Marathon County administrators and infrastructure staff on Thursday summarized more than a decade of studies and mapped steps toward a possible relocation and replacement of the county’s main highway facility in Wausau.

The presentation, led by county Administrator Lance Leonard and highway staff, said the county has completed multiple space‑needs and site studies and is now preparing offers to purchase property for a potential new shop that would be brought to the full county board for a decision in April.

Why it matters: County presenters said the current West Street site constrains safe truck movement, forces nightly removal of plows and reduces vehicle longevity and efficiency. Staff said the existing facility dates from the 1930s in parts and requires repeated temporary repairs; a new facility is intended to reduce recurring maintenance and safety risks and better protect expensive equipment.

County and consultant findings
- Space needs: Staff reported a range of facility-size estimates. A highway‑only shop was described in staff materials as roughly 240,000 square feet; a larger consolidated option that would include other departments was previously estimated at about 340,000 square feet and would require more than 40 acres.
- Cost estimates: Early ballpark estimates from construction advisors and consultants put a likely project range nearer $40–$45 million rather than an earlier, higher $60 million estimate; staff said final pricing will depend on design and bids.
- Funding approach: Presenters described a capital strategy built from a mix of existing highway reserves and borrowing. Staff said the highway fund contains a substantial unassigned balance that could contribute (figures cited in the meeting: roughly $26 million–$30 million available to apply), with the remainder financed by bonds if the board chooses to proceed. A county financial advisor is preparing refined projections.
- Site and safety concerns: Highway staff described the current West Street site as roughly 7.88 acres with constrained vehicle flow, tight turning radii, pedestrian and school crossings nearby and routine conflicts with adjacent commercial traffic. Staff warned the constrained layout requires nightly unhooking of plows, which they estimated costs the county several thousand dollars per storm in labor and reduces inspection quality and equipment life.

What staff proposed next
- Offers to purchase: Leonard told supervisors staff have “made some really good headway on that” and will bring offers to purchase candidate sites to the board; he said some offers will be before the board at the April county board meeting for members to consider.
- Phased decisions: Staff emphasized the board will have multiple “off‑ramps” and that acquiring land would not automatically commit the county to building; design documents and borrowing could be staged so the board can stop the process at several points.
- Design and procurement: Officials described the typical timeline — roughly a year for architectural design and another year for construction — and recommended using a construction manager at‑risk delivery model to involve contractors early and control cost exposure.

Questions and concerns from supervisors
Supervisors asked for written comparisons of the cost to substantially repair the West Street site versus relocating, more detail about traffic/access analysis for candidate parcels, and an appraisal of the redevelopment potential and tax revenue implications if the county divests the current West Street property under the Westside master plan. Staff agreed to deliver estimates for the cost to repair the current site, the traffic/access analysis for any proposed site(s) and an updated redevelopment valuation for West Street.

Staff cautioned the project is complex and that many decisions — site purchase, final design, and borrowing — would be subject to separate board actions.

Ending
Staff left the board with a clear set of next steps: finalize offers to purchase and return materials (site maps, traffic/access studies and refined cost estimates) for full board vetting in April. No formal board vote on a site or capital budget occurred at the March meeting.