Funny you should ask: "Is the City allowing Trick or Treating on Halloween this year?"

It is the most oft-asked question I get these days: is Halloween on for the City of Chetek? Given the growing concerns about the spike in county Covid cases of late and that, to quote one source I read, that we are at the “tipping point”, should the city take a stronger stance against the time honored tradition of kids going door to door dressed up in their favorite get-up on All Hallows Eve?

Officially, the city has no position on Halloween. We are leaving it
up to parents to decide what they think is best for their children: take them out or keep them home. Many of the kids will already be masked up anyway. Given the unique circumstances of this year, it might be prudent to have your kids add a mask to their costume. But you make the call. At the same time, we are leaving it up to citizens to decide whether or not to participate. Like Yoda once told Luke: “Do or do not”. In other words, if you are of the opinion that handing out candy might inadvertently contribute to the spread of the virus, then simply keep your porch light off (or, if you trust them to not be greedy, leave a bowl of candy out on your porch). On the other hand, if you're fine with it, join in the frivolity but perhaps wear a mask for good measure. (Of course, if you're sick, then you probably shouldn't be handing anything out. Leave that to someone else in your household.)

.

A month or so ago I got an angry voicemail from a local senior citizen who was “disgusted” at the amount of people in local eateries and shops not wearing a mask. Before they hung up – without leaving their name – they scolded me with “Mr. Mayor, you better do something about this!” I suspect they want me to issue a mayoral edict that threatens citizens with a hefty fine lest they don't don a mask. But this: one hour after Governor Evers issued the “Mask Mandate” back in August, Barron County District Attorney Brian Wright informed all county police agencies to not bother sending him any citations for those who had failed to wear a mask in a public place. What good is it, then, to issue a “mask ordinance” if there is no way to enforce it? The point, I gather, is to create peer pressure that leans on people's consciences to mask-up for the good of everyone. But I think it frequently has the opposite affect causing certain people to assert, in so many words, their right to politely decline. Admittedly, I have friends whom I love and respect on both sides of the issue. You probably do, too.

This is a long way, perhaps, from trick or treating but the principle I am invoking is the same: people are responsible for their own personal health. If they choose to send their kids out into the dark to collect candy on Halloween that is their business just like it is the business of residents who feel such a practice is unwise this year to politely not participate. All that we should expect from one another is the grace to disagree about this matter. After all, Halloween comes but once a year. And it looks like for a change it's going to be a beautiful night.

If you didn't catch it in this week's Chetek Alert,

• Trick or treating is being allowed from 4-7:30 pm on Saturday.
• Chetek United Methodist will be hosting Trunk-N-Treats from 4-6 on Halloween.
• The Chetek Lions are sponsoring free hot dogs, candy and chips (while supplies last) for trick-or-treaters at Main Street Park from 5-7 pm on Halloween.

Unfortunately, this year the annual Kids Halloween Costume party (sponsored by the Lions and the Chetek Chamber of Commerce) will not occur as the school is not allowing non-school events to be held on their premises. Also, this year Chetek Lutheran Church is also not hosting trunk-or-treat. Let's hope for better things next year!

"And the winner is..." (or why I voted to begin negotiating with S.C. Swiderski to develop the 39 acres on Knapp Street)

Well, it happened: A few Wednesday nights ago the council finally decided which path forward to take in developing the 39 acres on the west end of town. By a 3-2 decision, with the mayor casting the deciding vote, the council voted to begin negotiating with S.C. Swiderski as the developer of the project. 

"Area 51"/officially 1301 Knapp Street

Here's how we got here: 

For as long as I have been serving as mayor (since April of 2016), I've been told the same thing: Chetek has a shortage of both single-family and rental property. On more than one occasion I have heard Barron County Economic Development Director Dave Armstrong say, “You want people to move here but they have no where to move to.” A corollary observation of this fact is the tale that has been repeated several times by many local business people over the years of, say, a new teacher hired at the school but ends up living in Chippewa Falls or Rice Lake due to their inability to find housing here. I personally know of a retired couple who wanted to return to Chetek recently but due to their inability to find suitable housing are now living in New Richmond. All this to say that the idea of growth and expansion of housing within the city has been on our minds for some time now. 

But just how did we get to this point where we're about to begin negotiating with an actual developer? Well, since you've asked, here's how we got here: 

• 

  The house has since been moved
  

  In June 2018 the council approved the purchase of the 39 acres
  on Knapp Street for $150K. The purchase included a pole shed in the back and the former manager's home on Knapp. 
• Between September 2018 and September 2019, the city commissioned a housing study of the county that several other municipalities helped fund. One of the key questions of the study
  included determining the demand for housing for seniors and workforce individuals. 
• In November 2018, the city closed out Tax Increment District 2 (TID 2). The State of Wisconsin allows municipalities to keep a TID open for an additional year (they are typically active for 20 years) and take the tax money generated from it to be used for affordable (a.k.a. “work-force”) housing. During the year that followed approximately $325K was collected and set aside for potential “seed” money for the future development of the site. 

  

  This is still
  available for review

• In August 2019, the findings of the housing study were presented at City Hall which confirmed Armstrong's prognosis of our need for affordable, work-force housing. 
• At January 2020's council meeting, the council voted unanimously that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the property be conducted. This is a historical overview of the property which seeks to ascertain the viability of developing, in our case, a future subdivision. 
• At March 2020's council meeting we heard back from the engineering firm that had conducted the Phase I. While it was their opinion that no soil testing would be necessary, in the excess of caution the council voted to proceed with a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Several soil borings were taken and at the July 2020 council meeting we were informed that while there was tar containing asbestos on the sill of the house's foundation (the manager's house had been sold and moved back in January) that would have to be properly abated, there were no other substances on the property that would pose significant risk to future residents of the development. 
• Toward the end of August 2020, with the help of Dave Armstrong City Clerk Carmen Newman emailed 23 potential developers an RFP (Request For Proposal). Of the 23, only 3 submitted proposals: S.C. Swiderski, LLC (Mosinee), Northpointe Development Corporation (Oshkosh) and Whitehorse Construction (Eau Claire). 

  

• On Tuesday, September 29, the council heard the respective representatives from each company pitch their idea for development. While each developer had supplied material for the council to peruse ahead of time, adequate time was given for council members to ask clarifying questions. 
• On Wednesday, October 7 – just last week – the council convened and went into closed session to talk through the three proposals that had been presented. We talked for exactly one hour and then returned to open session. An initial motion to negotiate with all three developers did not pass as the council ended up in a 2-2 tie, a tie I was not willing to break so it did not carry. A second motion was made to negotiate with S.C. Swiderski. This, too, resulted in a 2-2 tie at which point I cast the deciding vote in favor of the motion. 

Essentially, this is the Reader's Digest version of how we got here. There were several other Plan Commission and Committee of the Whole meetings during this time wherein this development was discussed but these were the major stops along the way. 

So the question is, why did I vote the way I did? 

Before I answer that, I want to reiterate something I told Carl Cooley of The Chetek Alert when he asked me for comment on the Wednesday, October 7 meeting: The fact that I had to cast a deciding vote does not mean that the council members who voted against the measure are against the development. In fact, after a LOT of conversations over the last two years I think I can rightly say that all five of us are of the same opinion: that whatever happens in the area that one member of the Plan Commission humorously refers to as “Area 51” (i.e., the 39 acres on Knapp Street) it should be a combination of both single family homes and rental units. Where the dividing lines are drawn is how we get there from concept to turning dirt and raising roofs. 

 

I won't speak for anyone else on the council - not the ones who voted for the measure nor the ones who voted against the measure to begin negotiating with the same. I'll tell you simply and succinctly: I think the time for talking is over. I think if we stay at this point longer we'll just descend further into the “paralysis of analysis” and keep kicking this around for ever for fear of those who don't like the idea of either development period or development across the street from them. The data shows we need more housing of both kinds – rental and single-family homes. It would be negligence on our part as duly elected officials of the city for us to do nothing to try and meet that need when it was in our power to do something. 

But why Swiderski instead of the other two developers? 

Honestly, I really liked Northpointe's lay-out and concept. Since they only wanted 8 acres and we need 1 acre for a future pump-house, that would still give us 30 acres to work with other potential developers. But to choose that way we would have to be in a hurry as Northpointe needed a decision from us post haste in order to have a

It's difficult to read in this image but
this was Northpointe's proposed plat

chance at the potential tax credits that they stood to gain. While we were assured by both Sean O'Brien of Northpointe and Dave Armstrong (who was asked to sit in on the closed session portion of the meeting) that we stood a better than even chance of being awarded these credits it was not a slam dunk by any means. Had we chosen to go this route I just feel a general sense of being rushed would continue to hound us for some time to come. 

A concept for rentals that Northpointe pitched

As Carl reported in his article, all of us are of the opinion that single-story rental units would be far more aesthetically pleasing than the two-story apartment complex that Swiderski pitched at the council meeting at the end of September. But they have led us to believe that they can work with us on this matter and all the other particulars (such as lot sizes and location and street layout) in developing a beautiful new neighborhood in the city. 

It wasn't clear to me just how Whitehorse was looking at funding the infrastructure just that these matters were all negotiable. Swiderski had a different approach. They're asking that we sell the 38 acres for $1 as well as provide them $400K paid in four installments of $100,000 toward the development of infrastructure on the property. Period. In the grand scheme of things this is, as far as I can tell, a real deal. If we were to put in sewer and water, curb and gutter and road ourselves we were looking at estimates between 1.5-3 million dollars. To only have to put up 13.3% of those same costs seems to me to being smart with the taxpayers money. 

So that's why I voted to begin negotiating with them. They are a developer with a proven track record that doesn't need to raise capital to do this project. What's more they are not in a hurry to get there giving us time to work out the particulars that we hope to see at 1301 Knapp Street. 

To those who think the city should have never bought this parcel of land to begin with especially when we didn't have a plan, I would simply note that Jennie O's, the original owner of the property, was only willing to sell to us, that the property is located right next to the High School/Middle School and the price was right. Our need is for more housing and as they say in real estate, location, location, location. Seems to me that was reason enough to purchase the property. And having kicked around the various paths to development long enough, it's time to pick one confident we'll work the details out as we go along.