On Thursday, October 8, the Clark County Board met at the Courthouse in Neillsville at 7 p.m. After the call to order and the pledge of allegiance, roll call was taken with 26  present for the meeting, three were absent.

The first order of business was BoldPath Consulting's presentation of Organizational Assessment Survey Findings by Patrick Glynn. The survey was given to all 493 employees of the county, 300 responded, giving a 60.9% response rate. BoldPath Consulting holds every individual response, the county only receives the combined results. The survey is confidential, no one at the county has seen, or will see, any individual response. Employees were told to rate each statement on a five-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, with each statement also offering no basis to judge. The last four questions were answered by employees in their own words. The lowest section was county leadership at 29% favorable, with first year employees rating county leadership at 59% and employees working for 16 or more years with the county rating it at 17.4%. The highest section was meaningful work at 75.5%, with 70.3% satisfied working for Clark County, and 73.4% expecting to work for the county for two years. After Glynn went through their process and how to read the numbers, he came away with two major requests from the employees. The first is to be listened to and seen, especially the people doing the work and not just the department heads. The second was concerning communication across the county; employees would like to learn of decisions before they take effect. Glynn highlighted that retaliation is never an answer and that this survey was primarily a pulse check to see where improvements are needed. The problems that the survey highlighted are not the current board’s creation, but it is their problem. The findings do not explain why employees hold the beliefs they do and the findings can’t speak for those that did not respond. Glynn said that now it is up to the county board to decide what to do with the findings. He went through and explained things that the board can do now, begin within the next year, and across the next several years. Only 28.4% of county employees expect the county to use the results to make real improvements. Glynn urged the county board to prove them wrong. The full report is available for public record by contacting the county’s Personnel Department.

The next item on the agenda was the budget presentation by Heather Roman. She highlighted how budgeting works, who is involved, the process, what the budget supports, the levy limits under Wisconsin law, and how the allowable levy is calculated. Roman went on to explain that the budget isn’t to just make things balanced and to make the numbers work. It is to adopt a budget that the county can execute and sustain. The proposed budget has $108.93 million in total expenditures, $108.93 million in total revenues, $23.31 million in property tax levy, and $11.09 million in fund balance used. Of the proposed 2027 budget, 49.86% is being spent on wages and benefits, 29.39% on operations, 16.12% on contracts, and 4.63% on capital outlay. The bulk of the 2027 budget will be funded locally (43.29%) with the rest being funded by the levy, federal and state grants, fund balance, debt transfers, special revenue transfers, and other sources. Roman also explained the county’s fund structure and how each fund has legal restrictions, grant rules, dedicated revenues, accounting purposes and board policy to determine how those resources may be used. She walked through the calculation for equalized value which affects the borrowing limit and the short-term debt. By issuing short-term debt for 2027, the county can maintain a steady, predictable levy rate for taxpayers. Without the proposed debt, the levy would drop temporarily and then spike sharply in future years when new debt becomes unavoidable. The county must operate within strict state-mandated limits on how they raise property taxes and fund the budget; because of those limits, the short-term debt becomes a financial tool for funding major projects, such as highway paving. The resolution to approve the short-term debt requires 3/4 approval of the county board. Roman then went through the budget predictions for the next several years and the tax levy breakdown.

Riley Ashbeck asked if the short-term debt affected taxes. Roman went through the calculation using the levy, mill rate, and equalized valuation and that the short-term debt allows for a 20-year rotation on road maintenance rather than a 45 year rotation. Leonard Stoecker asked what would happen if the county didn’t take on the debt. Roman said that next year, the amount would have to double and that the state levy limits were the issue. Another question was asked that if we have the money to pay the debt, why don’t we just pay. The rules are solid and the debt is a way to get around the levy limit. It was pointed out that the simplified version is that we have money, but we can’t spend that money, but if the county borrows money, they can spend it, with gaining and losing interest in the process. And the projects that the debt covers are mostly highway projects that uses an Enterprise Fund that has different rules. Ashley Thielman asked if they could see how the 2026 year is actually doing compared to what was budgeted. Roman said it’s hard to do a comparison in the middle of the year, but the 2025 Financial Report would be the best way to show how it compares. Duane Boon asked if projects could be cut so that the short-term debt wasn’t so high and that they could cut ‘wants’. It was pointed out that cutting it now would only mean it would have to go up in the future. Kenneth Gerhardt pointed out that their current issue with the 1897 Jail is exactly why you don’t put off projects indefinitely. Fred Schindler pointed out that they are arguing over a short-term debt that is paid off in one month, not the long-term debt. The last concern was if they went to different banks for this debt. Roman said they didn’t, just the Citizen’s State Bank that the county does all their financing with, but they could look into comparison shopping for next year.

The next item on the agenda was approving the 2027 Non-Union Base Wage Increases. A motion was proposed by Roy Tyznik, seconded by Arlene Kodl. After a brief discussion about differing amounts of increases every year based on the CPI, and that they are trying to keep up with the times so that they don’t have to have a giant jump in a single year, it passed with 18 yes and 8 no. The next item was to approve the 2027 County Aid for Bridge and Culvert Construction and Repair. A motion was proposed by Joe Waichulis, seconded by Scott Johnson and passed. The next item was Authorizing the Borrowing and Issuance of Promissory Note for the 2027 budget, or borrowing a $6 million short-term debt that would be paid back a month later. Duane Boon proposed an amendment to alter the amount from $6 million to $5.5 million. Leonard Stoecker asked if that happened what it would change. Roman said that the budget would no longer be balanced and that the finance committee would have to meet several times to discuss things to be cut from the budget and the entire budget would have to be adjusted. Duane Boon seemed optimistic that they could find $500 thousand worth of unnecessary projects to cut. Joe Waichulis thinks that its dangerous to cut that kind of money from the budget, and Fred Schindler agreed that it would be a bad idea. Brandon Hasz brought up that there was a time to discuss this kind of change, but that the county board meeting was not the time for it. Hasz also mentioned that the county has a modest decrease in their long-term debt year over year and this is the responsible route. Otherwise the county would play catch up in three or four years’ time. Leonard Stoecker said that they could look at the possibility for next year and give all the departments notice. The amendment failed 4 Yes, 22 No. The approval of the short-term debt passed 25 Yes, 1 No. The board expressed its condolences to the family of Diane Feiten, a former member of the Clark County Board of Supervisors.

The last item on the agenda was to approve the Amendments to Clark County Code of Ordinances, in regard to the Clark County Governing Bodies Rules. A motion was made by Jill Hoff, seconded by Scott Jalling. There was an amendment brought forth by Carl Kallberg, that was concerned about the need for board approval in 11-h-ii. He understands the concept, but thought that it could be manipulated. The motion died and the approval of the amendment passed. The approval of the September meeting minutes was proposed by Duane Boon, seconded by Joe Waichulis and passed. The next meeting is set for Tuesday, November 10 at 7 p.m.