred guidelines to her recent voting decisions.
“We’ve cast more no votes on TIF amendments in the last couple months than we have in the last 20 years,” he said, noting that Fenzke’s stance will hopefully inspire other JRB members to be more critical in the future.
When it comes to the 38-year payback, Robinson said he expects most TIF districts will reimburse taxpayers long before that, but he understands why some may need to go longer, especially in cases where environmental remediation is required before development.
Rosenberg’s second amendment failed, 1517, and Rosenberg ended up voting in favor of the revised resolution.
One amendment was adopted. Introduced by Robinson, it requires the finance director to report back to the EEEDC and the full board on or before Aug. 1, 2026, detailing how the county’s new guidelines have impacted JRB deliberations. He said he hopes this becomes an annual report to the board.
During last Thursday’s educational meeting, Weinschenk urged the board to reject the resolution as revised by Fifrick, and demand more accountability and a guaranteed returnon- investment for taxpayers.
“If you fail to impose reasonable limits on TIF now, it will become something local government will never be able to control,” he said. “TIF always wants more. It is never satisfied.”
Fifrick said TIF districts are essential for economic development and help pay for public infrastructure improvements, such as new roads and utility extensions, that would otherwise have to be paid with municipal budgets.
“This saves property taxpayers money,” he said. “Instead of having to spend general fund money to pay for roads, the tax increment money is used for a new development that would not have occurred otherwise.”
