Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Highway Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marathon County supervisors debate buying Kronenwetter land for highway facility; motion to table raised
Summary
Supervisors discussed purchasing parcels in the Village of Kronenwetter for a new county highway facility, citing facility needs and resident concerns. A motion to table the purchase until May was made; no recorded vote appears in the provided transcript. Staff and supervisors noted differing offer-acceptance dates for parcels.
The Marathon County Board of Supervisors on April 22 discussed whether to buy parcels in the Village of Kronenwetter for a proposed new county highway facility, with supervisors raising concerns about local communication, tax impacts and offer deadlines.
Supervisor Aaron Fiffrick, chair of the Infrastructure Committee, opened the discussion by describing the county's need for a new highway facility and saying the site in Kronenwetter is a “unique opportunity.” Fiffrick noted that WPS owns a large, tax-exempt parcel near the site and that another six-acre parcel — described in the meeting as the “Spats property” — paid $16.51 in total taxes last year.
“I think it really starts with looking at the need that the county has,” Fiffrick said, listing operational benefits such as reduced travel in snowstorms and closer access to materials and equipment.
Supervisor Tom Covelli said he supports the location but urged the county to improve communications with the Village of Kronenwetter and its new board, suggesting the county consider partnership or infrastructure support if the village expected future tax base from the land.
Supervisor Patrick Sandalski, who said he had received multiple emails and phone calls from Kronenwetter residents, moved to table the offer to purchase until the county’s May meeting and asked administration to present project details to the village planning commission or village board in a public setting. “So with that being said, I would like to … make a motion to have the vote on the purchase of this property to be tabled until our borders meeting,” Sandalski said.
County staff and supervisors then discussed offer-acceptance deadlines. At different points in the meeting staff referred to acceptance dates of May 10 and May 23 for parcels, and another speaker said an acceptance deadline in the packet was May 1. The transcript does not record a final vote on Sandalski’s motion within the provided excerpt.
Because the transcript shows only that a motion to table was made and that staff noted differing acceptance dates, no final approval or rejection of the purchase is recorded in the material provided to this article.
The conversation underscored two recurring issues: operational needs for a new highway facility and local concern about losing taxable land or being insufficiently consulted. Supervisors asked for more formal public engagement with Kronenwetter officials before a purchase proceeds.
No final vote on the purchase offer is recorded in the supplied transcript; next steps were to reconcile the offer deadlines and to address village concerns before a return to the board.
