HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Committee - Agenda - 2/9/2023K:\Executive Committee\2023 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\02 February 09 2023\Exec Comm
Notice Agenda 2023-02-09 AMENDED.doc
Bayfield County Administrator
117 E 5th Street, PO Box 878, Washburn, WI 54891
Ph: 715-373-6181 Fx: 715-373-6153
www.Bayfieldcounty.wi.gov
Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator
Kristine Kavajecz, Human Resource Director
Paige Terry, Clerk III
BAYFIELD COUNTY
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Brett T. Rondeau, Chair Mary Dougherty
Fred Strand Dennis Pocernich
Jeff Silbert Jeremy Oswald, Vice-Chair
*** AMENDED AGENDA 02/08/2023 ***
Dear Committee Members:
This letter is written to inform you of the Bayfield County Executive Committee
Meeting scheduled for 4:00pm Thursday, February 9, 2023 in the Bayfield
County Board Room. This meeting will be held in-person and remotely.
Supervisors and the public will be able to participate in the Meeting in person
or via voice either by using the internet link or phone number below.
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer, mobile app or room device
Click here to join the meeting
Meeting ID: 279 791 325 039
Passcode: a7UdPq
Download Teams | Join on the web
Or call in (audio only)
+1 715-318-2087,,740195774# United States, Eau Claire
Phone Conference ID: 740 195 774#
Find a local number | Reset PIN
Learn More | Meeting options
Contact Bayfield County at 715-373-6181 if you have access questions or
email Mark.Abeles-Allison@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov if during the meeting.
K:\Executive Committee\2023 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\02 February 09 2023\Exec Comm
Notice Agenda 2023-02-09 AMENDED.doc
Any person wishing to attend who, because of a disability, requires special accommodations, should
contact the County Clerk’s office at 715-373-6100, at least 24 hours before the scheduled meeting
time, so appropriate arrangements can be made.
Notice is hereby given that in the event the standing committee does not have a quorum the County
Board Chair or Vice Chair may act as an ex officio member (County ordinance, Chapter 3, section 2-
3-1 (c)). Notice is hereby given that a majority of the Bayfield County Board may be present at the
meeting to gather information about a subject over which they have decision-making responsibility.
This constitutes a meeting of the Bayfield County Board pursuant to State ex rel. Badke v.
Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis. 2d 553, 494 N.W.2d 408(1993), and must be noticed as such,
although the County Board will not take any formal action at this meeting.
1) Call to Order
2) Approval of Minutes of January 12, 2023
3) Public Comment, 3 minutes per person, up to 15 minutes total
4) Discussion and Possible Action, American Birkebeiner WEDC Community Development
Investment Grant Sponsorship
5) Presentation, Town of LaPointe Regarding Ferry Line, Letter of Support Request
6) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding County Supervision Program; Barb Flynn
7) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Site Selector Project Funding at the Bayfield
County Business Park.
8) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Closed Session Attendance for Remote Attendees.
9) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Contingency Fund for Employee Training
10) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding County Carbon Offset Reserve Program
11) Discussion Regarding County Board Supervisor Technology
12) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Budget Amendments for Multiple Departments
13) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Wisconsin State Broadband Expansion Grant
Program Application and Funding
14) Reports:
a) Financial Reports including Personnel. End of December 2022 and end of January 2023
b) Treasurer’s Report, end of January 2023
c) Artesian Well Study
d) CDBG-CV
K:\Executive Committee\2023 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\02 February 09 2023\Exec Comm
Notice Agenda 2023-02-09 AMENDED.doc
e) EIGP Grant Submittals
f) County Wide EMS Update
g) Coroner Report, Suicide Counts.
h) Broadband Coverage Maps in Bayfield County
i) Town of Russel Tax Base Review
15) Closed Session: The Committee may entertain a motion to move in and out of Closed
Session pursuant to §19.85(1) (g) Conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body
who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with
respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved.
a) Discussion and Possible Action, January 12, 2023 Minutes
b) Discussion Regarding Strategy as it relates to 7th Circuit Court Decision, LCO v. Gov
Evers.
16) Adjourn
Executive Committee Narrative
Feb 9, 2023
Item 4: The American Birkebeiner in the Town of Cable has requested that
Bayfield County be the applicant for a WEDC Community Development
Investment Grant for the Mount Telemark Village Redevelopment Project.
The Birkebeiner is proposing a $9 million dollar project for the Telemark Village.
Ben Popp will be at the meeting to present. They are requesting the counties
assistance in applying for a $250k WEDC CDI grant, similar to what the county did
in the City and Town of Bayfield. Additional documents supplied by Ben are in the
dropbox.
Item 5: The Town of LaPointe has requested a letter of support from Bayfield
County for a grant they are applying for to acquire the Madeline Island Ferry Line.
It is my understanding that the existing owners approached the Town with the
idea of keeping the ownership of the ferry line local. The grant is a USDOT grant.
Mike Kutcha, the Town Administrator will attend the meeting remotely.
Item 6. Last year the Bayfield County Sheriff, Judge and DA presented a position
paper regarding a County Supervision Proposal. This would be an alternate to the
Department of Corrections Probation and Parole program. We believe county
supervision would benefit both the County and Department of Corrections.
Item 7: Prior to COVID our Bayfield County had a policy stating that if you
attended a meeting remotely you could not participate in closed sessions. The
idea was that we could not assure confidentiality of discussions.
We suspended this policy during COVID. With the national designation being
lifted in May we may want to consider changing our policy and allowing closed
session participation by remote members,
Once in closed session we could include a standard question of remote members:
“Can you confirm that you are the only person in the room and no one around
you can hear this conversation?”.
Other provisions to consider:
A. Only share paper copies of documents for those present and collected at
the end of the meeting, no on-screen documents that could be screen shot.
I surveyed other surrounding Counties; most do NOT allow remote members to
attend closed session.
Item 8: We have a number of new managers who would benefit from leadership
training. I would like to request a total of $12,000 in contingency funds be
allowed for this. We have $174k in contingency today. $12k would lower this to
$162,000.
Item 9. Attached is an updated County Carbon Offset Reserve Program.
Numerous comments and updates are incorporated here.
Item 10: Cole Rabska has worked with a WEDC Site Selector Program to assist
with recruiting new business to the Bayfield County Business Park. The program
walks an applicant through steps and processes to ensure they are ready for new
business. Once complete the state will advertise this as a ready
location. Attached is the initial report prepared by the Site Selector. Below
please find Cole’s observations.
To date overall documentation gathering, preparations, and knowledge of what is going to be
needed has been beneficial. Updating and obtaining the documents they have requested will
assist us with any/all potential site sales in the business park. It will help to advertise to the
businesses looking for shovel ready sites in Wisconsin.
The project will result in Bayfield County having a site certified spot on the WEDC Map. It may
also help other companies see that Bayfield County is willing to go through the effort of becoming
certified and willing to work with companies looking for a new location. I do believe that the
designation and the assistance of WEDC pushing/advertising our site as a site certified location
would be beneficial.
Current Certified Sites listing are on the WEDC website. At present Eagle River is the furthest
North other than the locations near Hwy 29. These business sites are viewable here:
https://inwisconsin.com/doing-business-in-wisconsin/available-sites/certified-sites/
My observations are that when a business is looking for a site they want to proceed rapidly with
permitting, site assessments and surveys so they can be set up and running as fast as possible.
This program helps accomplish this.
There are also some potential deterrents/issues of getting a larger business in the area. Some of
these are highlighted in the presentation provided by the consultant, SSG. These deterrents may
include:
• Lack of Available workforce: New housing across the region in the next several years will
help address this.
• Lack of water and sewer utilities at the Business Park. A feasibility study is ongoing at the
site now.
• Distance to an interstate.
Overall, I feel this is a beneficial program that should be completed. It is a great learning
experience and has given us an understanding of the processes needed to be prepared for a
larger business. Unfortunately, late in the process they notified us that there would be a fee.
Pending confirmation that our site is certifiable, I would support proceeding with this effort.
The cost of the complete project is $7500. BCEDC would continue to dedicate time and effort to
this certification process if the County wants to proceed with certification.
Item 11. Board members currently received IPADs for their board packets and
email. We have received inquiries about board members receiving laptops or
receiving Office 365 functionality on ipads allowing for editing of documents. I
was hoping to discuss this with the committee.
Item 12. Multiple departments will need to submit budget amendments due to
mid-year wage adjustments in 2022. A listing will be placed in the dropbox for
review.
Item 13.
A. January’s financial report shows overall overall expenditures at 14% or $5.3
million. This is up from $2 million overall from last year. The increase is
due to all transfers occurring at the beginning of the year. In total
approximately $3.4 million in transfers were made in January.
B. Treasurer Report: $24.5 million, up from $22.3 last year. $2.5 million of this
is ARPA, LATCF and Opioid Funds. With increases in interest, a number of
short-term CDs have been taken out showing a move away from the State
investment pool.
C. The first phase of the Artesian well project is now complete. This phase
included voluntary surveying of existing artesian wells on public and private
lands.
D. The Community Development Block Grant Project at Northern Lights is
going well. Air handing units are expected to arrive later in February.
Attached in the packet are photos of the electrical room work so far.
E. Two Energy Innovation grants were submitted. Costs changed from original
estimates. Please find a short explanation below:
==========================
Our grant writing team for the PSC Energy Grants has finished the applications in time for tomorrow’s
submittal.
In early January the Executive Committee approved proceeding with the applications and we had some
initial estimates. Cost estimates have changed and I wanted to share this with you. We are at the
grant application phase now. If funds are awarded Board approval would be required to proceed.
Here are the detailed changes in summary:
Two grants are prepared:
1. EV Charging Planning Grant: We originally estimated a grant application of $20,000, actual cost
is now $20,320, up $320. 100% of this would be covered by the grant.
2. Five Highway Garage Solar, Battery, EV Charging: We originally estimated a total cost of
$650,000 and a grant request of $500,000. $500,000 is the maximum allowed. As final plans
and detailed estimates were finalized, costs have increased, up $320,555 to a total of
$970,555. However, A large part of this is due to us including county match in the project. The
grant now shows a county match of 48%. The following items are included as part of the county
contribution, these two items total $208,000.
a. $120,000 for EV vehicle purchases:
b. Electrical Upgrades: $88,000 at the five highway garages, About $22,000 each for
updated and larger services. Existing electrical in buildings are in need of upgrades.
3. Total county out of pocket, for the five highway garages, after all grants/tax credits/focus
incentives is $322,204. Removing the $208,000 above takes us to $114,000 or about $23,000
per garage.
4. This project adds solar, electric vehicle charging and a battery at all five garages, Cable, Russel,
Iron River, Mason and Port Wing.
5. Payback is projected at five years coming from solar energy and electric vehicle charging savings
at each site.
F. County Wide EMS: Six of the 9 agreements are signed and in hand.
G. The County received the attached report for the County Coroner for
suicides over the last four years.
H. Attached please find Broadband Coverage Maps supplied by Norvado in
Bayfield County. The maps and RED DOTS show who CANNOT receive 25/3
internet service and those that CANNOT received 100/20 service. The
higher the number the better. 25/3 is the bare minimum. The first number
is download, the second is upload speed.
The worst area of the 25/3 are in the Barksdale/Eileen area. Fortunately, this will
be built out this year.
The 100/20 map shows a similar clumping in the Washburn/Barksdale/Eileen
areas with more sporadic issues in the southern section of Barnes.
1
Minutes of the
Bayfield County Executive Committee Meeting
4:00pm, January 12, 2023
Meeting was held Remotely through Microsoft Teams and in person in the
Bayfield County Board Room, Washburn, WI
Members Present: Fred Strand, Dennis Pocernich, Brett Rondeau (remote), Jeff Silbert, Jeremy
Oswald, Mary Dougherty
Members Excused:
Others Present: Mark Abeles-Allison-County Administrator, Kristine Kavajecz-Human
Resources Director, Meagan Quaderer-Emergency Management Director, Sheriff Tony
Williams, Marty Milanowski (remote), Kim Mattson-Accountant, Gail Reha-Bookkeeper, Bill
Bailey-Chequamegon Bay Renewables
Called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Rondeau.
Bayfield County Elected Official Introductions:
a. Tony Williams, Bayfield County Sheriff: Reported that three vehicles are
currently inoperable. There are several new vehicles on order. County Board
Members introduced themselves.
Approval of Minutes of December 8, 2022: Motion Oswald, Silbert to approve minutes of
the December 8, 2022 Executive Committee meeting. Motion carried (6-0 )
Public Comment: None Received
Coroner On Call Pay: The Coroner has requested that the per call stipend for calls be
increased from $75 to $100 per call.
Motion Silbert, Pocernich to increase the per call stipend for Coroner staff to $100 per
call. Motion Carried (6-0)
LATCF Project Prioritization: Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Funds total of
$1.04 million will be received in 2022 and 2023. Half has been received. Abeles-Allison
reported on several projects that were proposed for use of these funds. A structural
assessment has been conducted on two existing Highway Garages in Cable and
Grandview. Both reports recommend total replacement rather than repair. Additional
considerations include: waiver of Exhibitor Fees for the County Fair, Health Department
Capacity Improvements, Court Security Officer Desk/Security upgrade to add bulletproof
glass, Portable radios for Sheriff’s Office, Joint Dispatch Implementation Study.
2
Suggestion was also made to consider including UW Extension storage needs when
constructing a new building.
Motion Silbert, Dougherty to forward the proposed list of projects to the County Board
and obtain estimates for the structures to determine what funds will be needed for those
structures. Clarification was made that priority would be placed on the two structures and
then the list as presented in priority order. Motion Carried (6-0)
Joint Dispatch Consolidation and Next Gen 911 GIS grant applications: Quaderer
reported that Ashland and Bayfield Counties received rejections of initial grant
applications. Fully finished consolidation plan is needed to resubmit for grant
consideration. The state indicated they would also like to see letters of support from both
County Boards. The state indicated they are interested in funding this project, but will
need these additional items first.
Motion Oswald, Strand recommend to the full board to move forward with Joint Dispatch
Consolidation and NextGen 911 Consolidation Plan Grant Application. Motion Carried
(6-0)
County Carbon Offset Reserve Plan: A draft conceptual plan was presented and
reviewed. The Forestry Department would like to finalize the conceptual plan prior to
receiving funds, which are anticipated in the Spring. Strand requested that the agenda be
item be placed on the February Executive and County Board agendas for action.
Suggestion was made to include economic development as a category on the scoring
rubric.
New DNR Secretary Resolution: Recommendation to also draft a resolution for
Secretary Bond as well.
Motion Oswald, Silbert to authorize draft resolutions for the Secretaries of DNR and
Veteran Affairs and forward to County Board for approval. Motion Carried (6-0)
Village of Mason Bridge Aid Request:
Motion Oswald, Pocernich to authorize $11,620.47 in bridge aide for the Village of
Mason. Motion Carried. Motion Carried (6-0)
Sheriff’s Office NextGen 911 Grant Budget Amendment: This is a line item
modification within the NextGen 911 Grant budget.
Motion Silbert, Pocernich to authorize a budget amendment transferring $21,969 from
the NextGen911 Grant line item to the Dispatch Contractual Services Line Item as
requested by the Sheriff’s office. Motion Carried (6-0)
3
Bayfield County Resolution No. 2023-xx; Joint BART Charter Amendment
Resolution, including Price County:
Motion Oswald, Pocernich to recommend to the full County Board that they approve
BART’s charter amendment to include Price County. Motion Carried (6-0)
Bayfield County Resolution No. 2023-xx; Supporting and Authorizing Matching
Funds for Bayfield County “RAISE” Grant Project on County Highways A & N:
Modify the total to $17.3 million. This is the third year that this application has been
submitted. The intent is to bring a finalized resolution to the County Board.
Motion Strand, Silbert to forward Resolution No. 2023-xx; Supporting and Authorizing
Matching Funds for Bayfield County “RAISE” Grant Project on County Highways A &
N resolution to the full county board for consideration. Motion Carried (6-0)
Resolution for two Energy Innovation Grant Projects (EIGP) in 2023 for an Electric
Vehicle Charging Plan and Highway Portal solar, battery and EV charging
facilities: Bill Bailey explained that the EV charging project would be at no cost to the
county. Cable, Mason, Iron River, Russell Highway Garage solar installations and EV
charging stations. This would require upgrade of the electrical systems at these locations
at a cost of approximately $650,000 with county cost being approximately $90,000 and
an 8-year estimated payback of the cost. The grant applications are due this month, prior
to the county board meeting.
Motion Silbert, Strand to approve the two Energy Innovation Grant Project (EIGP)
applications for an Electric Vehicle Charging Plan and Highway Portal solar, battery
and EV charging facilities. Motion Carried (6-0) Clarification that the charging stations
on County property would only be accessed for county purposes (due to liability).
Reports:
Financial Report, end of December 2022: Reviewed. Summary was included in
the meeting packet. Expenditures are within budget. Revenues up approximately
$3million over last year.
Treasurer’s Report, end of December 2022: Reviewed and included in the
meeting packet.
ARPA Project Review: Review of project statuses was provided.
Health Infrastructure Project Report: Due to space needs, the Veteran Services
Office will relocate to the current Child Support office area. The Criminal Justice
office will then be relocated to the current Veteran Services office and the Health
Department will occupy the current Criminal Justice Office area.
Motion Pocernich, Oswald to enter into Closed Session pursuant to §19.85(1)(e),
deliberate or negotiate the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds,
or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons
require a closed session:
4
b. Discussion and Possible Action, December 8, 2022 Minutes
c. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Cinnaire Housing Development
Agreement and Option
d. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding County-Wide EMS Agreement
Motion Carried (6-0) Entered closed session at 5:40pm.
Motion Oswald, Dougherty to return to open session. Motion Carried. (6-0) Returned to open
session at 5:58pm.
For the record, Abeles-Allison announced that the committee approved the Cinnaire Housing
Development Agreement and County-Wide EMS Services agreement.
Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Kristine Kavajecz.
www.wedc.org 201 West Washington Avenue Madison, WI 53703
WEDC Program: Community Development Investment (CDI)
Target Start Date: 4.1.2023
Applicant Entity: TBD / American Birkebeiner
Community: Cable Wi
Section A - Redevelopment Narratives
Mount Telemark Village is an approximately 9-million-dollar re-development project of what had been 798
acres of Telemark land and resort in Cable, Wisconsin. The vision for the project began with the purchase of
Telemark land and lodge, followed by the tear down of the original lodge. Soon after purchasing Telemark,
ABSF began a capital campaign to secure funding to re-develop Telemark consistent with the ABSF mission,
which focuses on creating opportunities for healthy, active lifestyle and events in the outdoors. We are
recognized as the ultimate place to be active outside in Wisconsin and have a brand that is recognized around
the world. It is estimated that our economic impact is over $20M/year.
Mount Telemark Village in Three Stages
Stage ONE, now completed, was about the acquisition of the 798 acres, the tear down of the old Telemark
Lodge and placing 504 acres of land into Conservancy. We purchased the land for $1,419,620.00, then sold
218 acres for $686,448 to Landmark Conservancy. Landmark has placed those 218 acres into a conservancy.
We used funds generated from the sale in combination with grant support from an Idle Site Grant ($251,000)
from the State of Wisconsin to support the tear down of the Lodge at an expense of $777,811. The land
purchase was originally supported by a donor estate gift and seller backed financing; this has now been
transformed into a low interest Small Business Association (SBA) loan.
Stage TWO, now in progress, is the creation of new healthy outdoor resources aligned with the ABSF mission
at Mount Telemark Village. Newly or re-developed Telemark ski trails; a 5km paved all-accessible trail for roller
skiing, walking, and bike riding; expanding snowmaking; new mountain bike trails, a sledding hill, and an
observation tower help to make the new Mount Telemark Village a year-round outdoor destination.
Additionally, placing another 286 acres in conservancy ensures the Northwoods will remain a natural outdoor
destination going forward. We secured $349,285 in individual donations, $1,130,752 in grant funding and
most recently $425,000 in foundation funding from the Trek Foundation to support this phase of the project.
Stage THREE is the final phase of the Mount Telemark Village project (and what we are seeking funds for in this
request). The third phase is to create a 12,000 square foot “Base Camp” lodge to be the launch point for all the
activities of Mount Telemark Village. The estimated cost is $3.2M. The “Base Camp” lodge will be the year-
round epicenter of skiing, running, biking, hiking and gathering to enjoy the conservancy, trails and activities of
Mount Telemark Village and ABSF.
We are excited to report that private enterprise is already seeking to invest in the greater Mt. Telemark
Village. After we purchased the land and removed the lodge, a private enterprise leased 4 acres from us to
build a small hotel that is already under construction. We have MOU’s with three additional vendors that wish
to have a lease in the new Base Camp building as well – gear rental, bike demo’s, beer sales and coffee/snack
sales. Additionally, we have been approached regarding camping cabins and sprinter van parking areas to be
added (and operated) by a private company. Lastly, the adjacent golf course that is for sale now has multiple
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.a. Describe the project, its implementation and its significance to the community.
1.b. Describe any public/private partnerships developed and to what extent the applicant can ensure
WEDC that all the activities outlined within application will be undertaken. (highlight capacity of
applicant, partners, finality of financing and developments agreements)
www.wedc.org 201 West Washington Avenue Madison, WI 53703
developers looking at the property considering housing developments with all the new recreational activities
we are gong to offer.
Building renovation X New construction
Historic Preservation Infrastructure reinvestment
Demolition
The recreation industry drives the economy of Northern Wisconsin. Building a facility, a campus if you will of
activities will directly impact the community and region. It is projected that it will created 2-3 fte’s of grounds
and maintenance jobs (approx. salary of $50k, a 3% retirement match $ healthy insurance), 2 fte’s of event
coordination staff (similar wages as grounds described above). Additionally, it is estimated that approx.
$100,000 of contractors will be hired yearly to work on projects surrounding Mt. Telemark Village.
We have already seen land values rise. The adjacent private Nordmor Village lots went from selling in the
$5,000 - $10,000 range to now selling in the $30,000 – $40,000 range. The demand for housing near the
recreation area will take vacant land, turn it into developed property increasing land values and the tax base.
Being in rural Northern Wisconsin, recreation is one of the largest economic drivers in the area. With the
addition of the Mt. Telemark Village property and all the activities it will have, new commercial development
that supports or relies on this activity will flourish and grow. Second homes, gear sales/rental, food, short
term lodging will be the primary beneficiaries. We have already seen this start to happen in the area and as
additional infrastructure is added, along with amenities that attract a divers group of users, it will only
continue to grow.
A large initiative recently launched by the American Birkebeiner is Birkie One, a program at ensuring people of
all ages, background, abilities have the opportunity to participate in a healthy, active lifestyle. We have been
working closely with the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe on involving kids and schools in
getting kids outside. This launch point will foster the needed launch point for so many programs and outings.
Ernie St. Germaine, who has been leading the charge, has got us working with charter schools and youth
programs skiing, hiking and even making trails.
We intend to have a solar system to generate our electricity, including the power to run our heating/cooling
systems. We intend to meet PACE guidelines/building standards (exceeding building code for energy
efficiency) as well since it may play a role in our funding.
1.c. Which eligible activities does the project fit under?
1.d. Describe the potential of the project to enhance the economic viability of the community (e.g. tax
base growth, job creation, improved use of site). Response should project anticipated permanent jobs
at the site. If possible, include wage rates and health benefits associated with the jobs.
1.e. Describe the potential for this project to act as a catalyst for additional commercial development
or investment in the district. Please refer to other opportunities in the area.
1.f. Demonstrate involvement of diverse and minority business interests; which may include planning
& development, construction and end user(s).
1.g. Are the any green or renewable energy investments and or grants tied to this project?
www.wedc.org 201 West Washington Avenue Madison, WI 53703
We have broken the capital stack into 3 sections to raise the $3.2M:
1) Donations/private funds – our fundraising with private donors is under way and to date we have raised
$655,000 in the quite phase and will be launching the public campaign in March/April. We are feeling
confident with a donor base of over 2,500 people who have supported our capital projects in the past
decade.
2) Grants – we have applied to 3 private foundations to date and have received one verbal yes (totalling
$200,000 that is to be finalized in April), as well as a second verbal yes on $300,000 to support our
Birkie One programming at the new building. Additionally, we are counting on support from a WEDC
grant to help us fund this project. In 2021 we shared with WEDC the vision to revitalize this property
that is so central to our region, and we are very thankful for the support given by WEDC that affects so
many in such a positive way in our region.
3) Financing – We are working with a variety of partners to finance part of the building if necessary (not
preferred with rates climbing so high at this time). Our number one option is PACE financing which is
based on exceeding building code with energy efficiency (the building is planned to qualify for this
program as designed by the architect and builder). This goes well with our commitment to the
environment, as well as operational efficiency. Additionally, we have a strong relationship with
Johnson Bank who has helped us many times and is willing to help finance the project if needed.
We are very excited to have gotten the cost of this building down around $250/sqft which is as inexpensive as
we can build while still maintaining the quality and sustainability necessary to last over time. The private
sector will lead the way in funding this project and will do most of the heavy lifting on this project. Support
from WEDC ensures the project continues forward as well as demonstrates that there is support from the state
level, recognizing the significance of this for our region and its future.
Not at this time.
In the most recent “Comprehensive Land Use Plan” completed by the town of Cable, on their state goals was
to “Encourage all job development, but especially those jobs that will appeal to
young professionals and their families or the aging population”. Current research shows that those seeking to
enter the rural work force are looking for recreation opportunities in the community that they decide to settle.
Landing workers is difficult in a very competitive market and they will ultimately choose where they work/live
based on the recreation opportunities afforded them. This development at Telemark will not only contribute
to satisfying that goal, but will also support the desire for increased land values and new business that is also
discussed. Additionally, in Bayfield County’s Comp Use Plan, they also identify the role of the recreation
industry, and how to utilize it to promote economic growth.
FINANCIAL JUSTIFICATION
2.a. Describe the project funding methods; include progress, status and timeline of receiving funds.
2.b. Describe the financial need for WEDC grant funding that cannot be met though private sector,
public sector or reduction in scope of project.
2.c. Are American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds targeted for this project, if so please describe.
PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS
3.a. Highlight the extent to which this project is included in previous regional, municipal or downtown
planning efforts. Site the section and page numbers of the plan(s).
www.wedc.org 201 West Washington Avenue Madison, WI 53703
Since its inception, Telemark has been the cultural and economic driver of Cable and the surrounding areas.
Unfortunately, built on an unsustainable business model it eventually was no longer viable. Learning from that
experience, the new version of the property is being built on the proven industry of outdoor recreation and on
a scale that is sustainable. Currently it is estimated over 50,000 people visit the site per year (and that is with
minimal infrastructure). With added opportunities and activities, along with amenities that attract a diverse
user group and low cost of operation, Mt. Telemark Village is built to last. The town of Cable and the Planning
Commission has endorsed the Master Plan, has partnered on grant opportunities (including the WEDC Idle Site
Grant we were awarded), and continues to support our efforts.
2/ 21 Close on purchase of property
3/21 - Birkie engaged LHB on master planning with community meetings and user groups’ input. Initial building
design and programming begins as well.
6/21 - Master plan presented to the board, including the first draft of building. That was a culmination of work
by LHB, Birkie staff and community input meetings. Much of the building design is based off of what we have
learned from OO over the last 5 years and how we operate to deliver on our mission producing camps, events
and hosting daily users.
11/21 ABSF Board approves concept as we applied for a large ARPA grant.
1/22 Capital Campaign developed with ABSF staff
8/22 LHB begins work on documents to allow for builders to bid based on design from 6/21. Goal to open bids
in November.
11/22 - Plans put online up for bid. Begin soliciting builders: https://www.birkie.com/projects-bids/
1/23 - Builder selected.
5/23 – Begin building
There is no intention to sell any of the property related to Mt. Telemark Village over the next 5 years.
However, we fully intend to execute a series of leases to partners supporting what is happening around the
new building at Mt. Telemark village
Lease 4 acres to Home Base to build a hotel/hostel
Lease to Backroads Coffee to sell coffee/pastries in the new Base Camp building
Lease to Trek Bikes to demo bikes out of the new Base Camp building
Lease to New Moon Bike and Ski to rent bikes, skis, gear out of the new Base Camp building.
Lease to camping cabins – still soliciting partners to operate camping options at the venue.
Lease to additional partners that support recreation and are interested in being at MTV – t.b.d.
As mentioned earlier, we are funding the project using 3 areas of funding
1) Donations/private funds – to date we have raised $655,000
2) Grants – from a select group of private foundations, as well as this WEDC grant.
3) Financing – We are working with a variety of partners to finance part of the building if necessary (not
preferred with rates climbing so high at this time). Our number one option is PACE financing which is
based on exceeding building code with energy efficiency (the building is planned to qualify for this
program as designed by the architect and builder). This goes well with our commitment to the
3.b. Highlight the extent to which the project supports best practices for smart growth and best
practices for downtown development, and the extent to which it has community-wide support.
READINESS TO PROCEED
4.a. Please describe past and planned planning activities, with timelines. Include site control status,
environmental condition and a project implementation schedule.
4.b. Provide description of property transactions intended to occur in the next 5 years.
4.c. Highlight financing commitments in accordance with Budget Worksheet, note any contingencies.
www.wedc.org 201 West Washington Avenue Madison, WI 53703
environment, as well as operational efficiency. Additionally, we have a strong relationship with
Johnson Bank who has helped us many times and is willing to help finance the project if needed.
SECOND DRAFT, February 9, 2023
BAYFIELD COUNTY, WISCONSIN
COUNTY CARBON OFFSET RESERVE (CCOR) FUND CONCEPTUALIZATION
INTRODUCTION:
In 2021 Bayfield County agreed to enter county forest lands into the voluntary carbon offset
market. Bayfield County has entered into long term contracts with an environmental action
firm and the American Carbon Registry to document and audit carbon offsets.
Offsets are calculated on a tonnage basis. Total tonnage calculation is based on many factors
including acreage, harvest, and growth models. Carbon offsets are measured annually by an
independent auditing entity. The first year of Bayfield County offsets began in April of 2021 and
ended in March of 2022. Bayfield County is going through the first-year audit, verification and
carbon sale process. Revenues from sales are anticipated to begin in 2023.
Purchasers of these voluntary offsets will be entities striving to support efforts that protect the
environment and reduce the impact of climate change, reducing carbon emissions.
Historically, carbon offset bidders are influenced by seller characteristics and image, Bayfield
County and Bayfield County Forestry are viewed positively in this light based on past practice
and actions. Future county expenditures should be well defined in this light and transparent for
future carbon offset buyers.
How proceeds of carbon sales are utilized may be another factor determining future bids.
METHODOLOGY AND PLAN OF ACTION
Bayfield County has many diverse needs. This plan is intended to focus on Bayfield County
priorities AND to expend funds in a manner consistent with the forestry carbon offset program
intent. This will help ensure longevity of the program and consistency with program goals to
maximize the sale amounts and ensure integrity and intent of the Bayfield County Carbon
program.
The sale of carbon offsets may vary on an annual basis based on anticipated variations in
carbon sequestration levels and unanticipated market driven reasons. Until a long-term trend
can be established Bayfield County should focus funding on one time projects.
In anticipation of potential carbon funds, Bayfield County has begun a list of potential projects.
Bayfield County also anticipates substantial municipal and public interest, in fact, already,
multiple topic areas and projects have been proposed.
CCOR AND FCOR FUND OUTLINES:
This document proposes an expenditure reserve for county-wide and forestry projects.
Specifically, a County Carbon Offset Reserve (CCOR) and a Forestry Carbon Offset Reserve
(FCOR) is proposed.
County Carbon Offset Reserve (CCOR) projects will have a general county-wide reach while
Forestry Carbon Offset Reserves (FCOR) projects will focus on natural resource management.
Over a three-year period (2023-2025) a distribution formula of roughly 60% CCOR and 40%
FCOR is proposed with a front loading to the FCOR. The FCOR focus will help ensure healthy
forest management standards are implemented and recreation-based activities on lands within
the county and the county forest specifically support recreation countywide. The FCOR
document, reviewed and approved by the Forestry Committee will be focused on: Recreation,
Forest Consolidation and Forest Management.
CCOR MISSION:
Direct carbon offsets funds to support projects in that address priority criteria established by
the Bayfield County Board. These criteria may change over time through County Board
action.
CCOR PROJECT CRITERIA
Bayfield County has a multitude of potential projects underway and planned. A tool to evaluate
the project requests will help direct funds to county priorities. Project proposals will be
accepted from Bayfield County, local units of government, non-profits and private
citizens/businesses.
A minimum of 10% of funds will be designated to other units of government in Bayfield County.
A minimum of 10% of funds will be designated to non-profits or private businesses serving
Bayfield County.
The following 100-point criteria are recommended for project ranking: Priorities and scoring are
recommended for a two-year period. Criteria and scoring will be considered and formerly
adopted by the Board. Point allocations are maximums per category. Lower point allocations
may also be allocated.
1. Publicly Owned/Non-Profits: Maximum Points
• County Owned Lands: 20 points
• Other units of Government 10 points
• Non-profits/business 5 points
2. Carbon Reduction/Sequestration 15 points
3. Protect Water 10 points
4. Housing: 10 points
5. Addresses Public/Social Needs 10 points
6. Economic Development 10 points
7. Match: 10 points
8. Cost Reduction: 5 points
9. Sustainability 10 points
TOTAL = 100
• Publicly Owned: Refers to projects taking place on county owned properties, property
owned by local units of government, property owned/operated by non-profits serving
Bayfield County businesses and individuals.
• Carbon Reduction/Sequestration: Projects that reduce future carbon emissions.
Projects that sequester carbon emissions. Projects could include agricultural projects
that encourage carbon sequestration. Projects that reduce energy uses.
• Protect Water: Projects that directly protect or improve ground or surface water
resources. Examples could include assistance to municipal/utility districts, agricultural
practices, wellhead protection zones, etc.
• Housing: Projects that support and further the development of affordable, workforce
and senior housing across the county.
• Match: Matching support in addition to CCOR funding is required. A minimum of 10%
matching funding is required for all projects. 50% matching funding would receive 10
points.
• Cost Reduction: Projects that reduce, control costs in the future. Projects for more
efficient HVAC equipment, building design that reduces energy needs, EV Chargers that
allow for less expensive fueling, etc.
• Sustainability: Are there funding sources in place and committed to maintaining this
infrastructure after completion.
CCOR project criteria will be reviews and evaluated periodically. The criteria maybe modified
based upon the results of funded projects and/or new project opportunities.
Specific topics areas raised already:
1. Publicly owned projects:
a. County:
i. Highway Garage upgrades
ii. Sheriff storage building upgrade
iii. Courthouse boiler replacement
iv. Other Courthouse Energy projects, ie: geothermal, solar, etc.
b. Local Government:
i. EMS Facilities
ii. Public utilities, system improvements and expansion
c. Non-Profits:
i. Infrastructure
ii. Programming
d. Private Business:
i. Agro-forestry
ii. Projects that implement EQIP AgroForestry Practice Standards
2. Workforce Housing Initiatives: Projects that create senior, veteran, workforce and
affordable housing projects. Collaborate with communities on the development of new
housing opportunities. Provide matching funds.
3. Municipal building backup power Ensuring local government and school operations
during power outages, allowing resident use during outages.
SPENDING GUIDELINES:
PROJECT SIZE, PLANNING and APPLICATION PROCESS:
• Minimum CCOR Allocations will be:
o County and Local Government/Public Utility: $50,000
o Business: $10,000
o Non-profit: $5,000
o Landowner: $1,000
• To the extent possible expenditures will be authorized through the annual
Bayfield County budget approval process with CCOR project submittals due
August 1 annually. Upon approval, a separate project application form will be
available with project requirements and criteria. This will be a requirement for
both county and non-county projects. The first year of CCOR project funding will
be for 2024 based on funding availability.
• A minimum of 10% of all annual CCOR funds will be “undesignated” and available
for urgent county initiatives that may arise.
• Up to 3% of funds shall be reserved for project administration expenses.
FUNDING BREAKDOWN
At the outset of budget discussions, the county may allocate a fixed amount to specific
categories.
Wisconsin Certified Sites
November 2022
Bayfield County Business Park
Executive Summary
3
Program Status
SITE AND COMMUNITY READINESS EVALUATION PHASE
THIS REPORT
SSG and WEDC redesigned the Wisconsin Certified Sites program to add value beyond the
“stamp”of certification.We have engaged a comprehensive approach to site readiness that
also incorporates workforce,target industry recommendations,RFI and site visit feedback,
and more.We strongly believe that every property is different and requires a customized
approach to development.This report is the aggregation of SSG’s third party perspective on
what we think about the property and what we think the next steps towards development
should be.This report does not mean that the site has achieved certification –the
outstanding items to certification are listed in the certification tracker (in Excel)provided.
WHAT IS THIS REPORT?
Request for
Information
Site &
Community
Readiness
Visit
Strategic
Development
Plan
SSG has provided a color-coded Excel document that
outlines what the outstanding items are towards fulfilling
the site certification requirements.Please feel free to use
SSG as a resource as you work through the due diligence
process and have questions.We accept these responses
to these requirements on a rolling basis,but have set a
deadline of March 31,2023.
NEXT STEPS TOWARDS CERTIFICATION
CERTICIATION TRACKER
EXAMPLE CERTIFIED SITE
CERTIFICATION PHASE
4
Executive Summary: Site & Community Report
100+ developable acres under public control
Electric and natural gas infrastructure on-site
Internal gravel road stubbed in and allows access into core developable acreage
SSG has provided an in-depth report on the Bayfield County Business Park and hopes the community finds value in the level of data and detail provided.To summarize the full report,we have brought a few key slides
here to the top to provide the key takeaways from the report. The four categories below represent the structure of the report: Site Analysis, Workforce, Target Industry, and Execution on RFI and Site Visit.
Site Analysis
Rezoning required for industrial use
No municipal water or wastewater systems serve the site
Due diligence has not been completed at the property
Target Industry
Competitive
Positioning:
Workforce &
Costs
Further supporting the target industry analysis, comparing Bayfield against
other communities across Wisconsin shows that it’s strongest value proposition is likely in the food and/or wood industries.
The site has a pretty strong cost-focused value proposition. However, this
does not take into account logistics costs which would likely hurt the site’s
cost profile for most types of industry.
Unfortunately, Bayfield doesn’t score as favorably from a
workforce perspective for most types of industries. It’s simply much more rural with a lower presence of target industrial-focused occupational clusters compared to other
sites across Wisconsin.
Files were organized logically and easy to reference during the site
evaluation.
Maps/visuals were clear and provided enhanced understanding of conditions at the site.
Utility questionnaires would benefit from more information.
Digital content in presentation was not utilized for site visit meeting. Improving this technology will help enhance the first impression of the community as you give a prepared
pitch of the community and property.
Execution RFI
& Site Visit
Based on the quantitative analysis, we’re not surprised to see food and
wood/construction products score strongly in the target industry
analysis.
Again, given the community’s geographic positioning, target industries are going to be strongly connected to local commodities/feedstock
available in the area –food and wood could be aligned on that front.
Site and utility constraints (specifically water and
wastewater) while have a material impact on the types of
projects the community and this site can attract. Lighter uses, or those in the wood/timber industry that may not water/wastewater in their processes may be more aligned.
5
Strategic Development Plan: Bayfield County Business Park
ACTION PLAN Timing Comments Investment Level ROI Potential
Strategic Initiative 1: Water and Wastewater Study
1. Prioritize USDA Feasibility Study Immediate
The inability to serve the site by a municipal water/wastewater system is a significant challenge. The USDA Feasibility Study should be a top priority of economic development team, as this is a barrier to industrial recruitment, and it is SSG’s opinion that the property will be precluded from most industrial site selection searches before this issue is resolved. Work with the City of Ashland to develop detailed cost and schedule for delivering municipal service to the property. It’s important to have these proactive discussions rather than trying to gather information while a project is in hand.
$$$HIGH
2. Gather engineer’s cost and schedule for on-site wells and address fire flow Immediate In the short-term, gather engineer’s cost and schedule for private well installation, as well as capacities this solution could realistically serve. The community should also address concerns for industrial fire flow protection requirements.$$HIGH
3. Gather engineer’s cost and schedule
for on-site septic Immediate In the short-term, gather engineer’s cost and schedule for private septic installation, as well as capacities this
solution could realistically serve.$$HIGH
Strategic Initiative 2: Utility Adequacy
1. Further evaluate electric capacity at the property Immediate Work with electric providers to better understand the level of service (MW) available to the property, including estimated cost and schedule for delivering recommended levels of service (1.5 MW, 3 MW, 5 MW, 10-15 MW and beyond) for industrial clients.$MODERATE
2. Ensure alignment between electric
providers on future projects On-going
SSG applauds the collaboration between electric providers, given the “split site.” The fact that these entities
play well together and will do whatever it takes to make a project successful does not go overlooked. Simply
ensure alignment between broader economic development team and electric provider(s) on future RFI
responses.
$LOW
3. Vet natural gas infrastructure for
higher demands 6 months
SSG feels relatively comfortable with the 10,000 mcf per month natural gas capacity available to the property,
as this will cover most “bread and butter” industrial projects. However, projects are regularly increasing utility
demands, and as such, community should work with gas provider to proactively understand cost and schedule
estimates to meet demands greater than 10,000 mcf per month.
$LOW
4. Continue to refine utility information as property develops On-going Ensure alignment between economic development team and utility partners regarding the utility infrastructure to serving the property (size, location, capacities, etc.) and continue to hone the narrative and translate messaging into future RFIs as the property develops and infrastructure is built out.$LOW
5. Create Master Utilities Map Immediate Create a Master Utility Infrastructure Map that depicts both existing and proposed infrastructure at the site. This exhibit will help prospects understand the existing conditions at the site easily with a one-page document.$$MODERATE
6
Strategic Development Plan: Bayfield County Business Park
ACTION PLAN Timing Comments Investment Level ROI Potential
Strategic Initiative 3: Rezoning for Industrial Use
1. Consider rezoning in order to reduce development timeline 12 months Consider the benefits of proactive rezoning to allow for industrial use at the property to mitigate schedule risks for future prospects. Anything you can do to reduce the development timeframe improves the property’s competitive advantage in the marketplace, which is especially important for properties in rural markets.$$HIGH
2. Detail rezoning process for future prospects Immediate Be prepared to discuss the rezoning process (process and timeline) for potential industrial end users. $HIGH
Strategic Initiative 4: Enhance Site Developability
1. Create Master Conceptual Plan Immediate Create a Master Conceptual Plan for the property that depicts various building sizes and facility layouts, including one concept that visualizes the entire property for a large, single user.$$MODERATE
2. Complete due diligence studies Immediate Complete due diligence studies (Phase I ESA, Wetlands Delineation, Endangered Species Report, Archaeological Report, and Geotechnical Assessment) at the property.$$MODERATE
3. Gather engineer’s plans for upgrading internal park road Immediate Gather engineer’s estimated cost and schedule for upgrading internal park road (including process, cost, schedule, etc.) to provide industrial level access.$$HIGH
7
Due Diligence Plan: Bayfield County Business Park
The suggestions above are based on a cursory review of the property conditions and research conducted by others.Suggestions are made in line with SSG’s opinion of what a typical prospect/consultant would like to have completed on the property, and what SSG considers is a common sense approach to due diligence.
DOCUMENTATION STATUS / DATE COMPLETED SSG’S COMMENTS ON DUE DILIGENCE
Documentation of Control/Ownership INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Title Search February 27, 2012 Title insurance will need to be updated since it is has been over ten years since it was completed.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Wetlands Delineation May 1, 2016 Wetlands Delineation will need to be updated since it is has been over six years since it was completed.
Jurisdictional Determination letter from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Survey INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Archaeological and Historical
Investigation INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Geotechnical Assessment INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Master Conceptual Plan INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
ALTA Survey December 1, 2014 ALTA survey provided –please update ALTA survey to include any changes that have occurred since December 1, 2014.
Fire Insurance Classification Rating INCOMPLETE Please provide to SSG to satisfy the requirements of the Wisconsin Certified Sites Program.
Technical Site Analysis
9
Bayfield County Business Park
~136 available acres
10
Site Characteristics
Acreage
Property is 206 acres, of which approximately 136.78 acres
are considered available and developable (66%.)
Largest contiguous parcel is approximately 83.4 acres.
Excel Energy has a land lease on XX acres of property –this
acreage will not be included in the “certified” acreage. Once
the lease has expired, it can be added back into the total
available acreage.
Ownership
Property consists of eight (8) tax parcels and is owned by a
single owner -Bayfield County.
Price per acre listed at $3,500.
Surrounding Uses
The area is predominately forested/agricultural land.
A few commercial users are present within the park,
including Bayfield Foods, KV Builders, and Superior Sauna.
Recommendations
•Keep Master Conceptual Plan up-to-date Xcel
Energy leased land comes back as “available”.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
11
Site Characteristics
Recommendations
•Consider the benefits of proactive rezoning to
allow for industrial use at the property to
mitigate schedule risks for future prospects.
Anything you can do to reduce the
development timeframe improves the
property’s competitive advantage in the
marketplace, which is especially important for
properties in rural markets.
•Be prepared to discuss the rezoning process
(process and timeline) for potential industrial
end users.
•Complete due diligence studies (Phase I ESA,
Wetlands Delineation, Endangered Species
Report, Archaeological Report, and
Geotechnical Assessment) at the property.
Zoning
Property is in the Bayfield County jurisdiction and is zoned
Agriculture and Commercial. A zoning change will be
necessary for industrial use.
FEMA Flood Zone
and Wetlands
Property is located in FEMA Flood Zone X –outside the 100-
and 500-year flood zone.
Wetlands delineation has been completed on the property,
but report was not shared with SSG. Based on imagery
available from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), it is
expected that wetlands impacts will be minimal.
Due Diligence
RFI indicates that a Wetlands Delineation was completed
May 1, 2016, however, report was not shared with SSG.
No further due diligence has been completed at the property.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
12
Transportation Access
Recommendations
•Understanding that the internal gravel road will
be paved upon further development of the
park, proactively gather engineer’s estimated
cost and schedule for upgrading internal park
road (including process, cost, schedule, etc.)
to provide industrial level access.
Road & Interstate
Access
Property is located 40+ miles to US Hwy 51 and US Hwy 53,
four-lane highways.
Property is located 65 miles to nearest interstate (I-35.)
Ingress/Egress
State Farm Road, which is directly adjacent to the property’s
western boundary, is the primary ingress/egress route and is
accessed via US Hwy 2 (north) or WI Hwy 137 (south).
Internal park road, Arganbright Road, is recently completed
gravel road that allows access into the interior of the
property.
Proximity To Airport
& Port
Property is approximately 70 miles to Duluth International
Airport (DLH).
Property is approximately 63 miles from Port of Duluth.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
13
Utility Availability –(Electric)
Electric
Property is a “split site” between electric providers.
Customer choice is available at the property.
Xcel Energy is the electric provider (transmission and
distribution) north of Arganbright Rd.
Dairyland Power (transmission) and Bayfield Electric
Cooperative (distribution) are the electric providers south of
Arganbright Rd.
Xcel Energy has a12.5 kV line located 500 ft. from the
property. Bayfield Electric has a 7.2 kV line located on-site.
Xcel Energy has 34.5 kV and 69kV lines one mile from the
site.
Xcel Energy’s Fish Creek Substation is less than one mile
from the site.
Dairyland Power’s Barksdale Substation is two miles from
the site with current 10 MW capacity.
Estimated cost and schedule for providing service?
Recommendations
•Work with electric providers to better
understand the level of service (MW) available
to the property, including estimated cost and
schedule for delivering recommended levels of
service (1.5 MW, 3 MW, 5 MW, 10-15 MW and
beyond) for industrial clients.
•SSG applauds the collaboration between
electric providers, given the “split site.” The
fact that these entities play well together and
will do whatever it takes to make a project
successful does not go overlooked. Simply
ensure alignment between broader economic
development team and electric provider(s) on
future RFI responses.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
14
Utility Availability –(Natural Gas)
Recommendations
•SSG feels relatively comfortable with the
10,000 mcf per month natural gas capacity
available to the property, as this will cover
most “bread and butter” industrial projects.
However, projects are regularly increasing
utility demands, and as such, community
should work with gas provider to proactively
understand cost and schedule estimates to
meet demands greater than 10,000 mcf per
month.
•Ensure marketing materials, utility exhibits,
etc. remain up to date as infrastructure is
constructed within the business park, and
translate these into future RFI submissions.
Natural Gas
Northern Natural is the transmission provider and Xcel
Energy is the distribution provider to the property.
2-inch line operating at 60 psi is located adjacent to the
property along State Farm Rd.
2-inch line along State Farm Rd. is expected to be able to
serve natural gas capacities up to 10,000 mcf per month.
Demands greater than 10,000 mcf per month will require
further engineering analysis to determine necessary
upgrades, including cost and schedule, to serve the site.
Natural gas infrastructure is currently being constructed
within the business park to serve KV Builders.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
15
Utility Availability –(Water)
Recommendations
•The inability to serve the site by a municipal
water system is a significant challenge. The
USDA Feasibility Study should be a top priority
of economic development team, as this is a
barrier to industrial recruitment, and it is SSG’s
opinion that the property will be precluded
from most industrial site selection searches
before this issue is resolved. Work with the
City of Ashland to develop detailed cost and
schedule for delivering water service to the
property.
•In the short-term, gather engineer’s cost and
schedule for private well installation, as well as
capacities this solution could realistically
serve. The community should also address
concerns for industrial fire flow protection
requirements.
Water Line
Property is not currently served by municipal water provider.
Individual wells are required to provide water service for
each parcel.
Water System
Property is not currently served by municipal water
treatment system.
Bayfield County has received a USDA Feasibility Study Grant
to explore the viability of connecting the property to the City
of Ashland’s municipal water system. Connecting to the
water system is estimated to take three to five years.
Detailed costs and schedule for necessary improvements,
upgrades, etc. has not been established.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
16
Utility Availability –(Wastewater)
Recommendations
•The inability to serve the site by a municipal
wastewater system is a significant challenge.
The USDA Feasibility Study should be a top
priority of economic development team, as
this is a barrier to industrial recruitment, and it
is SSG’s opinion that the property will be
precluded from most industrial site selection
searches before this issue is resolved. Work
with the City of Ashland to develop detailed
cost and schedule for delivering wastewater
service to the property.
•In the short-term, gather engineer’s cost and
schedule for private septic installation, as well
as capacities this solution could realistically
serve.
Wastewater Line
Property is not currently served by municipal wastewater
provider. Individual septic systems are required to provide
wastewater service for each parcel.
Wastewater System
Property is not currently served by municipal wastewater
treatment system.
Bayfield County has received a USDA Feasibility Study grant
to explore the viability of connecting the property to the City
of Ashland’s municipal wastewater system. Connecting to
the wastewater system is estimated to take three to five
years. Detailed costs and schedule for necessary
improvements, upgrades, etc. has not been established.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
17
Utility Availability –(Telecom)
Recommendations
•None.
Telecom
Norvado is the telecom provider to the property.
Underground fiber is available to the property.
Dark fiber is potentially available to the property.
Schedule for service is typically 30 to 60 days.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
18
Master Planning
Master
Conceptual Plan
A Master Conceptual Plan has been created for the park that
depicts lot sizes ranging from five to 10 acres.
Municipal Water
& Wastewater
Systems
Inability to serve industrial users with municipal water and
wastewater systems is a significant challenge to industrial
recruitment at the property.
Annexation &
Rezoning
As mentioned previously in the report, Bayfield County and
City of Ashland should work collaboratively to explore
benefits of proactive rezoning for industrial use, and whether
annexing into the City of Ashland is required for serving the
property with public utilities.
Recommendations
•Create a Master Conceptual Plan for the
property that depicts various building sizes
and facility layouts, including one concept that
visualizes the entire property for a large, single
user.
•Keep Master Conceptual Plan up-to-date as
Excel Energy leased land comes back as
“available”.
•Create a Master Utility Infrastructure Map that
depicts both existing and proposed
infrastructure at the site. This image will help
prospects understand the existing conditions
at the site with a one-page document.
•Continue working with City of Ashland to
explore feasibility of connecting to municipal
water and wastewater systems. It’s important
to have these proactive discussions rather
than trying to gather information while a
project is in hand.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
Target Industry Analysis
20
SSG’s Approach To Target Industries
Qu
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
Qu
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
Growth
Wage & Tax Base
Workforce Alignment
Diversify
Site Characteristics
Pragmatic
Industries that have grown and are projected to grow at the national and regional levels.
Industries that have high wages (absolute and relative) and higher impact on the regional
economy (ROI).
Industries that align with current and future workforce value proposition.
Industries that offer further market diversification.
Real estate options that currently (or with strategic investment) can meet the needs of target
industries.
Common sense strategies that align with community’s vision and resources.
Target Industry Approach
•The graphic below highlights the key criteria that SSG uses to evaluate and
recommend target industries for communities overall or connected to
specific industrial sites.
•This leverages a combination of quantitative data along with SSG’s project
experience to identify realistic, pragmatic targets that align with the
community’s goals and real estate characteristics.
21
Defining Clusters & Potential Targets
All Clusters
Traded Clusters
Industrial
Focus
Site Characteristics
•Aligning potential operational size and
requirements with the site.
Specific Niches
•Identifying potential niches/operational types
that fall out of the NAICS infrastructure.
•Recombine similar clusters at end of process.
The analysis utilizes the Cluster framework and associated 2012 NAICS definitions developed by the U.S. Cluster Mapping project.
Key Definitions:
•Industry Cluster: A group of inter-related industries that drive wealth creation in a region, primarily through export of goods/services. A cluster represents the entire value chain of a
broadly defined industry, spanning suppliers to end products, including support services and specialized infrastructure.
•Traded Cluster: A cluster which serves markets beyond the region in which it is located, while a local cluster will be defined as a cluster which serves the market in which it is located.
22
Constructing The Target Industry Model: Data & Weights
1. Wage & Tax Base –Target Wages
This criteria allows SSG and the community to select a target wage level that
most aligns with their overall objectives and the characteristics for the
community. For this engagement, we use an hourly wage of $24.90 –which
is the combined county average wage for Ashland and Bayfield (based on
EMSI analysis).
Raising this threshold will favor industries with higher paying jobs (but may be
unrealistic for the community). And on the contrary, lowering this threshold
will favor industries with lower paying jobs, that may be more accessible, but
less desirable.
2. Complementary/Workforce Alignment
Site Selection Group used national staffing patterns for each industry cluster to
identify the most common occupations present in each cluster. SSG then calculated the presence and concentration of those occupations within a 40-
minute drive time of the site. In short, this identifies the types of industries that align well with the region’s current workforce. SSG made similar estimates
using higher education completion data, to identify which occupations align
well with the types of educational completions (defined by CIP codes) coming out of local and regional educational institutions.
3. Diversify
These measures are inverted, that is, they reward industries that have no or minimal presence in an area. These measures temper focusing on industries
that already have a significant presence in the region.
Industry Growth 25.0%
U.S. Growth -Historic -Absolute 5.0%
U.S. Growth -Historic -Percentage 10.0%
U.S. Growth -Projected -Absolute 15.0%
U.S. Growth -Projected -Percentage 20.0%
Regional Growth -Historic -Absolute 5.0%
Regional Growth -Historic -Percentage 10.0%
Regional Growth -Projected -Absolute 15.0%
Regional Growth -Projected -Percentage 20.0%
Absolute Cluster Size (used as a filter)0.0%
Wage & Tax Base 30.0%
U.S. Wage Level -Overall 10.0%
Regional Wage Level -Overall 15.0%
U.S. Wage Level -Target Wage Level 20.0%
Regional Wage Level -Target Wage Level 30.0%
TARGET WAGE LEVEL (1)$24.90 per
hour
Total Sales Multiplier (State)5.0%
Total Jobs Multiplier (State)15.0%
Total Earnings Multiplier (State)5.0%
Complementary/Workforce Alignment (2)40.0%
Occupational Alignment -Absolute 25.0%
Occupational Alignment -Concentration 50.0%
Regional Completions (2 hours -Bach+)10.0%
Regional Completions (2 hours -<Bach)5.0%
Local Completions 10.0%
Diversify (3)5.0%
Absolute Cluster Size 20.0%
Concentration 80.0%
Notes on Analysis
23
Target Industry Analysis: Quantitative Results
The figure at right shows the results of the quantitative
target industry analysis for the site.
Based on that target, the results of the analyses, and SSG’s qualitative view of the site, we highlight key
clusters here that may be best aligned with the
community’s overall value proposition. We do not simply
select the highest scoring clusters but use the results to prioritize and also understand the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the community to attract and retain those
industries.
Broad Clusters of interest include:
•Wood and Related Products
•Food and Agricultural Products
Additional information and SSG’s view of overall site
alignment are included on the next pages. We also
incorporate results from the comparative cost and workforce analysis to further identify the site’s comparative advantage in relation to other sites across
Wisconsin.
Please note that SSG filters out clusters that are extremely small/niche nationally (i.e. in the bottom 10% of clusters by overall size). Because this is a much more
rural area with more limited industry presence, we do
NOT filter out clusters with limited current presence.
Cluster Total
Score
Industry
Growth
Wage & Tax
Base
Workforce
Alignment Diversify
Food Processing and Manufacturing 68.9%85.8%57.6%72.5%22.4%Construction Products and Services 62.2%59.9%44.2%80.8%32.4%Forestry 61.0%32.1%50.8%93.7%5.6%Livestock Processing 59.6%73.8%49.0%64.3%14.4%Wood Products 59.4%40.4%60.5%76.8%7.6%Apparel 59.0%47.6%49.5%80.2%2.4%Downstream Chemical Products 57.7%74.5%55.7%49.9%48.4%Downstream Metal Products 55.3%71.6%40.4%55.8%60.0%Education and Knowledge Creation 54.1%35.7%44.1%77.5%19.2%Distribution and Electronic Commerce 54.0%51.0%58.0%55.6%32.4%Biopharmaceuticals 53.9%54.8%47.5%52.4%100.0%Textile Manufacturing 51.7%19.9%68.8%52.8%100.0%Video Production and Distribution 50.0%63.5%33.8%53.5%52.0%Agricultural Inputs and Services 49.5%37.5%38.8%69.5%14.4%Oil and Gas Production and Transportation 48.9%49.9%47.4%48.8%52.8%Coal Mining 48.5%24.1%52.6%54.2%100.0%Water Transportation 48.3%31.8%53.0%48.6%100.0%Plastics 47.4%32.8%65.2%36.6%100.0%Furniture 46.8%23.2%54.7%57.8%30.0%Recreational and Small Electronic Goods 46.3%45.7%40.1%56.3%6.8%Printing Services 44.5%22.1%54.3%52.3%35.6%Electric Power Generation and Transmission 44.0%16.6%41.4%67.3%9.2%Medical Devices 43.4%47.9%50.8%27.9%100.0%Upstream Chemical Products 42.7%38.4%51.6%31.6%100.0%Trailers, Motor Homes, and Appliances 42.4%49.1%65.9%13.5%100.0%Metalworking Technology 41.5%27.9%43.1%46.8%58.0%Lighting and Electrical Equipment 40.0%50.8%52.7%16.3%100.0%Transportation and Logistics 39.6%38.5%41.3%38.0%48.0%Communications Equipment and Services 39.2%44.4%65.2%13.7%62.0%Upstream Metal Manufacturing 38.8%42.4%48.9%28.3%44.4%Information Technology and Analytical Instruments 38.6%54.5%45.5%15.9%100.0%Paper and Packaging 37.8%24.0%60.5%21.6%100.0%Vulcanized and Fired Materials 36.9%42.9%32.2%34.4%55.6%Production Technology and Heavy Machinery 36.2%26.7%43.7%39.9%8.4%Fishing and Fishing Products 31.2%44.3%34.0%18.9%48.0%Aerospace Vehicles and Defense 30.7%32.5%46.0%9.4%100.0%Automotive 29.6%31.3%49.9%12.4%36.0%
24
Potential Target Industries
Wood and Related Projects
•As a much more rural area, Bayfield is not going to score as well from a qualitative (workforce) perspective compared to
other sites. That being said, Bayfield’s strongest “comparative advantage” is in the wood products space.
•It’s not surprisingly that wood and related clusters score especially well in the target industry analysis –that’d due in large
part to strong workforce alignment scores.
•Access to the underlying commodity (timber) will also play a significant role in helping Bayfield attract these types of
industries.
•Water and wastewater constraints are the primary concern from a site perspective. That being said, many wood and
related projects have limited need for water and wastewater support. For example, SSG just completed a project for a
treated lumber company where they needed to water in their process and could rely on septic for sanitary needs.
Food & Agricultural Products
•Like many other sites, food projects could also be well aligned with the Bayfield site. SSG has seen a significant amount of
project activity in this space over the past few years.
•Bayfield scores comparatively well for a baseline food project, driven by low operating costs.
•Water and wastewater are likely to be a much larger concern, however, for attracting food projects to this site compared to
a wood/lumber operations. While not all food projects have significant water and wastewater needs, most do use
water/wastewater in their processes and are unlikely to be comfortable with a well/septic operation.
Competitive Positioning: Workforce & Cost Analyses
26
Competitive Positioning: Costs vs. Quality (Workforce)
Qualitative (Primarily Workforce Analysis)
•The flip side of the analysis is measuring those factors that are critical to a
project’s requirements, but do not have a direct cost associated with it.
Namely, that’s focused on workforce considerations. While each project is different, the baseline process SSG would use to measure a community’s
workforce is based on measuring three categories: workforce demographics, target occupational supply, and target occupational demand
(competition). We typically measure that at a 20-and 40-minute drivetime
from target sites. As a result, that’s the base analysis we use herein.
•We also show baseline results for a comparative geographic/logistics
analysis (based solely on population access and air accessibility) and general tax rankings. However, logistics requirements vary considerably by project
so we do not weight it in our model. On the tax side, we are only evaluating
sites in Wisconsin, so the scoring does not change across site.
Objective:
•Through SSG’s corporate lens, evaluate the
target site on both qualitative (i.e. workforce) factors but also estimated operating costs.
•This is the same type of evaluation SSG would
conduct if it were analyzing a site for a
corporate user.
•Evaluate each site across a number of different types of mock projects, more
advanced requirements (e.g. highly advanced
manufacturing & biotech, to more baseline
industrial requirements).
•Identify comparison sites and/or markets to benchmark the target site against. In this
case, we benchmark the three target locations
in this round against existing certified sites.
•We then compare the results of the cost
analysis vs. the qualitative analysis to see where each community’s comparative value
proposition lies.
•This analysis is intended to further inform the
strategic direction for the site and community
overall.
Operating Cost Analysis
•The objective of this portion of the analysis is to gauge the approximate
operating cost for these different types of operational types across the comparison markets. SSG does this on a 10-year, nominal basis. This is
driven by parameters like wage/salary, benefits, utilities, property/sales tax,
land/construction costs and fixed capital costs.
•Please note that this analysis does not take into account logistics costs,
which are typically a very large driver in the industrial site selection process. However, each project’s logistics requirements vary so much as its virtually
impossible to estimate in an exercise like this.
27
Mock Projects/Industries Used for Benchmarking
Example Project Advanced Manufacturing Metals/Plastics Baseline Food Advanced Food Chemicals Wood Products Biotech Distribution
Operating Cost Drivers
Headcount 100 Workers 100 Workers 140 Workers 75 Workers 115 Workers 130 Workers 160 Workers 350 Workers
Capex (M&E)$100 mm $40 mm $40 mm $100 mm $75 mm $20 mm $250 mm $50 mm
Utilities Moderate Moderate Moderate, but elevated
gas and water/sewer
Moderate, but elevated
gas and water/sewer Very High Low to Moderate Moderate to High Low
Real Estate 100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
100,000 SF building on
20 acres @ $100/SF.
Workforce Drivers (Analysis favors the occupational requirements and target demographics listed below)
Key Occupational Requirements
Advanced Production (e.g. CNC)
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Ind. Maintenance
Metals/Related (e.g. Welders)
Advanced Production (e.g. CNC)
Metals/Related (e.g. Welders)
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Ind. Maintenance
Food Production
Logistics
Maintenance
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Food Production
Biotech
Adv. Production
Maintenance
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Logistics
Chemicals
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Maintenance
Logistics
Wood/Timber
Logistics
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Maintenance
Biotech
Adv. Production
Engineering
Engineering Techs
Maintenance
Logistics
Maintenance
Engineering Techs.
Target Demographics
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Moderate Income
More Advanced
Education (AAs)
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Moderate Income
Moderate Education
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Lower/Moderate
Income
Lower/Moderate
Income
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Moderate Income
More Advanced
Education (AAs/BAs)
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Moderate Income
More Advanced
Education (AAs/BAs)
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
Lower/Moderate
Income
Lower/Moderate
Income
Low Median Age/Target
Age Profile
High Income
Very Advanced
Education (BAs)
Sheer numbers
Low Median Age/Target Age Profile
Lower/Moderate Income
Lower/Moderate Income
28
Operating Cost Assumptions & Notes
Data Point Sources / Notes
Workforce: Wages & Benefits
Wages & Salaries
Weighted model using data from three sources: EMSI, ERI, and Job Postings (via EMSI)
3% wage inflation and 5% headcount growth annually
Benefits
Employee +1 health insurance at 85% coverage
7% health insurance inflation
SUTA
Workers Comp Estimate
+10% for additional benefits/retirement/bonuses
Federal Payroll Taxes
Utilities
Utilities
Electric: rates as provided in RFI, or state-level EIA data, or provider level data via EIA
Gas: rates as provided in RFI, or state-level EIA data (typically assume the same or similar rates as underlying commodity costs will drive rate).
Water & Wastewater: rates as provided in RFI, or primary research (e.g.reviewing community rate sheets)
All assumed at 3% annual price growth and 5% annual consumption growth
Taxes
Taxes
Property Taxes: effective rates as provided in RFI. For comparison markets, primary research via looking at comparable properties and actual taxes paid
Sales Taxes: Primary research on sales tax rates
Does not include any applicably inventory tax, state corporate income tax
Rates assumed to escalate at 1.5% annually
Assume 15 year depreciation on M&E
Assume 3% annual increase in value of land/real estate for taxing purposes
Data Point Sources / Notes
Real Estate & Capital
Land
Cost: Cost per acre as indicated in RFI. For comparison properties, primary research or best estimate
Site Prep: not included in analysis but meant to show a placeholder on what level of investment would it take to get a site competitive, and how would that impact comparison with other sites.
Assume 3% annual increase in value of land for taxing purposes
Building
Cost per square foot based on scenario –in general, more advanced facilities
will have higher cost/square foot.
Adjust based on nearest market for RSMeans construction cost index
Assume 3% annual increase in value of building for taxing purposes
Capital (M&E)Fixed amount for purposes of estimating personal property tax
Logistics
Logistics Does not include any estimated logistics costs which can play a significant role in a site/community’s value proposition. Inbound and outbound logistics are far too unique to each requirement to attempt to model in the abstract.
29
Comparison Locations
For a typical corporate project, SSG would benchmark
target locations against one another to determine each one’s overall value proposition (e.g. a strong workforce
but higher costs, better logistical positioning but higher
property taxes, etc.)
For this pilot round of the revamped Wisconsin Certified
Sites program, SSG decided to benchmark the three target communities against all existing Wisconsin Certified
Sites. Those sites are shown at left and also included at
Wisconsin's site portal:
https://inwisconsin.com/doing-business-in-wisconsin/available-sites/certified-sites/
This is not meant to be a fully inclusive list, but rather an illustrative example of each site’s competitive positioning.
Clearly, this list includes a diversity of market types and sizes and we do not expect all these locations to be
competitive against one another for all types of projects.
But we like to use a diversity of markets for this type of mock exercise to better show community’s strengths and
weaknesses.
Bayfield
Stanley
Marshfield
30
Summary of Results Very Strong Vale Proposition
Strong Value Proposition
Moderate Value Proposition
Example Project Advanced Manufacturing Metals/Plastics Baseline Food Advanced Food Chemicals Wood Products Biotech Distribution
Bayfield
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Low costs
•Moderate qualitative score
•Slightly favorable value proposition
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Moderate costs
•Moderate qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line, but best qualitative score
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
•Low costs
•Low qualitative score
•On “tradeoff” line
Wisconsin Overall
•Central & West WI sites generally offer best value proposition.
•Central & West WI sites generally offer best value proposition.
•Central WI sites generally offer best value proposition.
•Central WI sites generally offer best value proposition.
•Starts favoring greater Madison sites.
•Strong tradeoffs between cost & quality overall.
•Impacted by water/wastewater rates.
•Heavily favors Central and West WI.
•Higher costs, but very high qualitative scores in greater Madison.
•Green Bay sites score well, too.
•Western and Central WI scores score well.
•This project type is primarily driven by specific logistics requirements.
Summary & Comments:
•The table above shows the high-level results for how the site/community scores out for the different types of projects across the cost and qualitative assessment.
•Frankly, we’re not terribly surprised at the results here, knowing that Bayfield is a much more rural area and we’re comparing against much more populated communities across
Wisconsin. It’s workforce scoring across different types of industries isn’t especially strong.
•However, it does score comparatively better for baseline food and even stronger for wood-related projects.
•Overall, based on this desktop analysis, Bayfield could have a cost-focused value proposition. That’s going to be contingent on finding potential end-users who have a need to be
in northern Wisconsin from a feedstock/logistics perspective.
•Please note that are not showing all results in the following pages, but rather the two highlighted examples here (Food and Wood) where Bayfield scores more strongly.
31
Baseline Food: 10-Year Estimated Cost Comparison
Reading the Table
Each cell is highlighted, with
those in green indicating more favorable (lower) costs in each
category, and those in red
indicating higher costs within
each category.
To show cost differentials (both in absolute and
percentage terms), each
market is shown relative to the
lowest cost one.
Again, please note that SSG has made assumptions on
comparison market locations
as needed.
We show the Site Prep category
as blank to give a sense of what level of investment would
impact its overall cost
structure.
Total Costs Operating Costs Capital Costs
Site Name Total Cost Abs. Diff % Diff Wages &
Salaries Benefits Utilities Property &
Sales Tax Land Cost Site Prep Building Capital (M&E)
Bayfield $251,673,912 $0 0.0%$101,637,844 $50,654,105 $29,002,323 $6,641,415 $70,000 $0 $23,668,225 $40,000,000
Marshfield $253,143,328 $1,469,415 0.6%$103,040,118 $50,926,006 $27,750,779 $7,752,400 $200,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Eagle River $253,305,726 $1,631,813 0.6%$100,021,990 $50,340,791 $28,275,733 $6,837,186 $4,356,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Chippewa Falls $254,226,272 $2,552,360 1.0%$104,312,416 $51,172,704 $27,223,416 $6,541,680 $300,000 $0 $24,676,056 $40,000,000
Wisconsin Rapids $254,922,595 $3,248,683 1.3%$102,979,226 $50,914,199 $28,604,410 $8,850,736 $100,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Stevens Point $255,215,466 $3,541,554 1.4%$103,735,019 $51,060,747 $28,174,312 $8,271,363 $500,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Stanley $255,217,767 $3,543,854 1.4%$104,312,416 $51,172,704 $29,227,557 $5,719,032 $110,000 $0 $24,676,056 $40,000,000
Sparta $256,222,671 $4,548,759 1.8%$105,135,872 $51,332,373 $27,750,066 $7,276,054 $300,000 $0 $24,428,306 $40,000,000
Black River Falls $256,900,116 $5,226,204 2.1%$104,491,948 $51,207,516 $29,573,493 $8,053,135 $100,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Beaver Dam Commerce Park $258,179,158 $6,505,246 2.6%$105,503,428 $51,403,642 $28,001,688 $8,392,644 $400,000 $0 $24,477,756 $40,000,000
Menomonie $258,254,369 $6,580,457 2.6%$106,310,819 $51,560,195 $27,200,009 $7,707,290 $800,000 $0 $24,676,056 $40,000,000
Janesville $258,475,239 $6,801,327 2.7%$107,100,446 $51,713,303 $27,270,229 $7,267,660 $720,000 $0 $24,403,600 $40,000,000
Wausau $258,751,688 $7,077,776 2.8%$106,245,949 $51,547,617 $28,405,453 $8,828,644 $250,000 $0 $23,474,025 $40,000,000
Beaver Dam $259,067,052 $7,393,140 2.9%$105,503,428 $51,403,642 $28,001,688 $8,583,288 $600,000 $0 $24,975,006 $40,000,000
Whitewater $259,506,389 $7,832,477 3.1%$103,751,048 $51,063,855 $30,967,618 $8,460,268 $860,000 $0 $24,403,600 $40,000,000
Howard $259,566,780 $7,892,868 3.1%$105,968,027 $51,493,727 $30,556,175 $5,898,224 $400,000 $0 $25,250,625 $40,000,000
Hobart $260,935,395 $9,261,483 3.7%$106,664,425 $51,628,759 $30,122,848 $6,745,538 $523,200 $0 $25,250,625 $40,000,000
West Bend $262,744,730 $11,070,818 4.4%$108,925,201 $52,067,123 $28,065,635 $6,702,265 $1,000,000 $0 $25,984,506 $40,000,000
Deforest $263,479,529 $11,805,616 4.7%$109,436,759 $52,166,314 $26,883,832 $7,990,767 $1,524,600 $0 $25,477,256 $40,000,000
Beloit $265,076,668 $13,402,756 5.3%$107,770,904 $51,843,305 $30,968,484 $9,092,374 $998,000 $0 $24,403,600 $40,000,000
Westport $265,776,740 $14,102,828 5.6%$109,269,020 $52,133,790 $28,061,258 $6,915,416 $3,920,000 $0 $25,477,256 $40,000,000
Verona $265,798,598 $14,124,686 5.6%$109,526,205 $52,183,658 $28,385,159 $7,734,688 $2,491,632 $0 $25,477,256 $40,000,000
Fitchburg $269,483,239 $17,809,327 7.1%$110,088,919 $52,292,768 $26,931,979 $9,465,116 $5,227,200 $0 $25,477,256 $40,000,000
Prescott $272,601,058 $20,927,146 8.3%$115,812,480 $53,402,567 $27,382,815 $9,874,889 $1,700,000 $0 $24,428,306 $40,000,000
32
Baseline Food: Qualitative (Workforce) Comparison
Reading the Table
A score of 100 in any category
represents the average of the group. Each cell is also
highlighted, with those in green
indicating a more favorable
score, and those in red
indicating a less favorable score within each category.
We include scoring for Market
Accessibility (based on general
population access as a proxy
for logistics and air accessibility), and Tax Climate.
SSG would typically include
those categories in a corporate
analysis. However, Market
Accessibility is specific to company requirements (so we
show generic results here), and
Tax Climate is the same score
for all Wisconsin sites.
WEIGHT 15.0%20.0%15.0%20.0%7.5%12.5%10.0%0.0%0.0%
Site Name TOTAL Workforce Demographics (20 Mins)
Workforce Demographics (40 Mins)
Occupational Supply (20 Mins)
Occupational Supply (40 Mins)
Occupational Demand(20 Mins)
Occupational Demand (40 Mins)Union Climate Market Accessibility Tax Climate
Hobart 122%126%117%129%136%98%112%119%103%103%
Howard 116%124%115%126%134%85%113%81%101%103%
Beaver Dam Commerce Park 109%85%90%128%125%115%100%126%113%103%
Beaver Dam 108%85%91%127%124%117%100%125%112%103%
Wausau 106%93%84%123%115%120%123%97%81%103%
West Bend 106%83%100%97%123%118%104%125%120%103%
Stevens Point 104%95%89%98%102%126%128%112%95%103%
Sparta 104%91%99%104%97%122%125%104%97%103%
Stanley 101%96%96%81%100%115%122%113%75%103%
Wisconsin Rapids 101%92%90%92%88%129%131%115%90%103%
Chippewa Falls 99%97%97%90%83%112%119%114%82%103%
Beloit 98%92%97%113%105%95%87%89%150%103%
Janesville 98%99%100%112%107%84%73%91%146%103%
Menomonie 97%89%97%88%86%107%116%115%87%103%
Fitchburg 95%124%115%105%95%54%36%96%132%103%
Bayfield 95%88%90%73%70%122%140%121%32%103%
Prescott 95%97%113%87%93%101%100%56%69%103%
Westport 94%126%117%101%95%44%39%96%132%103%
Whitewater 93%83%76%91%113%99%90%106%134%103%
Deforest 93%117%117%97%96%42%45%96%131%103%
Marshfield 93%88%88%67%73%123%126%121%81%103%
Verona 92%117%116%103%96%36%38%96%129%103%
Black River Falls 90%78%88%65%70%140%128%102%86%103%
Eagle River 89%77%82%70%63%124%130%119%38%103%
33
Stanley
Marshfield
Bayfield
Beaver Dam Commerce Park
Eagle River
Wausau
Sparta
Beaver Dam
Chippewa Falls
Beloit
Deforest
Fitchburg
HowardJanesville
Menomonie
Prescott
Stevens Point
West Bend
Verona
Wisconsin Rapids
Westport
Hobart
Whitewater
Black River Falls
$250M
$255M
$260M
$265M
$270M
$275M
80%85%90%95%100%105%110%115%120%125%
TE
N
Y
E
A
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
C
O
S
T
S
(
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
)
Le
s
s
E
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
M
o
r
e
E
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
QUALITATIVE SCORELess Favorable ---------------------> More Favorable
Lower Quality, Higher Cost Higher Quality, Higher Cost
Lower Quality, Lower Cost Higher Quality, Lower Cost
Baseline Food: Comparing Cost vs. Quality
Reading the Table
This graphic combines the results
of the cost analysis (Y axis),
qualitative analysis (X axis).
Markets to the bottom right have a
more favorable combination of cost and quality. Those to the top
left have a less favorable balance.
34
Wood Products: 10-Year Estimated Cost Comparison
Reading the Table
Each cell is highlighted, with
those in green indicating more favorable (lower) costs in each
category, and those in red
indicating higher costs within
each category.
To show cost differentials (both in absolute and
percentage terms), each
market is shown relative to the
lowest cost one.
Again, please note that SSG has made assumptions on
comparison market locations
as needed.
We show the Site Prep category
as blank to give a sense of what level of investment would
impact its overall cost
structure.
Total Costs Operating Costs Capital Costs
Site Name Total Cost Abs. Diff % Diff Wages &
Salaries Benefits Utilities Property &
Sales Tax Land Cost Site Prep Building Capital (M&E)
Marshfield $179,818,930 $0 0.0%$85,374,892 $45,290,252 $10,395,338 $4,524,033 $150,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Eagle River $180,044,828 $225,898 0.1%$83,209,544 $44,870,391 $10,492,661 $4,120,818 $3,267,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Wisconsin Rapids $180,477,843 $658,913 0.4%$85,321,518 $45,279,903 $10,558,396 $5,158,611 $75,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Black River Falls $180,714,713 $895,782 0.5%$85,746,055 $45,362,221 $10,752,213 $4,694,809 $75,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Stevens Point $180,721,178 $902,248 0.5%$85,613,704 $45,336,558 $10,472,376 $4,839,125 $375,000 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Beaver Dam Commerce Park $181,585,237 $1,766,307 1.0%$85,865,133 $45,385,310 $10,437,852 $4,910,288 $300,000 $0 $14,686,654 $20,000,000
Howard $182,005,509 $2,186,579 1.2%$86,618,446 $45,531,377 $10,948,749 $3,456,562 $300,000 $0 $15,150,375 $20,000,000
Beaver Dam $182,155,587 $2,336,657 1.3%$85,865,133 $45,385,310 $10,437,852 $5,032,288 $450,000 $0 $14,985,004 $20,000,000
Whitewater $182,188,394 $2,369,463 1.3%$85,572,804 $45,328,627 $11,031,038 $4,968,764 $645,000 $0 $14,642,160 $20,000,000
Stanley $182,586,495 $2,767,565 1.5%$87,802,032 $45,760,875 $10,793,327 $3,342,127 $82,500 $0 $14,805,634 $20,000,000
Chippewa Falls $182,703,003 $2,884,073 1.6%$87,802,032 $45,760,875 $10,282,197 $3,827,265 $225,000 $0 $14,805,634 $20,000,000
Menomonie $182,773,147 $2,954,217 1.6%$86,965,282 $45,598,629 $10,277,516 $4,526,087 $600,000 $0 $14,805,634 $20,000,000
Hobart $183,180,953 $3,362,023 1.9%$87,180,289 $45,640,319 $10,862,083 $3,955,486 $392,400 $0 $15,150,375 $20,000,000
Janesville $183,238,587 $3,419,657 1.9%$87,749,473 $45,750,684 $10,291,560 $4,264,710 $540,000 $0 $14,642,160 $20,000,000
Wausau $183,323,986 $3,505,056 1.9%$87,649,362 $45,731,272 $10,518,605 $5,152,833 $187,500 $0 $14,084,415 $20,000,000
Sparta $183,648,367 $3,829,437 2.1%$88,272,186 $45,852,038 $10,387,527 $4,254,633 $225,000 $0 $14,656,984 $20,000,000
Bayfield $184,873,549 $5,054,619 2.8%$89,934,145 $46,174,291 $10,637,979 $3,873,699 $52,500 $0 $14,200,935 $20,000,000
Beloit $185,922,615 $6,103,684 3.4%$88,298,197 $45,857,081 $11,031,211 $5,345,465 $748,500 $0 $14,642,160 $20,000,000
West Bend $187,869,013 $8,050,083 4.5%$90,790,327 $46,340,305 $10,450,641 $3,947,037 $750,000 $0 $15,590,704 $20,000,000
Deforest $187,907,594 $8,088,664 4.5%$90,297,177 $46,244,683 $10,214,280 $4,721,649 $1,143,450 $0 $15,286,354 $20,000,000
Verona $188,900,716 $9,081,786 5.1%$90,369,371 $46,258,682 $10,514,546 $4,603,039 $1,868,724 $0 $15,286,354 $20,000,000
Westport $189,221,014 $9,402,084 5.2%$90,169,593 $46,219,945 $10,449,766 $4,155,357 $2,940,000 $0 $15,286,354 $20,000,000
Fitchburg $192,344,366 $12,525,436 7.0%$90,830,765 $46,348,146 $10,223,910 $5,734,791 $3,920,400 $0 $15,286,354 $20,000,000
Prescott $194,924,844 $15,105,914 8.4%$95,572,992 $47,267,664 $10,314,077 $5,838,128 $1,275,000 $0 $14,656,984 $20,000,000
35
Wood Products: Qualitative (Workforce) Comparison
Reading the Table
A score of 100 in any category
represents the average of the group. Each cell is also
highlighted, with those in green
indicating a more favorable
score, and those in red
indicating a less favorable score within each category.
We include scoring for Market
Accessibility (based on general
population access as a proxy
for logistics and air accessibility), and Tax Climate.
SSG would typically include
those categories in a corporate
analysis. However, Market
Accessibility is specific to company requirements (so we
show generic results here), and
Tax Climate is the same score
for all Wisconsin sites.
WEIGHT 15.0%20.0%15.0%20.0%7.5%12.5%10.0%0.0%0.0%
Site Name TOTAL Workforce Demographics (20 Mins)
Workforce Demographics (40 Mins)
Occupational Supply (20 Mins)
Occupational Supply (40 Mins)
Occupational Demand(20 Mins)
Occupational Demand (40 Mins)Union Climate Market Accessibility Tax Climate
Hobart 118%126%117%128%131%83%97%119%103%103%
Howard 112%124%115%122%130%71%100%81%101%103%
Wausau 108%93%84%128%130%110%114%97%81%103%
Prescott 107%97%113%139%114%108%100%56%69%103%
Chippewa Falls 104%97%97%107%105%100%110%114%82%103%
Stanley 104%96%96%90%112%114%114%113%75%103%
Menomonie 103%89%97%106%107%98%113%115%87%103%
Marshfield 103%88%88%96%101%124%127%121%81%103%
Sparta 102%91%99%100%101%118%115%104%97%103%
Stevens Point 101%95%89%88%101%117%128%112%95%103%
West Bend 101%83%100%91%105%119%102%125%120%103%
Wisconsin Rapids 100%92%90%84%86%133%139%115%90%103%
Beloit 97%92%97%112%103%93%88%89%150%103%
Beaver Dam Commerce Park 97%85%90%90%88%117%110%126%113%103%
Eagle River 97%77%82%104%99%104%108%119%38%103%
Janesville 97%99%100%111%104%73%78%91%146%103%
Beaver Dam 96%85%91%88%87%119%109%125%112%103%
Bayfield 95%88%90%63%71%125%148%121%32%103%
Westport 94%126%117%97%82%63%50%96%132%103%
Black River Falls 94%78%88%71%85%143%127%102%86%103%
Deforest 93%117%117%96%82%63%56%96%131%103%
Fitchburg 91%124%115%87%81%66%46%96%132%103%
Whitewater 89%83%76%84%96%106%89%106%134%103%
Verona 89%117%116%85%81%49%48%96%129%103%
36
Stanley
Marshfield
Bayfield
Beaver Dam Commerce Park
Eagle River
WausauSparta
Beaver Dam
Chippewa Falls
Beloit
Deforest
Fitchburg
Howard
Janesville
Menomonie
Prescott
Stevens Point
West Bend
Verona
Wisconsin Rapids
Westport
Hobart
Whitewater
Black River Falls
$178M
$180M
$182M
$184M
$186M
$188M
$190M
$192M
$194M
$196M
80%85%90%95%100%105%110%115%120%125%
TE
N
Y
E
A
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
C
O
S
T
S
(
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
)
Le
s
s
E
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
M
o
r
e
E
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
QUALITATIVE SCORE
Less Favorable ---------------------> More Favorable
Lower Quality, Higher Cost Higher Quality, Higher Cost
Lower Quality, Lower Cost Higher Quality, Lower Cost
Wood Products: Comparing Cost vs. Quality
Reading the Table
This graphic combines the results
of the cost analysis (Y axis),
qualitative analysis (X axis).
Markets to the bottom right have a
more favorable combination of cost and quality. Those to the top
left have a less favorable balance.
RFI & Site Visit Feedback
38
RFI Feedback
Responsiveness/
Communication
Bayfield County was responsive and professional with site visit
coordination.
Organization/ Ease
Of Reference
Files were organized logically and easy to reference during the
site evaluation.
Graphic Content Maps/visuals were clear and provided enhanced
understanding of conditions at the site.
RFI/Excel Form RFI was filled out with attention to detail.
Thoroughness Utility questionnaires would benefit from more information.
Overall Submission It is obvious that the Bayfield economic development team has
experience responding to RFIs –job well done!
Recommendations
•Ensure alignment between economic
development team and utility partners
regarding the utility infrastructure to serving
the property (size, location, capacities, etc.)
and continue to hone the narrative and
translate messaging into future RFIs as the
property develops.
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
39
Site Visit Feedback
Agenda No official agenda was provided, but community shared
details via email ahead of the site visit.
Presentation
Digital content in presentation was not utilized for site visit
meeting. Improving this technology will help enhance the first
impression of the community as you give a prepared pitch of
the community and property.
Overall Visit Great use of time and detailed discussion on the community
and site.
Recommendations
•With an actual project in tow, SSG recommends
formalizing an agenda so company can quickly
reference discussion points, key partners, etc.
•Incorporate an element of digital content in the
community overview along with technical site
discussion (maps, visuals) as well as workforce
details (programs, technical college, etc.).
•Bayfield has crafted a narrative of matching
recent graduates with existing industry. SSG
recommends adding those details to marketing
materials to showcase community’s ability to
connect industry needs with local workforce
talent.
•While some components of site development may
appear cumbersome to a company, SSG
recommends leveraging a recent project (e.g., HV
Builders) that located in community as an
example of navigating the development process.
In our experience, anecdotes sell well to
prospects!
STRONG WEAK CHALLENGE
8235 Douglas Avenue | Suite 500 | Dallas, TX 75225
siteselectiongroup.com
In Support of Norvado Projects in the Towns of Eileen and
Bell/Bayfield
WHEREAS, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors supports and prioritizes broadband
expansion in all areas of the county; and,
WHEREAS, there remain areas of the county with sub-standard service; and,
WHEREAS, Bayfield County has committed to supporting projects that expand broadband
service; and,
WHEREAS, Norvado has proposed two expansion projects, one in the Town of Eileen and the
other in the Towns of Bayfield and Bell; and,
WHEREAS, the Eileen project would serve 49 underserved properties at a cost of $893,323;
and,
WHEREAS, the Bayfield and Bell project would serve 53 underserved and 35 unserved
properties at a cost of $1,516,716;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
assembled this 31st day of January, 2023, does hereby support Norvado’s application for the
State Broadband Grants; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Bayfield County commits $5,000 towards each project if
awarded.
By Action of the:
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
____________________________________________
Dennis M. Pocernich, Chair
STATE OF WISCONSIN )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BAYFIELD )
I, Lynn M. Divine, Bayfield County Clerk, hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. 2023-xx Volume 30, adopted by the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors at their meeting
held on the 31st day of January 2023.
_________________________________________
Lynn M. Divine, Bayfield County Clerk
Resolution
No. 2023-xx
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++681.37
Department 01 - County Board 49,519.00 .00 49,519.00 9,528.79 .00 62,186.50 (12,667.50)126 60,532.13
Department 02 - Clerk of Courts 346,277.00 .00 346,277.00 46,026.74 .00 354,965.31 (8,688.31)103 346,975.48
Department 04 - Criminal Justice 155,472.00 .00 155,472.00 20,007.47 .00 163,589.15 (8,117.15)105 145,094.02
Department 06 - Coroner 15,031.00 .00 15,031.00 3,477.33 .00 14,805.53 225.47 98 14,177.51
Department 07 - Administrator 291,164.00 .00 291,164.00 37,802.53 .00 300,657.16 (9,493.16)103 294,106.89
Department 08 - District Attorney 167,641.00 .00 167,641.00 21,872.16 .00 178,126.08 (10,485.08)106 170,359.60
Department 09 - Child Support 218,283.00 .00 218,283.00 27,037.27 .00 210,880.89 7,402.11 97 199,487.53
Department 10 - County Clerk 355,205.00 .00 355,205.00 43,386.40 .00 360,481.58 (5,276.58)101 358,146.86
Department 12 - Treasurer 155,144.00 .00 155,144.00 15,443.74 .00 132,131.94 23,012.06 85 159,244.09
Department 13 - Land Records 406,031.00 .00 406,031.00 50,125.54 .00 404,530.65 1,500.35 100 403,482.82
Department 14 - Court House 269,642.00 .00 269,642.00 34,161.90 .00 267,014.56 2,627.44 99 255,815.61
Department 15 - Register of Deeds 159,208.00 .00 159,208.00 19,484.25 .00 161,671.00 (2,463.00)102 153,894.67
Department 17 - Sheriff 3,868,112.00 .00 3,868,112.00 539,307.38 .00 3,695,376.26 172,735.74 96 3,789,915.45
Department 18 - Emergency Management 107,323.00 .00 107,323.00 14,757.83 .00 114,940.35 (7,617.35)107 132,246.87
Department 19 - Veteran's Services 107,498.00 .00 107,498.00 16,098.16 .00 115,388.78 (7,890.78)107 95,405.87
Department 20 - Health 780,246.00 6,528.00 786,774.00 99,825.08 .00 830,878.05 (44,104.05)106 731,695.74
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism 197,877.00 .00 197,877.00 18,671.69 .00 193,516.61 4,360.39 98 176,670.93
Department 25 - UW Extension 95,121.00 .00 95,121.00 9,226.74 .00 87,400.53 7,720.47 92 91,536.08
Department 26 - Zoning 379,748.00 .00 379,748.00 57,075.20 .00 430,434.75 (50,686.75)113 377,771.18
Department 28 - Land Conservation 267,185.00 .00 267,185.00 41,350.93 .00 360,973.28 (93,788.28)135 285,354.53
Department 29 - Land Use Planning .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 31 - Information Services 310,296.00 .00 310,296.00 42,373.25 .00 320,334.87 (10,038.87)103 297,904.94
Department 34 - Forestry 1,000,277.00 .00 1,000,277.00 113,922.96 .00 957,089.84 43,187.16 96 911,939.89
EXPENSE TOTALS $9,702,300.00 $6,528.00 $9,708,828.00 $1,280,963.34 $0.00 $9,717,373.67 ($8,545.67)100%$9,452,440.06
Fund 100 - General Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 9,702,300.00 6,528.00 9,708,828.00 1,280,963.34 .00 9,717,373.67 (8,545.67)100%9,452,440.06
Fund 100 - General Totals ($9,702,300.00)($6,528.00)($9,708,828.00)($1,280,963.34)$0.00 ($9,717,373.67)$8,545.67 ($9,452,440.06)
Fund 235 - Human Services
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 740.09 (740.09)+++1,516.51
Department 47 - Behavioral Health & Community 219,012.00 32,267.00 251,279.00 38,945.83 .00 272,490.09 (21,211.09)108 227,289.37
Department 48 - Community Support Program (CSP)1,671.00 .00 1,671.00 55.46 .00 386.16 1,284.84 23 .00
Department 51 - Regional Crisis Initiative 3,850.00 .00 3,850.00 .00 .00 .00 3,850.00 0 .00
Department 52 - AMSO 581,919.00 .00 581,919.00 75,908.44 .00 577,832.20 4,086.80 99 581,671.15
Department 53 - Family Services 1,530,919.00 .00 1,530,919.00 67,604.21 .00 522,383.18 1,008,535.82 34 548,899.40
Department 54 - Economic Support 395,440.00 .00 395,440.00 49,064.35 .00 360,016.67 35,423.33 91 386,387.83
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 01:21:25 PM Page 1 of 2
Personnel Financial Through December 31, 2022
Through 12/31/22
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 235 - Human Services
EXPENSE
Department 55 - Aging and Disabilities 151,883.00 24,561.00 176,444.00 28,738.82 .00 292,817.08 (116,373.08)166 269,454.67
Department 56 - GWAAR 277,326.00 .00 277,326.00 43,081.44 .00 255,710.45 21,615.55 92 285,560.57
Department 58 - ADRC-Bayfield Co 114,659.00 .00 114,659.00 19,609.35 .00 118,044.56 (3,385.56)103 119,590.56
Department 59 - ADRC-North 115,346.00 .00 115,346.00 13,891.06 .00 116,097.96 (751.96)101 117,784.97
EXPENSE TOTALS $3,392,025.00 $56,828.00 $3,448,853.00 $336,898.96 $0.00 $2,516,518.44 $932,334.56 73%$2,538,155.03
Fund 235 - Human Services Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 3,392,025.00 56,828.00 3,448,853.00 336,898.96 .00 2,516,518.44 932,334.56 73%2,538,155.03
Fund 235 - Human Services Totals ($3,392,025.00)($56,828.00)($3,448,853.00)($336,898.96)$0.00 ($2,516,518.44)($932,334.56)($2,538,155.03)
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant
EXPENSE
Department 20 - Health 53,645.00 (41,000.00)12,645.00 .00 .00 2,671.87 9,973.13 21 26,351.14
Department 56 - GWAAR 90,000.00 .00 90,000.00 7,656.67 .00 59,301.07 30,698.93 66 .00
EXPENSE TOTALS $143,645.00 ($41,000.00)$102,645.00 $7,656.67 $0.00 $61,972.94 $40,672.06 60%$26,351.14
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 143,645.00 (41,000.00)102,645.00 7,656.67 .00 61,972.94 40,672.06 60%26,351.14
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals ($143,645.00)$41,000.00 ($102,645.00)($7,656.67)$0.00 ($61,972.94)($40,672.06)($26,351.14)
Fund 710 - Highway
EXPENSE
Department 71 - Highway Dept 2,312,561.00 .00 2,312,561.00 152,160.54 .00 2,143,486.50 169,074.50 93 1,960,351.24
EXPENSE TOTALS $2,312,561.00 $0.00 $2,312,561.00 $152,160.54 $0.00 $2,143,486.50 $169,074.50 93%$1,960,351.24
Fund 710 - Highway Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 2,312,561.00 .00 2,312,561.00 152,160.54 .00 2,143,486.50 169,074.50 93%1,960,351.24
Fund 710 - Highway Totals ($2,312,561.00)$0.00 ($2,312,561.00)($152,160.54)$0.00 ($2,143,486.50)($169,074.50)($1,960,351.24)
Grand Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 15,550,531.00 22,356.00 15,572,887.00 1,777,679.51 .00 14,439,351.55 1,133,535.45 93%13,977,297.47
Grand Totals ($15,550,531.00)($22,356.00)($15,572,887.00)($1,777,679.51)$0.00 ($14,439,351.55)($1,133,535.45)($13,977,297.47)
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 01:21:25 PM Page 2 of 2
Personnel Financial Through December 31, 2022
Through 12/31/22
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 01 - County Board 55,100.00 .00 55,100.00 993.70 .00 993.70 54,106.30 2 993.70
Department 02 - Clerk of Courts 358,582.00 .00 358,582.00 30,667.61 .00 30,667.61 327,914.39 9 22,404.71
Department 04 - Criminal Justice 175,782.00 .00 175,782.00 10,829.71 .00 10,829.71 164,952.29 6 9,757.26
Department 06 - Coroner 16,894.00 .00 16,894.00 575.26 .00 575.26 16,318.74 3 538.09
Department 07 - Administrator 330,224.00 .00 330,224.00 20,210.40 .00 20,210.40 310,013.60 6 18,087.67
Department 08 - District Attorney 198,850.00 .00 198,850.00 12,178.67 .00 12,178.67 186,671.33 6 10,565.50
Department 09 - Child Support 259,540.00 .00 259,540.00 14,775.12 .00 14,775.12 244,764.88 6 13,817.83
Department 10 - County Clerk 393,580.00 .00 393,580.00 25,702.18 .00 25,702.18 367,877.82 7 23,734.70
Department 12 - Treasurer 144,768.00 .00 144,768.00 9,532.24 .00 9,532.24 135,235.76 7 11,082.58
Department 13 - Land Records 464,661.00 .00 464,661.00 27,175.18 .00 27,175.18 437,485.82 6 24,302.31
Department 14 - Court House 292,051.00 .00 292,051.00 17,855.43 .00 17,855.43 274,195.57 6 21,303.25
Department 15 - Register of Deeds 169,378.00 .00 169,378.00 11,703.52 .00 11,703.52 157,674.48 7 11,146.05
Department 17 - Sheriff 4,029,571.00 .00 4,029,571.00 235,342.00 .00 235,342.00 3,794,229.00 6 210,063.95
Department 18 - Emergency Management 122,657.00 .00 122,657.00 7,748.03 .00 7,748.03 114,908.97 6 6,774.97
Department 19 - Veteran's Services 153,546.00 .00 153,546.00 9,426.57 .00 9,426.57 144,119.43 6 5,883.21
Department 20 - Health 776,234.00 .00 776,234.00 49,731.29 .00 49,731.29 726,502.71 6 47,747.46
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism 212,889.00 .00 212,889.00 10,218.44 .00 10,218.44 202,670.56 5 9,177.35
Department 25 - UW Extension 102,623.00 .00 102,623.00 5,190.93 .00 5,190.93 97,432.07 5 5,197.70
Department 26 - Zoning 519,257.00 .00 519,257.00 29,673.37 .00 29,673.37 489,583.63 6 22,403.67
Department 28 - Land Conservation 442,281.00 .00 442,281.00 24,946.31 .00 24,946.31 417,334.69 6 18,272.09
Department 29 - Land Use Planning .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 31 - Information Services 441,400.00 .00 441,400.00 21,867.19 .00 21,867.19 419,532.81 5 18,419.58
Department 34 - Forestry 1,053,325.00 .00 1,053,325.00 57,403.08 .00 57,403.08 995,921.92 5 57,706.08
EXPENSE TOTALS $10,713,193.00 $0.00 $10,713,193.00 $633,746.23 $0.00 $633,746.23 $10,079,446.77 6%$569,379.71
Fund 100 - General Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 10,713,193.00 .00 10,713,193.00 633,746.23 .00 633,746.23 10,079,446.77 6%569,379.71
Fund 100 - General Totals ($10,713,193.00)$0.00 ($10,713,193.00)($633,746.23)$0.00 ($633,746.23)($10,079,446.77)($569,379.71)
Fund 235 - Human Services
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 47 - Behavioral Health & Community 362,369.00 .00 362,369.00 20,075.69 .00 20,075.69 342,293.31 6 14,361.22
Department 48 - Community Support Program (CSP).00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 51 - Regional Crisis Initiative .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 52 - AMSO 686,596.00 .00 686,596.00 41,133.70 .00 41,133.70 645,462.30 6 30,547.00
Department 53 - Family Services 588,212.00 .00 588,212.00 30,890.08 .00 30,890.08 557,321.92 5 34,087.27
Department 54 - Economic Support 413,921.00 .00 413,921.00 25,085.37 .00 25,085.37 388,835.63 6 22,261.03
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 01:19:24 PM Page 1 of 2
Personnel Financial Through January 31, 2023
Through 01/31/23
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 235 - Human Services
EXPENSE
Department 55 - Aging and Disabilities 529,585.00 .00 529,585.00 33,867.18 .00 33,867.18 495,717.82 6 26,473.88
Department 56 - GWAAR 277,123.00 .00 277,123.00 10,831.18 .00 10,831.18 266,291.82 4 9,125.74
Department 58 - ADRC-Bayfield Co 125,529.00 .00 125,529.00 2,613.28 .00 2,613.28 122,915.72 2 2,445.21
Department 59 - ADRC-North 122,927.00 .00 122,927.00 7,852.94 .00 7,852.94 115,074.06 6 7,423.94
EXPENSE TOTALS $3,106,262.00 $0.00 $3,106,262.00 $172,349.42 $0.00 $172,349.42 $2,933,912.58 6%$146,725.29
Fund 235 - Human Services Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 3,106,262.00 .00 3,106,262.00 172,349.42 .00 172,349.42 2,933,912.58 6%146,725.29
Fund 235 - Human Services Totals ($3,106,262.00)$0.00 ($3,106,262.00)($172,349.42)$0.00 ($172,349.42)($2,933,912.58)($146,725.29)
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant
EXPENSE
Department 20 - Health .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++2,671.87
Department 56 - GWAAR 64,077.00 .00 64,077.00 3,867.12 .00 3,867.12 60,209.88 6 3,406.05
EXPENSE TOTALS $64,077.00 $0.00 $64,077.00 $3,867.12 $0.00 $3,867.12 $60,209.88 6%$6,077.92
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 64,077.00 .00 64,077.00 3,867.12 .00 3,867.12 60,209.88 6%6,077.92
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals ($64,077.00)$0.00 ($64,077.00)($3,867.12)$0.00 ($3,867.12)($60,209.88)($6,077.92)
Fund 710 - Highway
EXPENSE
Department 71 - Highway Dept 2,444,155.00 .00 2,444,155.00 265,121.77 .00 265,121.77 2,179,033.23 11 269,720.53
EXPENSE TOTALS $2,444,155.00 $0.00 $2,444,155.00 $265,121.77 $0.00 $265,121.77 $2,179,033.23 11%$269,720.53
Fund 710 - Highway Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 2,444,155.00 .00 2,444,155.00 265,121.77 .00 265,121.77 2,179,033.23 11%269,720.53
Fund 710 - Highway Totals ($2,444,155.00)$0.00 ($2,444,155.00)($265,121.77)$0.00 ($265,121.77)($2,179,033.23)($269,720.53)
Grand Totals
EXPENSE TOTALS 16,327,687.00 .00 16,327,687.00 1,075,084.54 .00 1,075,084.54 15,252,602.46 7%991,903.45
Grand Totals ($16,327,687.00)$0.00 ($16,327,687.00)($1,075,084.54)$0.00 ($1,075,084.54)($15,252,602.46)($991,903.45)
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 01:19:24 PM Page 2 of 2
Personnel Financial Through January 31, 2023
Through 01/31/23
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 100 - General
REVENUE
Department 00 - General Fund 9,707,545.00 (262,857.00)9,444,688.00 150,178.54 .00 7,894,330.94 1,550,357.06 84 9,013,484.46
Department 02 - Clerk of Courts 277,595.00 .00 277,595.00 34,988.10 .00 315,793.59 (38,198.59)114 326,527.86
Department 04 - Criminal Justice 193,214.00 .00 193,214.00 6,747.00 .00 127,398.16 65,815.84 66 211,297.91
Department 05 - Family Court Commissioner .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 06 - Coroner 6,250.00 .00 6,250.00 761.00 .00 5,831.50 418.50 93 7,387.50
Department 07 - Administrator 15,000.00 .00 15,000.00 .00 .00 15,240.00 (240.00)102 15,100.00
Department 08 - District Attorney 26,500.00 .00 26,500.00 141.00 .00 15,287.24 11,212.76 58 39,998.17
Department 09 - Child Support 197,067.00 20,000.00 217,067.00 287.34 .00 155,677.55 61,389.45 72 174,387.71
Department 10 - County Clerk 53,690.00 .00 53,690.00 100.20 .00 20,206.72 33,483.28 38 37,058.84
Department 12 - Treasurer 330,482.00 .00 330,482.00 54,895.08 .00 374,271.99 (43,789.99)113 520,342.55
Department 13 - Land Records 276,000.00 32,360.00 308,360.00 38,407.55 .00 373,635.94 (65,275.94)121 336,307.34
Department 14 - Court House 300.00 .00 300.00 .00 .00 3,029.75 (2,729.75)1010 148.07
Department 15 - Register of Deeds 200,000.00 .00 200,000.00 26,543.22 .00 213,026.41 (13,026.41)107 274,062.56
Department 17 - Sheriff 296,750.00 12,000.00 308,750.00 67,056.85 .00 468,526.89 (159,776.89)152 306,789.99
Department 18 - Emergency Management 143,788.00 8,795.00 152,583.00 3,760.50 .00 139,947.72 12,635.28 92 204,850.46
Department 19 - Veteran's Services 11,550.00 .00 11,550.00 300.00 .00 14,278.83 (2,728.83)124 15,777.22
Department 20 - Health 856,763.00 176,825.00 1,033,588.00 175,670.52 .00 878,939.74 154,648.26 85 953,157.19
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism 163,850.00 .00 163,850.00 845.00 .00 182,488.20 (18,638.20)111 157,047.97
Department 25 - UW Extension 3,660.00 .00 3,660.00 .00 .00 3,660.00 .00 100 3,245.10
Department 26 - Zoning 253,200.00 .00 253,200.00 21,198.00 .00 323,770.94 (70,570.94)128 329,314.13
Department 28 - Land Conservation 380,063.00 32,973.00 413,036.00 83,236.59 .00 258,249.45 154,786.55 63 356,822.25
Department 31 - Information Services 51,400.00 .00 51,400.00 396.00 .00 59,368.93 (7,968.93)116 56,901.51
Department 34 - Forestry 3,894,156.00 348,609.00 4,242,765.00 279,259.68 .00 5,505,872.37 (1,263,107.37)130 4,733,953.48
Department 77 - Agricultural Station 22,500.00 .00 22,500.00 .00 .00 .00 22,500.00 0 33,560.00
REVENUE TOTALS $17,361,323.00 $368,705.00 $17,730,028.00 $944,772.17 $0.00 $17,348,832.86 $381,195.14 98%$18,107,522.27
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund 3,102,701.00 (285,318.00)2,817,383.00 (318,185.49).00 2,521,188.02 296,194.98 89 2,446,618.23
Department 01 - County Board 85,426.00 .00 85,426.00 9,362.98 .00 91,718.65 (6,292.65)107 94,459.86
Department 02 - Clerk of Courts 487,577.00 .00 487,577.00 81,697.97 .00 480,560.55 7,016.45 99 459,104.34
Department 04 - Criminal Justice 326,094.00 .00 326,094.00 44,931.13 .00 310,732.34 15,361.66 95 264,836.70
Department 05 - Family Court Commissioner .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 06 - Coroner 31,911.00 .00 31,911.00 7,354.43 .00 42,133.44 (10,222.44)132 29,738.38
Department 07 - Administrator 316,509.00 .00 316,509.00 38,173.90 .00 328,476.07 (11,967.07)104 318,069.36
Department 08 - District Attorney 178,946.00 .00 178,946.00 22,167.64 .00 189,000.78 (10,054.78)106 179,619.85
Department 09 - Child Support 246,887.00 30,000.00 276,887.00 28,919.94 .00 236,629.15 40,257.85 85 216,038.64
Department 10 - County Clerk 411,162.00 .00 411,162.00 41,553.36 .00 406,515.71 4,646.29 99 393,638.40
Department 12 - Treasurer 174,722.00 .00 174,722.00 16,896.02 .00 148,380.74 26,341.26 85 179,097.75
Department 13 - Land Records 634,287.00 32,360.00 666,647.00 107,705.44 .00 666,552.16 94.84 100 622,791.12
Run by Paige Terry on 02/03/2023 08:16:16 AM Page 1 of 5
Financial Report Through 12/31/2022
Through 12/31/22
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 14 - Court House 493,971.00 .00 493,971.00 79,957.14 .00 492,132.74 1,838.26 100 484,081.24
Department 15 - Register of Deeds 191,762.00 .00 191,762.00 20,002.06 .00 188,792.64 2,969.36 98 179,302.10
Department 17 - Sheriff 4,643,213.00 37,000.00 4,680,213.00 648,892.81 .00 4,546,199.55 134,013.45 97 4,525,936.65
Department 18 - Emergency Management 267,660.00 15,256.00 282,916.00 24,687.94 .00 279,557.72 3,358.28 99 333,497.68
Department 19 - Veteran's Services 134,748.00 .00 134,748.00 20,218.80 .00 141,674.57 (6,926.57)105 114,966.33
Department 20 - Health 891,190.00 49,022.00 940,212.00 118,838.58 .00 1,029,029.54 (88,817.54)109 889,738.38
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism 405,380.00 .00 405,380.00 32,541.07 .00 393,097.83 12,282.17 97 374,957.15
Department 25 - UW Extension 295,684.00 .00 295,684.00 98,488.29 .00 279,181.92 16,502.08 94 275,206.46
Department 26 - Zoning 530,970.00 .00 530,970.00 69,886.46 .00 521,235.34 9,734.66 98 496,649.69
Department 28 - Land Conservation 545,645.00 32,973.00 578,618.00 83,332.03 .00 582,266.78 (3,648.78)101 559,115.25
Department 29 - Land Use Planning .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 31 - Information Services 598,716.00 .00 598,716.00 64,997.02 .00 545,388.20 53,327.80 91 526,917.08
Department 34 - Forestry 2,105,449.00 273,609.00 2,379,058.00 749,972.97 .00 2,238,231.47 140,826.53 94 2,128,194.06
Department 77 - Agricultural Station 22,500.00 .00 22,500.00 .00 .00 545.00 21,955.00 2 .00
EXPENSE TOTALS $17,123,110.00 $184,902.00 $17,308,012.00 $2,092,392.49 $0.00 $16,659,220.91 $648,791.09 96%$16,092,574.70
Fund 100 - General Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 17,361,323.00 368,705.00 17,730,028.00 944,772.17 .00 17,348,832.86 381,195.14 98%18,107,522.27
EXPENSE TOTALS 17,123,110.00 184,902.00 17,308,012.00 2,092,392.49 .00 16,659,220.91 648,791.09 96%16,092,574.70
Fund 100 - General Totals $238,213.00 $183,803.00 $422,016.00 ($1,147,620.32)$0.00 $689,611.95 ($267,595.95)$2,014,947.57
Fund 235 - Human Services
REVENUE
Department 50 - Human Services 5,300,785.00 914,023.00 6,214,808.00 438,662.82 .00 5,333,630.45 881,177.55 86 5,770,961.18
REVENUE TOTALS $5,300,785.00 $914,023.00 $6,214,808.00 $438,662.82 $0.00 $5,333,630.45 $881,177.55 86%$5,770,961.18
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 740.09 (740.09)+++725,331.48
Department 47 - Behavioral Health & Community 463,690.00 157,267.00 620,957.00 89,441.25 .00 576,308.18 44,648.82 93 419,480.95
Department 48 - Community Support Program (CSP)134,025.00 .00 134,025.00 53,083.66 .00 160,915.15 (26,890.15)120 .00
Department 51 - Regional Crisis Initiative 59,400.00 88,521.00 147,921.00 19,166.66 .00 142,870.48 5,050.52 97 107,859.95
Department 52 - AMSO 620,919.00 .00 620,919.00 81,911.26 .00 617,734.14 3,184.86 99 630,684.09
Department 53 - Family Services 1,945,756.00 291,000.00 2,236,756.00 334,781.87 .00 1,754,791.02 481,964.98 78 1,796,476.74
Department 54 - Economic Support 417,024.00 .00 417,024.00 49,640.50 .00 362,789.59 54,234.41 87 387,690.57
Department 55 - Aging and Disabilities 720,867.00 249,561.00 970,428.00 175,096.70 .00 742,331.17 228,096.83 76 651,149.80
Department 56 - GWAAR 698,299.00 (50,000.00)648,299.00 90,406.51 .00 557,625.80 90,673.20 86 558,352.85
Department 58 - ADRC-Bayfield Co 122,959.00 13,000.00 135,959.00 19,685.77 .00 120,744.09 15,214.91 89 134,770.80
Department 59 - ADRC-North 117,846.00 120,640.00 238,486.00 26,723.22 .00 129,420.50 109,065.50 54 134,416.66
EXPENSE TOTALS $5,300,785.00 $869,989.00 $6,170,774.00 $939,937.40 $0.00 $5,166,270.21 $1,004,503.79 84%$5,546,213.89
Run by Paige Terry on 02/03/2023 08:16:16 AM Page 2 of 5
Financial Report Through 12/31/2022
Through 12/31/22
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 235 - Human Services Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 5,300,785.00 914,023.00 6,214,808.00 438,662.82 .00 5,333,630.45 881,177.55 86%5,770,961.18
EXPENSE TOTALS 5,300,785.00 869,989.00 6,170,774.00 939,937.40 .00 5,166,270.21 1,004,503.79 84%5,546,213.89
Fund 235 - Human Services Totals $0.00 $44,034.00 $44,034.00 ($501,274.58)$0.00 $167,360.24 ($123,326.24)$224,747.29
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant
REVENUE
Department 00 - General Fund 1,640,513.00 570,178.00 2,210,691.00 (1,920,904.64).00 690,296.43 1,520,394.57 31 326,939.24
REVENUE TOTALS $1,640,513.00 $570,178.00 $2,210,691.00 ($1,920,904.64)$0.00 $690,296.43 $1,520,394.57 31%$326,939.24
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund 698,868.00 .00 698,868.00 .00 .00 145,730.71 553,137.29 21 1,676.39
Department 14 - Court House 600,000.00 565,043.00 1,165,043.00 197,472.49 .00 297,024.01 868,018.99 25 49,871.00
Department 18 - Emergency Management .00 14,369.00 14,369.00 1,500.00 .00 60,648.70 (46,279.70)422 .00
Department 20 - Health 59,645.00 (41,000.00)18,645.00 .00 .00 2,671.87 15,973.13 14 26,351.14
Department 23 - Tourism 25,000.00 .00 25,000.00 .00 .00 2,500.00 22,500.00 10 .00
Department 31 - Information Services .00 31,766.00 31,766.00 .00 .00 31,766.00 .00 100 188,233.71
Department 34 - Forestry 60,000.00 .00 60,000.00 .00 .00 58,863.90 1,136.10 98 .00
Department 56 - GWAAR 197,000.00 .00 197,000.00 7,656.67 .00 59,329.17 137,670.83 30 1,535.00
EXPENSE TOTALS $1,640,513.00 $570,178.00 $2,210,691.00 $206,629.16 $0.00 $658,534.36 $1,552,156.64 30%$267,667.24
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 1,640,513.00 570,178.00 2,210,691.00 (1,920,904.64).00 690,296.43 1,520,394.57 31%326,939.24
EXPENSE TOTALS 1,640,513.00 570,178.00 2,210,691.00 206,629.16 .00 658,534.36 1,552,156.64 30%267,667.24
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($2,127,533.80)$0.00 $31,762.07 ($31,762.07)$59,272.00
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund
REVENUE
Department 00 - General Fund 815,159.00 37,500.00 852,659.00 .00 .00 37,350.00 815,309.00 4 .00
Department 01 - County Board .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 10 - County Clerk .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 13 - Land Records .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++38,782.00
Department 14 - Court House 273,714.00 .00 273,714.00 .00 .00 17,865.00 255,849.00 7 .00
Department 17 - Sheriff 2,500.00 .00 2,500.00 .00 .00 1,899.00 601.00 76 88,895.54
Department 18 - Emergency Management .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 34 - Forestry 547,000.00 1,578,000.00 2,125,000.00 17,152.00 .00 1,535,285.00 589,715.00 72 696.33
Department 50 - Human Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 70 - Capital Projects 1,586,098.00 (163,132.00)1,422,966.00 (588,505.00).00 918,968.56 503,997.44 65 784,479.00
Department 71 - Highway Dept .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
REVENUE TOTALS $3,224,471.00 $1,452,368.00 $4,676,839.00 ($571,353.00)$0.00 $2,511,367.56 $2,165,471.44 54%$912,852.87
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Run by Paige Terry on 02/03/2023 08:16:16 AM Page 3 of 5
Financial Report Through 12/31/2022
Through 12/31/22
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund
EXPENSE
Department 01 - County Board 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 .00 .00 477.79 522.21 48 .00
Department 02 - Clerk of Courts 5,000.00 .00 5,000.00 .00 .00 3,133.68 1,866.32 63 4,181.45
Department 04 - Criminal Justice .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++19,500.00
Department 05 - Family Court Commissioner .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 06 - Coroner .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 07 - Administrator 12,000.00 .00 12,000.00 .00 .00 1,359.00 10,641.00 11 .00
Department 08 - District Attorney .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 09 - Child Support .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 10 - County Clerk 52,700.00 166,505.00 219,205.00 3,450.25 .00 220,090.33 (885.33)100 371.27
Department 11 - Elections .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 12 - Treasurer .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 13 - Land Records 118,666.00 .00 118,666.00 24,625.00 .00 118,600.00 66.00 100 69,137.30
Department 14 - Court House 1,038,747.00 94,176.00 1,132,923.00 194,510.53 .00 982,520.53 150,402.47 87 176,431.59
Department 15 - Register of Deeds 3,000.00 .00 3,000.00 .00 .00 2,355.00 645.00 78 .00
Department 17 - Sheriff 42,425.00 .00 42,425.00 695.00 .00 36,331.94 6,093.06 86 184,900.91
Department 18 - Emergency Management 57,373.00 .00 57,373.00 .00 .00 20,590.00 36,783.00 36 39,985.93
Department 19 - Veteran's Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 20 - Health 41,254.00 .00 41,254.00 2,393.23 .00 8,219.72 33,034.28 20 1,500.00
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism 7,801.00 .00 7,801.00 .00 .00 3,811.10 3,989.90 49 129,989.42
Department 25 - UW Extension 1.00 2,712.00 2,713.00 .00 .00 2,711.65 1.35 100 .00
Department 26 - Zoning .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 27 - Board of Adjustment .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 28 - Land Conservation .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 29 - Land Use Planning .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 30 - Wildlife Abatement .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 31 - Information Services 141,500.00 48,906.00 190,406.00 .00 .00 97,164.34 93,241.66 51 157,356.19
Department 34 - Forestry 1,576,002.00 1,161,000.00 2,737,002.00 835,780.98 .00 928,866.32 1,808,135.68 34 22,297.26
Department 52 - AMSO 87,002.00 .00 87,002.00 14,173.52 .00 14,173.52 72,828.48 16 .00
Department 53 - Family Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 54 - Economic Support .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 55 - Aging and Disabilities .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 56 - GWAAR .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 70 - Capital Projects .00 48,074.00 48,074.00 .00 .00 .00 48,074.00 0 .00
Department 71 - Highway Dept 40,000.00 37,500.00 77,500.00 .00 .00 58,966.60 18,533.40 76 .00
EXPENSE TOTALS $3,224,471.00 $1,558,873.00 $4,783,344.00 $1,075,628.51 $0.00 $2,499,371.52 $2,283,972.48 52%$805,651.32
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 3,224,471.00 1,452,368.00 4,676,839.00 (571,353.00).00 2,511,367.56 2,165,471.44 54%912,852.87
Run by Paige Terry on 02/03/2023 08:16:16 AM Page 4 of 5
Financial Report Through 12/31/2022
Through 12/31/22
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
EXPENSE TOTALS 3,224,471.00 1,558,873.00 4,783,344.00 1,075,628.51 .00 2,499,371.52 2,283,972.48 52%805,651.32
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund Totals $0.00 ($106,505.00)($106,505.00)($1,646,981.51)$0.00 $11,996.04 ($118,501.04)$107,201.55
Fund 710 - Highway
REVENUE
Department 71 - Highway Dept 8,482,456.00 .00 8,482,456.00 763,749.35 .00 7,339,674.13 1,142,781.87 87 6,579,074.76
REVENUE TOTALS $8,482,456.00 $0.00 $8,482,456.00 $763,749.35 $0.00 $7,339,674.13 $1,142,781.87 87%$6,579,074.76
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 71 - Highway Dept 8,482,456.00 .00 8,482,456.00 350,476.51 .00 7,616,949.01 865,506.99 90 6,177,751.40
EXPENSE TOTALS $8,482,456.00 $0.00 $8,482,456.00 $350,476.51 $0.00 $7,616,949.01 $865,506.99 90%$6,177,751.40
Fund 710 - Highway Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 8,482,456.00 .00 8,482,456.00 763,749.35 .00 7,339,674.13 1,142,781.87 87%6,579,074.76
EXPENSE TOTALS 8,482,456.00 .00 8,482,456.00 350,476.51 .00 7,616,949.01 865,506.99 90%6,177,751.40
Fund 710 - Highway Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $413,272.84 $0.00 ($277,274.88)$277,274.88 $401,323.36
Grand Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 36,009,548.00 3,305,274.00 39,314,822.00 (345,073.30).00 33,223,801.43 6,091,020.57 85%31,697,350.32
EXPENSE TOTALS 35,771,335.00 3,183,942.00 38,955,277.00 4,665,064.07 .00 32,600,346.01 6,354,930.99 84%28,889,858.55
Grand Totals $238,213.00 $121,332.00 $359,545.00 ($5,010,137.37)$0.00 $623,455.42 ($263,910.42)$2,807,491.77
Run by Paige Terry on 02/03/2023 08:16:16 AM Page 5 of 5
Financial Report Through 12/31/2022
Through 12/31/22
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 100 - General
REVENUE
Department 00 - General Fund 11,565,134.00 .00 11,565,134.00 (825,630.46).00 (825,630.46)12,390,764.46 -7 5,589,202.28
Department 02 - Clerk of Courts 303,945.00 .00 303,945.00 .00 .00 .00 303,945.00 0 26,717.00
Department 04 - Criminal Justice 193,181.00 .00 193,181.00 .00 .00 .00 193,181.00 0 .00
Department 05 - Family Court Commissioner .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 06 - Coroner 8,100.00 .00 8,100.00 896.00 .00 896.00 7,204.00 11 .00
Department 07 - Administrator 15,060.00 .00 15,060.00 15,000.00 .00 15,000.00 60.00 100 15,000.00
Department 08 - District Attorney 32,603.00 .00 32,603.00 38.25 .00 38.25 32,564.75 0 .00
Department 09 - Child Support 277,112.00 .00 277,112.00 .00 .00 .00 277,112.00 0 .00
Department 10 - County Clerk 31,900.00 .00 31,900.00 6.00 .00 6.00 31,894.00 0 86.00
Department 12 - Treasurer 544,610.00 .00 544,610.00 25,683.05 .00 25,683.05 518,926.95 5 6,690.96
Department 13 - Land Records 308,500.00 .00 308,500.00 .00 .00 .00 308,500.00 0 18.00
Department 14 - Court House .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 15 - Register of Deeds 226,000.00 .00 226,000.00 .00 .00 .00 226,000.00 0 .00
Department 17 - Sheriff 406,483.00 .00 406,483.00 21.20 .00 21.20 406,461.80 0 26.51
Department 18 - Emergency Management 137,505.00 .00 137,505.00 27,343.20 .00 27,343.20 110,161.80 20 30,113.12
Department 19 - Veteran's Services 26,453.00 .00 26,453.00 20.00 .00 20.00 26,433.00 0 38.80
Department 20 - Health 943,462.00 .00 943,462.00 8,520.17 .00 8,520.17 934,941.83 1 3,610.50
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism 165,350.00 .00 165,350.00 18,442.50 .00 18,442.50 146,907.50 11 18,145.00
Department 25 - UW Extension 3,660.00 .00 3,660.00 .00 .00 .00 3,660.00 0 414.90
Department 26 - Zoning 307,500.00 .00 307,500.00 .00 .00 .00 307,500.00 0 (450.00)
Department 28 - Land Conservation 396,928.00 .00 396,928.00 7,550.00 .00 7,550.00 389,378.00 2 7,500.00
Department 31 - Information Services 78,620.00 .00 78,620.00 23,938.49 .00 23,938.49 54,681.51 30 14,898.00
Department 34 - Forestry 4,030,952.00 .00 4,030,952.00 262,253.59 .00 262,253.59 3,768,698.41 7 260,768.66
Department 77 - Agricultural Station 36,500.00 .00 36,500.00 .00 .00 .00 36,500.00 0 .00
REVENUE TOTALS $20,039,558.00 $0.00 $20,039,558.00 ($435,918.01)$0.00 ($435,918.01)$20,475,476.01 -2%$5,972,779.73
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund 4,512,585.00 .00 4,512,585.00 3,748,679.19 .00 3,748,679.19 763,905.81 83 299,999.26
Department 01 - County Board 89,506.00 .00 89,506.00 5,545.41 .00 5,545.41 83,960.59 6 6,473.92
Department 02 - Clerk of Courts 481,482.00 .00 481,482.00 35,458.03 .00 35,458.03 446,023.97 7 24,911.86
Department 04 - Criminal Justice 313,095.00 .00 313,095.00 17,159.46 .00 17,159.46 295,935.54 5 16,473.04
Department 05 - Family Court Commissioner .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 06 - Coroner 32,724.00 .00 32,724.00 623.58 .00 623.58 32,100.42 2 586.49
Department 07 - Administrator 360,797.00 .00 360,797.00 39,304.16 .00 39,304.16 321,492.84 11 18,883.48
Department 08 - District Attorney 212,755.00 .00 212,755.00 12,399.34 .00 12,399.34 200,355.66 6 11,707.02
Department 09 - Child Support 301,760.00 .00 301,760.00 15,526.20 .00 15,526.20 286,233.80 5 15,897.14
Department 10 - County Clerk 428,730.00 .00 428,730.00 27,214.29 .00 27,214.29 401,515.71 6 24,333.97
Department 12 - Treasurer 164,304.00 .00 164,304.00 9,700.96 .00 9,700.96 154,603.04 6 11,329.58
Department 13 - Land Records 687,432.00 .00 687,432.00 59,773.00 .00 59,773.00 627,659.00 9 57,999.05
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 09:34:22 AM Page 1 of 5
Financial Report Through 01/31/2023
Through 01/31/23
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 14 - Court House 553,679.00 .00 553,679.00 24,245.92 .00 24,245.92 529,433.08 4 24,078.67
Department 15 - Register of Deeds 190,896.00 .00 190,896.00 28,470.29 .00 28,470.29 162,425.71 15 15,569.00
Department 17 - Sheriff 4,828,336.00 .00 4,828,336.00 294,277.09 .00 294,277.09 4,534,058.91 6 334,879.26
Department 18 - Emergency Management 301,618.00 .00 301,618.00 44,025.81 .00 44,025.81 257,592.19 15 42,426.41
Department 19 - Veteran's Services 172,424.00 .00 172,424.00 11,281.92 .00 11,281.92 161,142.08 7 6,159.48
Department 20 - Health 934,768.00 .00 934,768.00 58,991.86 .00 58,991.86 875,776.14 6 52,458.17
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism 427,419.00 .00 427,419.00 40,166.54 .00 40,166.54 387,252.46 9 25,389.34
Department 25 - UW Extension 357,558.00 .00 357,558.00 5,373.65 .00 5,373.65 352,184.35 2 5,712.98
Department 26 - Zoning 650,704.00 .00 650,704.00 34,201.19 .00 34,201.19 616,502.81 5 24,012.72
Department 28 - Land Conservation 610,843.00 .00 610,843.00 31,790.49 .00 31,790.49 579,052.51 5 25,734.60
Department 29 - Land Use Planning .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 31 - Information Services 735,720.00 .00 735,720.00 29,028.59 .00 29,028.59 706,691.41 4 29,571.93
Department 34 - Forestry 2,273,368.00 .00 2,273,368.00 74,682.73 .00 74,682.73 2,198,685.27 3 75,704.11
Department 77 - Agricultural Station 14,000.00 .00 14,000.00 .00 .00 .00 14,000.00 0 .00
EXPENSE TOTALS $19,636,503.00 $0.00 $19,636,503.00 $4,647,919.70 $0.00 $4,647,919.70 $14,988,583.30 24%$1,150,291.48
Fund 100 - General Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 20,039,558.00 .00 20,039,558.00 (435,918.01).00 (435,918.01)20,475,476.01 -2%5,972,779.73
EXPENSE TOTALS 19,636,503.00 .00 19,636,503.00 4,647,919.70 .00 4,647,919.70 14,988,583.30 24%1,150,291.48
Fund 100 - General Totals $403,055.00 $0.00 $403,055.00 ($5,083,837.71)$0.00 ($5,083,837.71)$5,486,892.71 $4,822,488.25
Fund 235 - Human Services
REVENUE
Department 50 - Human Services 5,958,383.00 .00 5,958,383.00 1,822,948.95 .00 1,822,948.95 4,135,434.05 31 1,851,898.33
REVENUE TOTALS $5,958,383.00 $0.00 $5,958,383.00 $1,822,948.95 $0.00 $1,822,948.95 $4,135,434.05 31%$1,851,898.33
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 47 - Behavioral Health & Community 629,069.00 .00 629,069.00 20,483.69 .00 20,483.69 608,585.31 3 15,084.53
Department 48 - Community Support Program (CSP).00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 51 - Regional Crisis Initiative .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 52 - AMSO 725,596.00 .00 725,596.00 42,324.83 .00 42,324.83 683,271.17 6 33,010.78
Department 53 - Family Services 1,702,597.00 .00 1,702,597.00 30,890.08 .00 30,890.08 1,671,706.92 2 35,140.38
Department 54 - Economic Support 438,355.00 .00 438,355.00 25,320.36 .00 25,320.36 413,034.64 6 22,261.03
Department 55 - Aging and Disabilities 818,852.00 .00 818,852.00 38,252.49 .00 38,252.49 780,599.51 5 29,360.84
Department 56 - GWAAR 764,263.00 .00 764,263.00 40,574.36 .00 40,574.36 723,688.64 5 22,360.10
Department 58 - ADRC-Bayfield Co 133,429.00 .00 133,429.00 2,688.28 .00 2,688.28 130,740.72 2 2,496.17
Department 59 - ADRC-North 125,327.00 .00 125,327.00 7,852.94 .00 7,852.94 117,474.06 6 7,423.94
EXPENSE TOTALS $5,337,488.00 $0.00 $5,337,488.00 $208,387.03 $0.00 $208,387.03 $5,129,100.97 4%$167,137.77
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 09:34:22 AM Page 2 of 5
Financial Report Through 01/31/2023
Through 01/31/23
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 235 - Human Services Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 5,958,383.00 .00 5,958,383.00 1,822,948.95 .00 1,822,948.95 4,135,434.05 31%1,851,898.33
EXPENSE TOTALS 5,337,488.00 .00 5,337,488.00 208,387.03 .00 208,387.03 5,129,100.97 4%167,137.77
Fund 235 - Human Services Totals $620,895.00 $0.00 $620,895.00 $1,614,561.92 $0.00 $1,614,561.92 ($993,666.92)$1,684,760.56
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant
REVENUE
Department 00 - General Fund 879,877.00 .00 879,877.00 .00 .00 .00 879,877.00 0 1,103,708.26
REVENUE TOTALS $879,877.00 $0.00 $879,877.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $879,877.00 0%$1,103,708.26
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund 365,800.00 .00 365,800.00 25,000.00 .00 25,000.00 340,800.00 7 .00
Department 14 - Court House 450,000.00 .00 450,000.00 2,190.00 .00 2,190.00 447,810.00 0 6,367.00
Department 18 - Emergency Management .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 20 - Health .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++2,671.87
Department 23 - Tourism .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 31 - Information Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 34 - Forestry .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 56 - GWAAR 64,077.00 .00 64,077.00 3,867.12 .00 3,867.12 60,209.88 6 3,406.05
EXPENSE TOTALS $879,877.00 $0.00 $879,877.00 $31,057.12 $0.00 $31,057.12 $848,819.88 4%$12,444.92
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 879,877.00 .00 879,877.00 .00 .00 .00 879,877.00 0%1,103,708.26
EXPENSE TOTALS 879,877.00 .00 879,877.00 31,057.12 .00 31,057.12 848,819.88 4%12,444.92
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($31,057.12)$0.00 ($31,057.12)$31,057.12 $1,091,263.34
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund
REVENUE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 01 - County Board .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 10 - County Clerk .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 13 - Land Records .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 14 - Court House .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 17 - Sheriff 2,095.00 .00 2,095.00 .00 .00 .00 2,095.00 0 .00
Department 18 - Emergency Management .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 34 - Forestry .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 50 - Human Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 70 - Capital Projects 1,669,364.00 .00 1,669,364.00 1,669,364.00 .00 1,669,364.00 .00 100 144,442.00
Department 71 - Highway Dept 225,000.00 .00 225,000.00 .00 .00 .00 225,000.00 0 .00
REVENUE TOTALS $1,896,459.00 $0.00 $1,896,459.00 $1,669,364.00 $0.00 $1,669,364.00 $227,095.00 88%$144,442.00
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund 700,000.00 .00 700,000.00 .00 .00 .00 700,000.00 0 .00
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 09:34:22 AM Page 3 of 5
Financial Report Through 01/31/2023
Through 01/31/23
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund
EXPENSE
Department 01 - County Board .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 02 - Clerk of Courts .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 04 - Criminal Justice .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 05 - Family Court Commissioner .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 06 - Coroner 1,500.00 .00 1,500.00 .00 .00 .00 1,500.00 0 .00
Department 07 - Administrator .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 08 - District Attorney .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 09 - Child Support .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 10 - County Clerk 800.00 .00 800.00 .00 .00 .00 800.00 0 209,005.00
Department 11 - Elections .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 12 - Treasurer .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 13 - Land Records 108,665.00 .00 108,665.00 .00 .00 .00 108,665.00 0 .00
Department 14 - Court House 54,235.00 .00 54,235.00 .00 .00 .00 54,235.00 0 .00
Department 15 - Register of Deeds .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 17 - Sheriff 36,407.00 .00 36,407.00 .00 .00 .00 36,407.00 0 .00
Department 18 - Emergency Management .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 19 - Veteran's Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 20 - Health 15,350.00 .00 15,350.00 .00 .00 .00 15,350.00 0 .00
Department 22 - Fair .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 23 - Tourism 24,915.00 .00 24,915.00 .00 .00 .00 24,915.00 0 .00
Department 25 - UW Extension .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 26 - Zoning 2,650.00 .00 2,650.00 .00 .00 .00 2,650.00 0 .00
Department 27 - Board of Adjustment .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 28 - Land Conservation .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 29 - Land Use Planning .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 30 - Wildlife Abatement .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 31 - Information Services 280,000.00 .00 280,000.00 .00 .00 .00 280,000.00 0 38,614.48
Department 34 - Forestry 384,000.00 .00 384,000.00 33,076.79 .00 33,076.79 350,923.21 9 16,354.50
Department 52 - AMSO .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 53 - Family Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 54 - Economic Support .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 55 - Aging and Disabilities .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 56 - GWAAR .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 70 - Capital Projects 62,937.00 .00 62,937.00 .00 .00 .00 62,937.00 0 .00
Department 71 - Highway Dept .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
EXPENSE TOTALS $1,671,459.00 $0.00 $1,671,459.00 $33,076.79 $0.00 $33,076.79 $1,638,382.21 2%$263,973.98
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 1,896,459.00 .00 1,896,459.00 1,669,364.00 .00 1,669,364.00 227,095.00 88%144,442.00
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 09:34:22 AM Page 4 of 5
Financial Report Through 01/31/2023
Through 01/31/23
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Organization Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year YTD
EXPENSE TOTALS 1,671,459.00 .00 1,671,459.00 33,076.79 .00 33,076.79 1,638,382.21 2%263,973.98
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund Totals $225,000.00 $0.00 $225,000.00 $1,636,287.21 $0.00 $1,636,287.21 ($1,411,287.21)($119,531.98)
Fund 710 - Highway
REVENUE
Department 71 - Highway Dept 10,218,352.00 .00 10,218,352.00 6,220,545.39 .00 6,220,545.39 3,997,806.61 61 3,834,984.73
REVENUE TOTALS $10,218,352.00 $0.00 $10,218,352.00 $6,220,545.39 $0.00 $6,220,545.39 $3,997,806.61 61%$3,834,984.73
EXPENSE
Department 00 - General Fund .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
Department 71 - Highway Dept 10,019,144.00 .00 10,019,144.00 383,299.80 .00 383,299.80 9,635,844.20 4 405,055.15
EXPENSE TOTALS $10,019,144.00 $0.00 $10,019,144.00 $383,299.80 $0.00 $383,299.80 $9,635,844.20 4%$405,055.15
Fund 710 - Highway Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 10,218,352.00 .00 10,218,352.00 6,220,545.39 .00 6,220,545.39 3,997,806.61 61%3,834,984.73
EXPENSE TOTALS 10,019,144.00 .00 10,019,144.00 383,299.80 .00 383,299.80 9,635,844.20 4%405,055.15
Fund 710 - Highway Totals $199,208.00 $0.00 $199,208.00 $5,837,245.59 $0.00 $5,837,245.59 ($5,638,037.59)$3,429,929.58
Grand Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 38,992,629.00 .00 38,992,629.00 9,276,940.33 .00 9,276,940.33 29,715,688.67 24%12,907,813.05
EXPENSE TOTALS 37,544,471.00 .00 37,544,471.00 5,303,740.44 .00 5,303,740.44 32,240,730.56 14%1,998,903.30
Grand Totals $1,448,158.00 $0.00 $1,448,158.00 $3,973,199.89 $0.00 $3,973,199.89 ($2,525,041.89)$10,908,909.75
Run by Paige Terry on 02/02/2023 09:34:22 AM Page 5 of 5
Financial Report Through 01/31/2023
Through 01/31/23
Prior Fiscal Year Activity Included
Summary Listing
Beginning
Balance
Account 1/1/2023 January February March April May June July August September October November December
Office $1,000.00 $1,000.00
No. 2 Account $100.00 $100.00
Bremer Checking $1,255,868.18 $1,734,333.72
Bremer Money Market $2,523,510.08 $1,575,047.86
H.R.A. / Flex Benefits $880,612.59 $991,214.76
Jail Assessment $44,766.65 $45,920.11
# 85.21 $99,794.70 $132,948.37
DHS CCOP Risk Reserve $6,072.82 $6,077.98
Credit Card Acct. (clerk)$1.00 $1.00
Credit Card Acct. (taxes)$642.04 $1.00
Co Rehab. Fund $138,321.62 $138,479.65
L.G.I.P.$6,117,574.00 $3,633,186.59
OTHER INVESTMENTS $13,000,000.00 $13,000,000.00
N.L. Debt Service Fund 380 $3,896.36 $442,757.67
N.L. Collateral Pledge (250K)$252,394.18 $252,608.55
N.L. Collateral Pledge (75.032K)$75,751.52 $75,815.86
American Recovery Act Funds $2,035,126.65 $1,903,837.29
LATCF Program $521,995.97 $523,792.27
Community Dev. Block Grant $100.00 $100.00
Opioid Funds $58,610.26 $58,807.65
Ending Monthly Balance $27,016,138.62 $24,516,030.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2022 Balances $22,310,705.30 $28,659,659.41 $29,319,256.37 $28,447,678.79 $28,642,012.44 $31,186,512.57 $37,416,622.59 $27,172,569.77 $26,352,070.24 $29,469,935.19 $29,202,664.53 $27,016,138.62
2021 Balances $19,104,055.75 $23,981,112.94 $25,737,385.39 $25,376,587.35 $26,564,234.67 $26,751,199.48 $34,957,004.23 $25,798,555.65 $25,307,854.40 $26,107,310.73 $25,443,149.62 $23,315,364.37
2020 Balances $19,443,090.28 $22,440,538.97 $23,224,941.12 $23,271,363.35 $22,863,945.12 $22,550,175.73 $29,805,316.43 $20,462,753.76 $20,503,894.03 $22,285,170.65 $20,999,361.27 $19,955,568.72
2019 Balances $18,045,161.00 $21,832,798.83 $22,237,684.41 $21,925,528.67 $21,606,991.52 $22,128,650.41 $31,870,207.25 $21,522,039.97 $21,168,567.50 $21,412,514.44 $20,253,753.16 $19,452,296.18
2018 Balances $20,812,570.87 $23,499,888.91 $23,755,773.98 $23,519,738.72 $23,081,242.60 $22,900,248.27 $32,008,164.17 $22,203,243.28 $21,578,713.04 $21,324,769.20 $21,175,553.33 $16,874,631.86
2017 Balances $20,923,479.36 $24,882,039.31 $23,116,826.95 $22,990,456.96 $22,628,007.19 $23,528,937.74 $32,965,824.56 $23,697,897.80 $20,311,997.35 $19,979,973.63 $19,908,168.56 $19,187,234.41
$200,000.00 Invest. Agreement $200,000.00 $200,000.00
(I.R. Incubator Bldg.-June 2003)
$240,019.64 World Class Loan $63,811.83 $63,172.39
(Bayfield- Nov. 2009)
$500,000.00 Loan to Northern $207,852.92 $199,407.05Lights (November 2019)
Totals $471,664.75 $462,579.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
County Loans
(Short Term Loans)-$2,500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TREASURER'S REPORT 2023
End Of Month Account Balances 2023
Notes / Agreements - (Principal Balance)