Part 1 traced the 1897 Clark County Jail’s evolution from jail and sheriff’s residence to museum, ending with the County Board’s 90-day delay of demolition. Part 2 asks: Before deciding the jail’s future, have Clark County residents received enough information—and enough opportunity—to say what they want?
An October 7, 2026, Clark County Press update shows the door remains open. During the County Board’s 90-day postponement, Public Property Committee Chair Duane Boon and history advocate Natalie Erpenbach have sought alternatives to demolition. Erpenbach has invited groups or individuals to come forward, while acknowledging that the remaining period may not allow time for a formal Request for Proposal process.
The county is investigating assistance for asbestos and lead-paint remediation and has contacted state economic development, housing and historic preservation agencies. Rehabilitation tax credits may also be available, depending on ownership, use and program requirements.
The county’s options are not limited to continued public spending or demolition. The property could be sold or transferred to a nonprofit organization, municipality, developer or partnership able to pursue grants, tax credits and donations. Any proposal would need to identify a realistic use, a sound financing and maintenance plan, and clear limits on the county’s financial exposure.
That raises an issue: should Clark County remain a landlord? The county owned the building during its museum years, while volunteers maintained property outside their control—an arrangement that proved unsustainable. If county officials prefer not to continue as landlord, a future operator would need authority and responsibility.
One informal possibility is demolition followed by expansion of the nearby courthouse parking lot. No formal parking proposal has been presented; it remains a possible outcome, not an adopted county plan.
Cost remains central, but the public needs more than one estimate. What would stabilization and safety work cost? What would full rehabilitation cost? How much might grants, tax credits, donations or private investment cover? Demolition also carries costs for removal, environmental work and site preparation. A fair comparison should examine both expense and long-term public value.
Viewed only as an aging county building, the jail may appear to be an expensive liability. The larger picture is different: it is a nationally recognized historic place whose architecture, public history and presence in Neillsville cannot be replaced once lost. That distinction does not settle the question of cost or reuse, but it is why demolition should follow a fully informed public discussion rather than a hasty decision.
Clark County has 21 properties and districts on the National Register of Historic Places, the nation’s list of places worthy of preservation. The jail, listed December 8, 1978, has held that recognition longer than any other county entry. Its 1897 construction, early listing and Richardsonian Romanesque design distinguish it within the county. Demolition would destroy the qualities supporting its listing, remove it from the Register and erase the castle-like landmark that has defined Neillsville’s skyline for more than a century. Whether that loss outweighs the difficulty and cost of reuse remains a matter for public judgment.
In preparing this story, I communicated with June Thompson and Natalie Erpenbach, cited in the October 7 Clark County Press report, and Larry Klabon, County Board supervisor for the Withee area. Others shared their views. One of my social media posts received more than 25,000 views—not proof of consensus, but evidence that many people want to know more. Before an irreversible decision is made, that interest should be met with credible information, meaningful public participation and workable proposals.
A museum or history center rarely pays for itself like a business. Its public benefits may include education, tourism, downtown activity, preserved records and community identity. Those benefits do not eliminate the need for sound finances, responsible ownership and sustainable maintenance. The question is whether a proposal can provide those essentials while delivering benefits worth the resources required.
The County Board will decide, but the jail belongs to Clark County’s shared history, and residents deserve a voice in its future. Before an irreversible choice is made, the public should have clear information about costs, alternatives and benefits—and an opportunity to answer: What do the people of Clark County want?