Marathon County hears $54M–$34M options for ICE Arena after feasibility study; no decision made

Marathon County Executive Committee members reviewed a completed feasibility study and a draft decision-making framework for the Marathon County ICE Arena on Oct. 9, with staff saying the county has bought short-term time to decide while longer-term options are considered.

Parks and Recreation Director Jamie summarized the consultant study funded in part by a FEMA BRIC (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities) grant and described four broad options: (1) a new two-sheet, year-round facility at an estimated $54,000,000; (2) rebuild of Rink 1 as a year-round sheet and upgrades to Rink 2 at about $34,000,000; (3) shorter-term upgrades to existing rinks (estimated roughly $7,000,000 plus a $1,400,000 roof work); or (4) cease county ice operations. Jamie said the feasibility work was driven by user-group surveys and meetings and that the consultant’s recommended program reflected those needs. “We finally got the study completed,” Jamie said.

The presentation recalled recent emergency repairs: last season corrosion and leaks in rink piping forced a late opening. In March the county purchased an ice-mat system and authorized about $950,000 to install it and make refrigeration-room upgrades to restore ice availability for the current season. Jamie said the mat system has a 7–10 year life and will be removed each summer because the fair and other non-ice events use the arena floor.

Why it matters: user groups — three high-school teams, youth hockey programs with “500-plus” kids, adult leagues, figure skaters and a minor-league tenant called the Cyclones — say demand exists for extended, year-round ice and larger seating (the study estimates 1,200–1,500 seats would be required to host larger events). The county’s current main rink seats about 900; Rink 2 seats about 150. The study projects roughly a $3,000,000 annual economic impact from tournaments and events, but capital needs would require significant county funding, fundraising or bonding.

County Administrator Lance framed the choice as a policy decision for the full County Board, not staff. He urged the board to decide whether Marathon County should remain in the “ice business” long term and, if so, how much county capital to pledge to encourage community fundraising. Lance said BRIC construction funding that might have been available is currently not an option because the program’s construction dollars were terminated; the county did secure roughly $325,000 for the feasibility study and had submitted a $9,200,000 construction ask while that program was active.

Board members urged a deliberative process. Multiple supervisors favored retaining ice operations and recommended exploring public–private, fundraising or partnership approaches; several suggested forming a task force or working through standing committees to develop a realistic funding target and timeline. Supervisor Robinson and others said past examples — notably the warm-water therapy pool, which combined county pledge and community fundraising — could provide a model: the county pledged a fixed share and the community raised the rest before the county authorized bonding.

No formal action was requested or taken. Lance said the county bought some time with the mat system but that staff would return with recommendations and that the item will appear on the next Executive Committee agenda. The committee asked staff to refine process options (standing-committee path, full-board engagement, a task force and fundraising milestones), to clarify cost ranges and debt-service impacts, and to outline potential timelines for community fundraising and construction.