Plan commission recommends TID No. 11 boundary and project‑plan amendment to add 10 acres and Draxler Drive right‑of‑way

The Marshfield Plan Commission on July 15 unanimously recommended a boundary amendment and project‑plan amendment for Tax Incremental Finance District No. 11 that would add a roughly 10‑acre parcel and the Draxler Drive right‑of‑way to the district to accommodate a planned manufacturing campus and a proposed extension of Draxler Drive. Josh Miller, the project presenter from Cedar Corp., told the commission the amendment would allow the city to use future TIF increment to pay project costs tied to the development.

Miller said the proposal has two practical purposes: to make parcels within the district contiguous and to add project costs so the city may fund public improvements, including a Draxler Drive extension and associated planning. “It gives the city it's a financing mechanism and economic development tool that the city has to help with infrastructure projects, spur on development, add job growth, things like that,” he said during the public hearing.

Why it matters: adding the parcel and right‑of‑way would let the developer realign lot lines and build three planned buildings on a new campus; it would also create a second access point off Veterans Parkway to supplement the existing access at Heritage Drive and the Kwik Trip intersection. The added access, staff said, will improve site circulation for high‑tech light manufacturing and make nearby vacant parcels more marketable.

Key facts and timetable

- Project area: TID No. 11 on the city’s southeast side near the intersection of Draxler Drive, Veterans Parkway and Heritage Drive. The amendment would add Lot 3 (about 10 acres) and the Draxler Drive right‑of‑way to the district. - Parcel values: staff reported the district’s assessed value at roughly $278,003,300 and said the amendment would add about $300,000 in base value to the district’s roll. - Project costs and finance: staff presented an estimated nearly $3,000,000 of projected new project costs tied to infrastructure, planning and financing. The cash‑flow model shown to the commission projects the district would be able to pay those costs and is estimated to close earlier than its scheduled end; staff projected a termination window around 2033 (the district’s statutory 20‑year termination is 2036). - Required studies and approvals: a traffic‑impact analysis will be required before DOT approval of any new access to Veterans Parkway; Miller said that analysis can be funded from TIF increment if the district generates revenues. The amendment process has already begun with a joint review board meeting earlier the same day; the commission opened the public hearing and recommended the resolution so the common council can consider formal adoption. If the council approves, the joint review board will take final action.

Discussion and city safeguards

Miller emphasized the city will not advance major infrastructure expenditures until revenues or development materially support the costs. He said the city typically waits for development to be “built out or mostly built out” before committing significant TIF dollars to construction. A commission member noted the developer — identified in the presentation as an established local company relocating to the site — intends to start construction on phase 1 in the summer, with later phases following.

Commissioner Michael, speaking from his experience with other TIFs, said the proposal appeared low risk: “this 1 is about as safe as I've ever seen 1.” Miller and staff also explained that annexed property requires a payment to the former town for five years; staff said that payment has already been made for the parcel annexed last year and that the council resolution will record that provision.

Formal action

The commission opened and closed a public hearing on the amendment and then voted to recommend adoption of the amended boundaries and project plan to the common council. The recorded roll‑call votes on the recommendation were Yes: Commissioner Michael; Commissioner Frederick; Commissioner Bernardi; Commissioner Caprillion; Council member O’Reilly; Mayor Teastreich. The motion was approved.

What happens next

Staff told the commission the planning commission recommendation will be forwarded to the common council for consideration the following week; if the council approves the resolution, the joint review board will receive the matter for final action. If the joint review board denies the amendment, it would not proceed.

Limits and caveats

- The traffic‑impact analysis is required before DOT will permit any new highway access; the timing and cost of that study could affect when the city proceeds with road construction. Miller said the analysis is “pretty, expensive” but can be paid from TIF funds when increment is available. - Staff emphasized that projected assessed values and revenues are estimates; the joint review board and Department of Revenue review financial feasibility and revenue projections.

Meeting context

The item drew multiple questions from commissioners and the public hearing saw several clarifying questions about the annexation payment, project timing and maintenance after the TIF closes. The commission recommended the resolution without amendments and forwarded it to the common council for final consideration.