Proposal
The County Board should set up a Hub City Legal Fund of $500,000 instead of either seeking to enter into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) or choosing to be an intervenor in the potential upcoming PSC regulatory actions for the proposed Hub City Wind project in southwestern Marathon County.
If the Hub City Wind project is built and Marathon County residents believe that their health, safety, or property values were impacted by the project, they could apply to the legal fund to pay for the costs of litigation against Alliant Energy (or their successor). The two attorneys present at the August 20, 2026 Educational Board Meeting laid out a number of potential causes for legal action in response to a question from Supervisor Hoppa.
The County or a County designee would evaluate the applications, and for those with merit, it would fund legal action against Alliant Energy using the Hub City Legal Fund. The County or its designees already evaluate the circumstances and potentially provide funding for a wide range of services, (social services, welfare, childcare, loans for POTS failures, McDevco business loans, housing grants, etc) so this should not be an undue burden on the County.
For all lawsuits or settlements that utilized the Hub City Legal Fund, 30% of the award or settlement account (net of legal fees) could be returned to the Fund, thus minimizing the net long term cost of the Fund.
If the Board decided to include the Hub City Legal Fund in the upcoming 2027 budget, it would only require a majority vote of the Board.
Benefits
1: Protects and provides for the rights of our Marathon County citizens.
2: Provides a powerful financial disincentive for Alliant Energy. A well funded legal fund to support the rights of affected landowners and residents could change the legal and financial landscape enough to cause Alliant to reconsider going forward with the project.
3: Sends a clear and unambiguous signal of non-support to the WI Public Service Commission, rather than the signal of support provided by signing or even pursuing a JDA.
4 Supports the will of our residents and townships as clearly demonstrated by the responses received by the Alternative Energy Project Local Impact Advisory Committee. Demonstrates to the citizens of Marathon County that concern for their health, safety, and property values is more than just a slogan on the wall of the Board Meeting Room.
Potential Funding Sources
(And Reasons not to trust the County with another Development Project)
County Board Leadership and Administration seem to always be able to find funding for projects they support and can seldom find funding for projects that they are not in favor of. There is no reason to expect that this proposal would be any different.
A: North Central Health Care Remodel and Consolidation of the County’s real estate footprint. The county still owns properties on Thomas Street and River Drive, which I expect are worth far more than $500,000. The County has considered (but so far not accepted) an offer of $1.00 for the River Drive property for a potential development which may hinge on expansion of a Wausau TID district (hence no increase in property tax revenue ??). Selling these properties at market price should presumably more than cover the cost of the legal fund.
B: Regional Forensic Science Center. The County Board voted on 12/14/23 (Resolution 76-23) to set aside $4,230,000 of excess fund balance from the over funded Social Improvement Fund for the Regional Forensics Science Center. These reserves were supposed to be returned to the County if federal funding came through. Were these funds ever returned? If not, they may be available to fund the proposed legal fund. Hopefully the decision to build the Regional Forensic Science Center will turn out positive, but unfortunately early results are not promising.
C: Broadband/Bug Tussel. County Board Leadership pushed for and directly or indirectly funded $30,000,000.00+ of broadband expansion that they claimed our rural residents needed and wanted. The broadband loop was never completed, very few residents have signed up for service where it is available, and Michels has filed an approximately $18 million construction lien against Bug Tussel, presumably imperiling the County’s collateral. Those members of board leadership who advocated for Bug Tussel and broadband should listen to our rural township residents this time. The County doesn’t need another very expensive demonstration of failure like the Bug Tussel fiasco.
This post is the opinion of David Baker