Marathon County board approves purchase of Kronenwetter parcels for proposed highway facility; vote not unanimous

The Marathon County Board of Supervisors on May 15 approved a county motion to consider and accept offers to purchase four parcels in the Village of Kronenwetter as potential sites for a relocated highway facility; the motion, moved by Supervisor Poole and seconded by Supervisor Robinson, carried but was not unanimous.

The action covers four adjacent parcels identified in the meeting materials as P3, P4, P5 and P6 along the southern border of the proposed facility. County staff said the four parcels total about 5.67 acres and, when combined with previously acquired land, would increase the project area to about 23.89 acres. County staff estimated the four parcels currently represent roughly $2,400 in annual property tax revenue to Marathon County and about $1,900 to the Village of Kronenwetter; staff characterized that revenue loss as “not significant.” Those figures were provided by county staff member Jim Griesbach during the meeting.

Supervisor Wilhelm raised concerns after reading a newspaper article about one parcel where a family currently lives, saying he wanted to be sure the county would not “force somebody into a bad situation.” County staff responded that officials had met with village leaders and individual property owners to try to address concerns, including water use and potential traffic impacts on the village, and to be “a good neighbor” to adjacent residential properties. Staff said they plan to continue negotiations and scheduled an additional meeting with the owner of parcel P2 later in the week; staff indicated P2 was not part of the current offers but could be the subject of a future purchase offer.

During the discussion staff explained that P3–P6 are being offered as a single land purchase and described one parcel (P6) as containing a shed in poor condition. Staff said prior committee discussions considered on-site well use tied to brine operations and that village zoning changes are being discussed that could affect setbacks and other site planning matters.

The resolution before the board was numbered in the meeting materials as Resolution 33-25 and listed the specific parcel identification numbers for the parcels under consideration. Motion by Supervisor Poole, second by Supervisor Robinson; the board voted and the resolution passed but was recorded as not unanimous.

The board did not adopt any final site plan at the meeting. Staff told members they will continue to meet with the affected property owners and village officials and will return to the board with any new offers or recommended next steps.

Clarifying details from the meeting: the four parcels offered in this action total about 5.67 acres; combined with previously acquired parcels (about 8.22 acres) this brings the total parcels tied to the project to approximately 23.89 acres. County staff estimated a roughly $2,400 annual loss to the county tax base from the four parcels and about $1,900 to the village, figures staff described as not significant. County staff said they planned another meeting with the owner of parcel P2 to discuss that owner’s mortgage-related concerns and the possibility of purchasing that parcel as well.

The action followed public and committee review and was placed on the board agenda by the Human Resources, Finance and Property Committee and the Infrastructure Committee. The motion did not include amendments or conditions beyond the offers specified in the resolution.