TIF resolution headed back to county board
Despite objections from the original author, a rewritten resolution regarding Marathon County’s position on tax-incremental financing (TIF) is headed back to the county board for another vote later this month.
The Extension, Education and Economic Development Committee (EEEDC) voted 51 last Thursday to advance a new resolution to the board, with supervisor Tom Rosenberg casting the lone no vote. The resolution would direct the county’s representative on Joint Review Boards to consider 10 questions regarding the necessity, viability and long term benefits for the county and its taxpayers before voting on a new TIF proposals.
A previous version of the resolution had gone before the board at its June 24 meeting, but supervisors voted to send it back to the EEEDC for clarification.
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 JRBs, which are composed of representatives of taxing jurisdictions that are asked to forfeit tax revenue on new developments. The main point of contention in the resolution regards the lifespan of proposed TIF districts, which can stretch on for decades before they close, at which point the new property value can be taxed by the county, public schools and technical colleges.
Edgar resident Peter Weinschenk, who drafted the original resolution for supervisors to consider, would like the county to demand that a TIF district close once it has “repaid” taxpayers for the extra money they have to pay while the district is active. No TIF district should have a lifespan longer than 38 years, he proposed.
Supervisor Randy Fifrick, vice-chair of the EEEDC, says Weinschenk’s analysis of TIF districts is “flawed” because it assumes that the same level of development would occur without a TIF district in place. Fifrick said the whole point of TIF districts is to promote developments that would not otherwise happen, arguing that they actually save taxpayers money by paying for road and infrastructure improvements that would normally be paid for out of the municipality’s general fund.
“In a competitive state and national landscape, restricting this already limited economic development tool could result in missed opportunities, stagnant growth and diminished quality of life for our residents,” he said. During public comment at last week’s meeting, Weinschenk used Wausau’s TIF district #12 as an example of a TID that will take decades to pay back taxpayers for the extra money they have to pay. TIF 12 is scheduled to close in 2041, but by Weinshenk’s calculations, taxpayers would not be compensated until 2074 – 57 years.
Weinschenk said his original resolution would demand better project planning by municipalities that create TIF districts so that the districts would pay back their expenses quicker. He said his goal is to get the county to do more to promote responsible TIF proposals.
“If you do less, you run the risk of creating badly planned, distressed TIDs that require extensions,” he said. “That means you get more 57-year paybacks.”
Dave Baker, village of Kronenwetter president, also addressed the committee, expressing concerns about the county trying to place further restrictions on TIF districts at the same time his municipality is considering a new TID to provide roads and utilities for a proposed subdivision that promises to add 110 homes and add over $35 million in new construction. Baker said he has put the TIF process on hold while the county considers its resolution.
“I can’t justify spending personal or village resources on a potential new TIF district with the current level of county-generated uncertainty and risk,” he said. “Unfortunately, suspending the potential TID formation process also puts the proposed subdivision at risk.”
The committee’s discussion focused on both the benefits and drawbacks of TIF districts, with Rosenberg questioning how the resolution would address “distressed” TIDs that fail to generate enough development to pay back their expenses, and “donor” TIDs that are used to prop up those that run a deficit.
Supervisor Ann Lemmer said she’s heard from at least a dozen constituents who are not happy with how TIF districts are being used, but she also believes that it’s up to the state legislature, not the county board, to make reforms.
“That’s where the advocacy should be happening, not really here,” she said.
Supervisor Wayne Hagen said a TID in the village of Spencer was “not in good shape,” but with the help of consultants, the village was able to turn it around and spur new development.
“I think Spencer has really benefited greatly from their TID,” he said. “It’s really grown our community, grown our industrial park.”
The resolution will be voted on at the board’s July 22 meeting.
Update on Marathon Hall
County administrator Lance Leonhard updated the committee on a proposal by a nonprofit to buy the old Marathon Hall building on Wausau’s UW campus and transform it into housing center for newly arrived refugees, college students and homeless women.
In June, the Ethiopian Community Development Council - Multicultural Community Center (ECDD-MCC) offered to buy the building at 518 S. 7th Ave., Wausau, for a nominal fee and spend its own money to renovate and remodel the old dorm into a multi-purpose facility.
Leonhard and other county officials have questioned how much money it would take to bring the old building up to code.
“Suffice it to say, that building is in really rough shape,” he said, noting that the concrete structure makes renovations difficult to do.
Still, he noted that past attempts to sell the building to a private developer for housing have failed, and if the ECDD wants to try and make it work for its own purposes, the county’s liability would be minimal. Under the non-profit’s offer, the building would be returned to the county if the proposed shelter never came to be or ceased operations after renovations were made.
“If they aren’t successful, you are in the same position as you are now, or perhaps if they are marginally successful, you’re in a better position,” Leonhard told supervisors.
Still, supervisors questioned whether the nonprofit had the financial resources to make the necessary improvements and asked Leonhard to see if he could find out more.
Supervisor Fifrick said he thought the proposal had potential, especially since the county has been unable to find any other use for the building.
“Right now I think this is the best low-risk option we have,” he said. “I always just assumed that we would end up demoing this building one day.”
Supervisor Morache, however, said she’s heard from several constituents who are opposed to the idea and believe the building should be torn down.
“On the surface it sounds like a great idea and a good use of the building,” she said. “I’ve been wondering if we could do something like this for years, but with the condition of the building, it really doesn’t seem that feasible to me.”
Before supervisors accept an offer from the ECDD, Morache said she would like the county to send out request for proposals to other nonprofits and to have some sort of decision made before Leonhard presents his 2026 budget proposal to the board in September.
