Marathon County discusses buy of Kronenwetter parcels for new highway facility amid water, traffic and tax concerns

Marathon County staff on Tuesday presented plans to buy multiple parcels in the Village of Kronenwetter for a new county highway facility, prompting public comment and a detailed staff presentation on site options, water use, traffic impacts and property‑sale strategies. The county did not vote on the purchase at this meeting; the resolution (Resolution 25‑25) was scheduled to return to the board for action at the next meeting.

The discussion opened during the public comment period with Sean Domingue, a former member of the Village of Kronenwetter board and utility committee, urging supervisors to oppose Resolution 25‑25. Domingue said village officials and many residents learned of the proposal for the first time when it appeared on the county agenda and raised concerns about water capacity. “Our current infrastructure cannot handle such a significant increase in demand without incurring substantial cost for upgrades that our village simply cannot afford,” Domingue said, and he urged the board to vote against the resolution.

Resident Guy Bridal, of 2240 Ruby Drive in the Village of Kronenwetter, also opposed the proposal and said the village would receive no tax revenue from a county facility while nearby municipalities could benefit from redevelopment of the county’s existing West Street site in Wausau. “We don’t need more heavy truck traffic, and we certainly don’t need heavy truck traffic generated from an entity that’s not paying a dime of taxes to our community,” Bridal said, and suggested the county discuss a payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑taxes arrangement with the village.

County highway commissioner Jim Griesbach responded to public concerns with technical details on water use, traffic and alternative site layouts. Griesbach said the county’s estimated annual water use for the Kronenwetter site for brining operations and related functions is in the 800,000–900,000‑gallon range and that “if you do the math…that’s less than 11 homes a year” when compared to typical household water use. On traffic, Griesbach said the county’s traffic memo found “very minimal” net impact from the relocated highway shop compared with commercial redevelopment scenarios for the same parcels, estimating daily vehicle movements in the facility’s operation at roughly 200–250 vehicles and peak employee arrivals of 55–60.

Staff and consultants showed four conceptual layouts for the site. The smallest package of parcels described in the staff presentation totaled about 18.22 acres (three undeveloped parcels). Larger layout options ranged up to about 24.47 acres; staff said larger footprints would reduce truck turning conflicts, eliminate “blind spots,” and provide more dedicated storage yard for emergency materials (culverts, gravel, etc.) that the county said it needs for rapid weekend or overnight highway repairs.

County staff said they have signed offers to purchase some parcels. The resolution before the board on Tuesday referred to one Wisconsin Public Service parcel (P‑1); staff said they were also in contact or had offers out for other adjacent parcels labeled P‑2 through P‑6. Staff reported a Phase I environmental review had been completed for the Wisconsin Public Service parcels included in the current offer, and that further environmental and title work is contingent on a signed purchase agreement and the buyer’s inspection period.

County corporation counsel and staff explained the municipal approval steps that would follow any purchase: no rezoning appears required because municipal codes allow a public utility or municipal use in multiple zoning districts, but the county would need to submit and obtain site plan approval from the Village of Kronenwetter plan commission. Corporation counsel characterized that site plan process as a review to ensure the county’s final design complies with local setback, screening and other code requirements.

Board members debated whether to move ahead with purchase offers now or seek additional preliminary approvals. Some supervisors, including Vice Chair Dickinson and others who serve on infrastructure committees, argued the county’s existing highway complex is aged and that relocation and consolidation are long overdue. Other supervisors and public commentators pressed for closer coordination with the Village of Kronenwetter on utility capacity, traffic mitigation and potential local tax mitigation through sale proceeds or payments in lieu of taxes.

Administrator Leonard told the board worst‑case options could include acquiring the parcels and later attempting to resell them if plans did not proceed, and noted prior board discussions about using proceeds from redevelopment of the county’s existing West Street site to offset relocation costs.

No final action was taken on Resolution 25‑25 at this meeting; staff said the item will return for a vote at the board’s next meeting. The only formal board motion recorded in the transcript from this session was the motion to adjourn, which passed.