Marathon County board approves offers to buy Kronenwetter parcels for proposed highway facility

The Marathon County Board of Supervisors voted to approve consideration of offers to purchase four parcels in the village of Kronenwetter related to a proposed relocated highway facility, passing resolution 33-25 on May 15.

County staff told the board the resolution concerns parcels labeled P3, P4, P5 and P6, totaling 5.67 acres, and that the parcels would be acquired as a single land purchase to form the southern border of the proposed facility. "It's 5.67 acres for those, 4 parcels," said Jim Griesbach, a county staff member.

The vote on the resolution, moved by Supervisor Poole and seconded by Supervisor Robinson, carried but was not unanimous. Specific vote counts were not read into the record.

Why it matters: acquiring the parcels would expand land holdings the county is assembling for the highway facility and could require additional offers to nearby landowners. Supervisors asked about impacts on individual residents and local tax base, and staff described ongoing outreach with the village of Kronenwetter and with affected property owners.

What staff said and what remains open: Griesbach said the four parcels are part of a larger assemblage that, combined with previously acquired parcels, would total 23.89 acres for the project. He estimated the four parcels together account for roughly 5.67 acres and gave a staff estimate of an annual property tax loss to Marathon County in the low thousands (staff characterized the county impact as "not significant"); he also said the village's share of the tax base for those parcels would be "just a shade short of $1,900." Griesbach cautioned he would bring more precise figures as the acquisition proceeds.

County staff said they have met with the village president and individual landowners about water, traffic and other neighborhood concerns. Lance (staff member) summarized those outreach efforts, saying, "the big takeaway... was it was really important for us for the county to be a good neighbor," and described conversations about on-site wells, brine operations and potential zoning setbacks the village is considering.

One nearby supervisor raised concern for an individual household on or near one parcel and asked the county to avoid "forcing somebody into a bad situation." Griesbach said he has spoken directly with that property owner and expects to bring a separate offer for that parcel (identified as P2 in staff materials) back to the board if negotiations proceed.

Outcome and next steps: The board approved the resolution to pursue the offers for parcels P3–P6. Staff will continue discussions with the village and affected landowners and may return with a formal offer for the adjacent parcel (P2). The resolution record notes that the acquisition covers property parcel identification numbers 14527070220973, 14527070220975, 14527070220971 and 14527070220970.

Details from the meeting: Motion by Supervisor Poole; second by Supervisor Robinson. The motion "carried but was not unanimous," and the record did not specify individual yea/nay tallies. Further appraisal details, final purchase prices and any relocation or mortgage-assistance provisions for impacted residents were not specified at the meeting.