Marathon Co. considers nixing $30 monthly internet stipend

As Marathon County supervisors prepare to tackle a challenging 2026 budget cycle, one line item with minimal impact on overall county spending but potentially significant implications for board members’ personal spending is already stirring some debate.

At an Executive Committee meeting last Thursday, members discussed a proposal to eliminate a $30 per month stipend available to all 38 board members as partial reimbursement for at-home internet service needed to do their jobs as elected officials. At most, if every member of the board were to claim the stipend, the budget impact would be just under $14,000 per year (.007 percent of the $200 million budget).

The reimbursement was put into place as part of a 2014 resolution related to the purchase of iPads for board members to more easily transmit and review agendas and packets, as recommended by the Technology Task Force.

In going through the county’s budget line by line, county administrator Lance Leonhard said he and other administrators came across the reimbursement, which he called an “artifact” of a resolution adopted more than 10 years ago. Leonhard said similar reimbursements are not offered to any county employees, including those in Social Services who work remotely. “If this were a department, I would cut it, I’ll just be very direct with you,” he told supervisors. “But, again, I work for you, not the other way around.”

Chairman Kurt Gibbs expressed support for cutting the stipend, noting that the availability of internet access has increased over the past decade with the proliferation of smartphones and WiFi hotspots.

“I believe we can show that the county board is doing its part by eliminating, potentially, that $30 reimbursement,” he said. “It’s not a lot, but it is still $14,000 in the budget.”

Gibbs also noted that county board members are tentatively set to receive a 3 percent increase in their annual salaries for the 20262028 term, which must be set in November before candidates can take out nomination papers to run for office in April 2026.

Vice-chairman Chris Dickinson, however, noted that not every supervisor claims the stipend, so he wanted to know the actual cost to the county. County clerk Kim Trueblood said only about half of the board’s 38 members currently accept the reimbursement, but that number varies from term to term.

“So, $14,000, although budgeted, is not really accurate in what the actual costs are, it’s fair to say?” he said.

Thirty board members claimed the stipend last term, Trueblood noted, and that number will change once again when the new board is sworn in next year.

When Dickinson asked if any county employees are provided with county-issued cell phones, Leonhard acknowledged that several of them are, especially in the sheriff’s department. He also said that some departments do offer cell phone stipends, but he is looking to eliminate that practice by the end of this year.

Dickinson noted that some supervisors could actually see a decrease in their compensation if the board proceeds with a 3 percent increase in salaries (plus $180) and eliminates the internet stipend at the same time (minus $360). He said this seems counterproductive when elected officials are expected to participate in remote meetings through WebEx.

While county employees may lose their cell phone stipends, Dickinson said supervisors “are not employees.”

“So, I would not be in favor,” he said.

Supervisor Stacy Morache, said she is in favor of eliminating the stipend, while supervisor Jean Maszk said she agrees with Dickinson, noting that supervisors need internet access to do their jobs.

“The rates are not going down for internet,” she said. “Mine keep going up, and probably, if I didn’t have to have it for the county board, I would eliminate it completely.”

Supervisor John Robinson said the Human Resources, Finance and Capital Committee, which is in charge of recommending board salaries, could take Dickinson’s concerns into account by perhaps offsetting the loss of the stipends with higher pay in the first year of the next term.

Robinson made a motion to rescind the 2014 resolution that included the $30 reimbursement, and it was seconded by Morache.

Dickinson, however, said there’s no guarantee that the HRFC will go along with Robinson’s idea of offsetting the loss of the stipend, so it put supervisors in a predicament by asking them to eliminate the stipend first.

Leonhard said he was simply looking for guidance on developing the budget, and didn’t think it was necessary to rescind the resolution.

“I’m not going to balance the budget on $14,000…or whatever the number actually is,” he said.

With a maximum impact of $14,000 on the budget, Dickinson said he wonders why “we don’t pay the same amount of attention to the significant costs of positions, or projects or rolling grants over without coming back to the board for a vote.”

Robinson withdrew his motion and agreed to take up the issue of the internet stipend at the same time the HRFC discusses board salaries for the 2026-2028 term.

“From the perspective of impacting the budget, it’s inconsequential, potentially,” he said.