Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Weinbrenner Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs reuse, demolition and developer re-engagement for historic Weinbrenner Building
Summary
After a brief presentation from developer Joe Dunn, the Marshfield Common Council debated whether to reengage Jeffers & Company on a redevelopment plan, seek demolition cost estimates, or pursue a market analysis; council members asked staff to pursue cost information and potential dual tracks rather than rush a decision.
A developer briefed the Marshfield Common Council on options for the long-vacant Weinbrenner Building, and council members asked staff for cost and market information before choosing a path forward.
Joe Dunn of Jeffers and Company told the council his firm remains interested in redeveloping the Weinbrenner property and said current financing tools — including 4% federal tax credits and a proposed state bill to increase 4% allocations and rural targeting — could help move a project forward. "We're excited about the opportunity to redevelop the Weinbrenner Building," Dunn said, adding that the firm could include senior or family housing in a mixed project.
Council members reacted with mixed views during an extended discussion. Alderman Virgil said he had been "in favor of the Jeffers plan from the get-go" but acknowledged public sentiment — including social media comments — leaning toward demolition. "I would not be opposed to tear it down either," Virgil said, noting demolition would be costly and take time.
Alderman Wurman and others cautioned against rushing into housing that might not be affordable to the intended residents, saying earlier proposals left questions about eligibility and real affordability. "I don't think rushing this decision and trying to shove something in there just to get something in there is gonna be the solution," Wurman said.
Several council members asked staff to pursue two tracks simultaneously: (1) reengage with Jeffers to get updated financial offers and city-incentive expectations, and (2) obtain demolition cost estimates, timeline information, and the steps required to remove the building from the historic register if necessary. Alderman O'Reilly urged staff to provide budgetary numbers for partial or complete demolition so the council could weigh options realistically.
City Administrator Steve Barr said staff can pursue both lines of inquiry and recommended not placing the item on every agenda unless a specific decision is requested. He also suggested consulting the historic commission about the registry process.
Next steps: Council directed staff to seek demolition and partial-removal cost estimates, ask Jeffers for updated cost and incentive information if the developer will reengage, coordinate with the historic commission, and report back at a later meeting. No final decision was made at the March 10 meeting.
