Marshfield council weighs options for Weinbrenner Shoe Factory as owner plans March exit
Loading...
Summary
Council members discussed interim uses, historic-tax-credit–backed rehabilitation and possible sale or demolition of the Weinbrenner Shoe Factory at 305 W. 3rd St.; officials say Weinbrenner plans to vacate in March and councilors asked staff for a condition report and a timetable before making decisions.
The Marshfield Common Council spent much of its Jan. 13 meeting debating how to handle the future of the Weinbrenner Shoe Factory at 305 West 3rd Street after city staff reported the company plans to vacate the building in March.
City administrator Steve Bargue outlined several options: pursue a short-term tenant to maintain the building and generate revenue; reissue or return to the original RFQ to recruit a developer for market-rate mixed use; explore business-incubator or community uses; put the property on the market and accept proposals; demolish and redevelop the block; or pause redevelopment while reassessing the West 2nd Street corridor. He said the city already owns the property. "We actually own it today," Bargue told the council, and staff is still clarifying which fixtures Weinbrenner will remove when it leaves.
Preservation architect Mark Zettler, speaking during public comment, urged renovation rather than demolition, noting the building's listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the availability of state and federal historic tax credits. "This building is on the National Register of Historic Places," Zettler said, adding that combined state and federal credits can cover a substantial portion of qualified rehabilitation expenses and that removing parts of a registered property could jeopardize eligibility.
Several council members urged returning to the first RFQ that produced a development proposal that included low-income and historic-tax-credit financing. "The affordable housing should go in that building," Alderman Fire said, adding that Marshfield is "a blue collar community" and needs housing priced for working residents. Other members said they wanted more information first, including a detailed condition report and an estimate of holding costs (security, insurance, utilities) while the city seeks a developer.
Councilors raised concerns about unknown repair needs and the possibility that rehabilitation costs could be prohibitively high. "If there's millions and millions and millions of dollars in repairs that need to be done, then maybe it's better to raze it," one council member said, while others said demolition should be a last resort.
Bargue said staff has obtained heating-bill data and toured the building with council members; he offered to request a more comprehensive facilities condition report from Weinbrenner's facilities team. He also reminded the council that several options hinge on whether developers can access grants and tax credits to make projects financially feasible.
Next steps: council members coalesced around getting more concrete information before taking a direction — a timeline for decisions, a facilities-condition assessment for potential developers, and specifics on what Weinbrenner will remove on vacating. Bargue said he would follow up with the company and present additional information at a subsequent meeting; he reminded the council that Weinbrenner is scheduled to be out of the building in March, creating a limited window for decisions and interim maintenance planning.
