Wausau staff present options for redevelopment of 1300 Cleveland as residents demand cleanup first

City of Wausau planning and economic development staff on Monday presented community survey results and feasibility options for the city‑owned property at 1300 Cleveland, saying the next step is a 30‑day public survey and a return to the Economic Development Committee in August. Residents attending the meeting pressed officials to prioritize environmental cleanup and raised concerns about health, dust and past delays.

The presentation, led by Randy Feifick, the city’s development director, and assistant city planner Carrie Edmonson, summarized 98 completed surveys that staff said were 96% from residents; respondents most often preferred active outdoor recreation (a park with amenities) and natural area uses, followed by grocery or community/senior center options and indoor entertainment. Feifick said staff refined the options from an earlier January meeting and will keep the survey open 30 days before compiling results for the committee.

The staff presentation laid out five feasible non‑industrial uses and implementation pathways: a natural/passive park, an active outdoor recreation park, a community or senior center (potentially paired with housing), indoor commercial entertainment (theaters or a bowling alley) and an outdoor garden center. City planner Brad Lance said some options fit current zoning while others would require changes or private partners; economic development manager Patrick Gadman summarized market data showing above‑average projected growth in social‑assistance and certain recreation sectors but weaker growth for garden centers.

Staff described two broad implementation paths. One is community‑driven fundraising and nonprofit partnership (for example, a donor‑led community center). The other is a city RFI/RFP seeking private developers for commercial or mixed‑use proposals, with developers typically responsible for raising investment. Staff noted grant programs — including community development block grants and brownfield remediation funding through state programs — could be combined with requests for proposals to make the site viable.

Residents at the meeting repeatedly urged cleanup and criticized the approach of developing plans before remediation. "Clean it up" was a recurring refrain from several speakers, who said the parcel has sat polluted for decades and that earlier proposals failed because contamination discouraged partners. One attendee asked whether remediation would make air or dust worse during work; staff replied that DNR‑required dust mitigation and public notice would be used but conceded residents reported not receiving prior notices for earlier site activity.

Staff said site investigation work is complete and that a remedial action plan is in progress; they described environmental and development work as parallel processes and said coordinating cleanup with redevelopment can reduce overall cost by avoiding duplicate excavation. Staff also said they were following direction from the Economic Development Committee to gather feasibility and public‑preference information before advancing funding decisions for remediation.

The meeting included pointed questions about past indemnification arrangements and whether former operators might bear cleanup costs; speakers referenced a longstanding agreement with a prior operator and urged the city to make indemnification and liability information available during future discussions. Residents also raised equity and access concerns, arguing that transit access and outdated planning documents mean the neighborhood lacks nearby amenities and that proposals should prioritize local needs for seniors and children.

Next steps: the city will leave the survey open for 30 days, post the meeting video to the city’s YouTube channel, and present compiled results to the Economic Development Committee (targeted for August). Staff urged attendees to sign up for email updates and to submit written comments via the survey for inclusion in the committee report.

No formal votes or commitments were made at the meeting; staff and residents agreed further meetings and more detailed environmental briefings would be appropriate as the remedial action plan and feasibility work proceed.