Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Highway Facility Parcel Purchase topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marathon County board approves purchase of Kronenwetter parcels for possible highway facility
Summary
After rejecting a motion to postpone, the Marathon County Board of Supervisors approved purchase of parcels in the Village of Kronenwetter for possible use by the highway department; offers on the table carried deadline constraints and the vote was not unanimous.
Marathon County Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of parcels in the Village of Kronenwetter for possible use by the county highway department after rejecting a motion to postpone further consideration.
Administrator Leonard told the board that the county “is required to communicate formal acceptance of that offer to WPS no later than 05/01/2025,” and that a separate privately held parcel required acceptance by May 10, 2025; he warned that without board action staff would inform sellers that the county was turning down the offers.
The timing of those deadlines and competing views on public notification and negotiation were central to the debate. Supervisor Sandalski offered a motion to postpone and to direct administration to consult with the village; supporters of immediate approval said delaying would effectively terminate the current offers and require renegotiation. “You don't negotiate the purchase of a property in public because it will drive the price up,” Supervisor Robinson said, arguing that private negotiations are standard and that rejecting the offers could increase cost.
Other supervisors pressed for more local engagement. Supervisor Marshall and other members said they wanted the county to work with village officials and neighbors as site planning and due diligence proceed; Administrator Leonard and county facility staff said they would include municipal leaders and neighbors in site-plan discussions if the board directed moving forward. Leonard noted options for water service, including a Rothschild water-plant update intended to address PFAS concerns and the potential for well water at nearby businesses, while also saying that village ordinances set minimum site-plan standards but could allow exemptions.
Board members debated whether postponing would simply re-open negotiations and risk higher prices or whether further public outreach was warranted before committing to acquisition. The motion to postpone and require a special meeting before the May 1 deadline failed. The subsequent motion to approve the purchases carried; the clerk announced the vote “carried” and that it was not unanimous, but the transcript did not record a roll-call tally.
The board did not include a detailed vote tally for the purchase in the public record excerpt provided. Administrator Leonard described practical effects if the board had voted to reject the offers: the agreed prices would no longer be binding, due-diligence and closing timelines would need renegotiation, and any return to the table likely would require new offers and possibly different terms.
The board’s approval advances the county’s process for replacing or relocating highway facilities, but supervisors and staff repeatedly emphasized that site planning, municipal coordination, design standards and due diligence remain to be completed before any construction decision.
The county also moved on later in the meeting and approved a separate resolution on tax-exempt municipal bonding (Resolution 26-25).
