Whaddya think about...a residential lawn parking regulation?

Not anyone's home in Chetek...but it could be

“The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Disassembled, inoperable, scrap or wrecked motor vehicles, truck bodies, tractors, trailers means motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, truck bodies, tractors, farm machinery or trailers in such state of physical or mechanical ruin as to be incapable of propulsion, being operated upon the public streets or highways or which is otherwise not in a safe or legal condition for operation on public streets or highways due to missing or inoperative parts, flat or removed tires, expired or missing license plates or other defects.

Unlicensed motor vehicles, truck bodies, tractors or trailers means motor vehicles, truck bodies, tractors, recreational vehicles or trailers which do not bear lawful current license plates.

(Code 2005, § 10-5-8(b))

Sec. 102-363. - Definitions in the City of Chetek Code of Ordinances

In her mind, it looks like this...

In my nearly two years in office I really haven't received a lot of complaints. But of the ones I have received definitely the most common is a neighbor complaining about another neighbor whose yard is full of cars or other assorted stuff. At last month's city council meeting during the Public Comment time, in fact, a neighbor went on record about her neighbor. In her words, “When I look out my kitchen window I feel like I'm looking into a salvage yard” (or words to that effect). When I suggested that she take up the matter with City Inspector Joe Atwood she assured me that she already had and both her and Joe informed me that it was, in fact, a police matter (Chief Ron was out of town at a police seminar and not present).

When it comes to our city ordinances about vehicles as far as I understand it there are essentially two requirements for the things that we drive around in: they have to be currently licensed and they have to move (i.e., they have to be working vehicles). If they don't run or if they're not licensed the owner can be cited. (In my experience with the city, the owner is normally given ample warning and time to move any vehicle or license it before a citation is issued.)

This is how you can read our local "Bible" on
everything about living in Chetek

(If you care to research this for yourself go to our city's website, click on the “Government” tab and then click on “Code of Ordinances” and you can have access to our “Bible” that covers all the rules, restrictions, and requirements that govern all of us who live within the city limits.) I inserted the word “vehicles” in the search window and found the group of ordinances that govern what can and cannot be stored in our driveways or our yards, including:

• Section 102-363 – Definitions (see above) and the rule that says if it's in on your property it has to run and it has to be currently licensed. The prohibition against people storing old washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc. in their backyard is also found here. If it's junk, it shouldn't be stored in plain sight.
• Sec. 102-364. - Storage of scrap vehicles and appliances on private property.

That '57 that you have been meaning to work on in your spare time, it better have a license and it has to be road ready if one of our officers responds to a complaint from one of your neighbors.

Great weekend project but if it's in your driveway,
it has to work

• Sec. 102-366. - Enforcement. Joe was right, of course. It is a police matter. But again, the guys are not about to crash in like stormtroopers to get you to clean up your yard. They usually begin in low gear and encourage people to either have a plan to move the vehicle within the next few days after they stop by the first time.

• Sec. 118-171. - Storage of trucks, tractors and road machinery. A bus driver can't park their bus in their driveway overnight or for any extended period of time. That goes for your tractor that you picked up at an auction somewhere.

Stopping by for lunch? Sure.
 Parking there at night? No can do.

The point behind these ordinances, of course, is to keep our neighborhoods from descending into the appearance of salvage yards from the “collectors” in our community who either can't afford to dispose of an old appliance or sees potential in an old beater that just needs a little TLC. My neighbor used to have a yard full of collector cars in varied states of repair or disrepair. Honestly, it looked like a car lot most of the time. And he once quipped that if I got tired of cutting our grass he had a few more cars he could store there. Someone must have complained because now he cuts his grass like I have continued to cut mine.

Looks a little sketchy to me

Here's the thing: while we do have ordinances that limit the kind of vehicle we can store at our home we have no ordinance that limits how many we can store at our home. If I could afford to license and insure, say, eight vehicles I certainly have the yard to park them on. But maybe we should have an ordinance that limits vehicles per household according to how many can be parked in our driveway or designated parking area. We have an ordinance that limits how many cats or dogs I can own (2). It's essentially to prevent me from creating an animal shelter in my backyard. If anything more than two dogs or cats is considered a nuisance, wouldn't it be fair to say that if it can't be parked in a driveway or other designated parking area it's potentially an eyesore as well? We have an aesthetics ordinance (so people keep their house painted) and even a weed ordinance (so people cut their grass). Why not a residential lawn parking regulation?

I asked Joe Atwood if anything like this had ever been kicked around and he told me that to the best of his knowledge it hadn't. He went on line and found that the city of South Bend, Indiana (a wee bit bigger than our town obviously) does have such an ordinance and reads like this:

Sec. 14-42. - Parking prohibited in residential lawn areas; limited exceptions.
(a) It shall be unlawful to park a motor vehicle in a front yard, in a side yard, or in a rear yard which abuts a street of a lot zoned for a residential use or dwelling, except that parking shall be permitted on a hard-surfaced driveway or approved parking space. 
(b) Parking of any motor vehicle in violation of the regulations set forth in this article is deemed a public nuisance. 

I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Maybe it's not a good idea. Maybe I should let sleeping dogs lie and allow Chief Ambrozaitis to handle these things on a case by case basis according to the ordinances already in place. But I also know that Ron has a lot more weightier things to do than to make sure I don't collect junk in my driveway. I know of at least five neighborhoods in our town where this very thing is an ongoing issue. Joe Atwood assures me there are far more than five.

I realize that at certain households there are four or more drivers who each own a vehicle and we certainly wouldn't want to penalize them for doing so (I know when all our kids come home at Christmas our driveway looks like a parking lot and some of us have to park off-site for the weekend.) I also recognize that some folks might resent the city wanting to have any more say than what it already has on what we can and cannot do at our home and in our yard. But on the principle that one man's garbage is another man's gold some of us seem to collect more than our fair share of gold – or garbage, as the case may be, and who's to say which is which? Obviously, it's a matter of perspective and a lot of us see things very differently.

Another round in the ring with the neighbors, The Mill and Dixon Street

“A robust democracy requires active participation.” Pete Gallego (former Democratic U.S. Representative from Texas)

During my term as mayor, which began in April 2016, I've chaired a couple of contentious meetings. Certainly the night Sheriff Fitzgerald came to the city council meeting to present his idea of outsourcing our local police services to the county packed the chamber. But beyond that meeting in my nearly two years in office the public hearings regarding The Mill event center have by far been the most “robust” meetings that I have taken part of.

Some of that I'll take the blame for. I'm used to chairing relatively quiet church gatherings where for the most part people see eye to eye on the matter at hand. But a public hearing at city hall – really, any city hall – can sometimes have the vibe of children playing with TNT that left unsupervised might just go off unexpectedly. I guess that's why a guy named Robert came up with a whole bunch of rules for people to follow so that public meetings can be 'robust' yet constructive.

Remember when?

What was once a dilapidated, rat-infested eyesore in 2016 is now a beautiful venue for weddings, meetings, gatherings and, yes, even all-star wrestling events. But from the very get-go one of the primary challenges of this venture has been its location. If they were located out on, say, Highway D on the edge of town, we're probably never talking about it other than the small buzz going around after Sabu made an appearance at the Chetek Chillar about a month ago. But, of course, they're not. They're right on the edge of a neighborhood and therein lies the challenge. Noise, traffic,

congestion, bright lights – these are but a few of the sticking points that create the tension that can erupt like Mt. Vesuvius at a public hearing if not diffused properly.

An old satellite photo of the corner of Banks and Dixon
but you get the idea

A few weeks ago at the monthly meeting of the Plan Commission The Mill was on the agenda yet again for what promised to be a full night. It's Conditional Use Permit with regards to what is now known as Dixon Street was up for review and everyone who had to be there knew it was going to be a tense meeting going in. The “closing” of Dixon Street has been a troublesome matter all along whether you're Buddy and Nancy (owners of The Mill) or Jim Crotteau (owner of Lake Country Marina whose detailing shop is right across the street from The Mill) or any of the neighbors at the west end of Banks Street (abutting The Mill) or Pastor Norm (who drives a bus route that used to head right down Dixon Street) or any of the guys who need to get to ABC for their shift or even myself trying to get over to Refuge – frankly, is there anyone in town who hasn't been slightly inconvenienced since we inked the deal that authorized the Helms' to use Dixon as a private road?

Looking south

Without going over old ground again what would be the harm in just leaving the road as is and giving them permission to close it when an event was going on? Well, that's not what their lease says. Also, the angled parking lines that have since been painted leave very little room for vehicles to maneuver around if there are cars already parked there. Plus, there are little kids playing at the west end of Banks Street and we don't want anyone hurt because someone who is trying to get to an event at The Mill puts any of them in harm's way because they are unfamiliar with the neighborhood.

While the council chamber was not full (it was way fuller the night the sheriff came for his presentation) there were plenty of interested parties present including Richard Bossany, owner of Glass on Silk (directly to the south of The Mill) and several of the neighbors many of which came with documents that included both letters of protest against The Mill's ongoing operation as a business as well as pictures of how vehicles were parking in front of their homes and generally disrupting their lives, and other community members. Jim Crotteau sent a letter expressing his opinion on the matters at hand as well.

To keep things civil and on track I limited everyone to three minutes. No one was allowed to interrupt anyone else giving their statement. At the conclusion of everyone else's comments the Helms would be allowed to make a statement as well so long as it was three minutes in length like everyone else. Not everyone was against The Mill. Richard Bossany urged the Commission to renew their lease and stated that his business had only been slightly inconvenienced by the placement of a “fence” at Dixon and Stout and The Mill's business was good for Chetek. But on the main those that chose to address the Commission were dissatisfied at how their lives or business were being affected by The Mill's operation. Whether it was guests of The Mill parking on Banks Street in front of any of the neighbors (which is totally legal) or Lake Country Marina's employees being inconvenienced because a chain that is only to be used during events to close off the west end of Banks Street was left up and thus inhibiting them from doing their work, the long and short of it was if it was up for a vote, Buddy and Nancy would be out of business.

I want to say that given the circumstances and some of the opinions which are quite strong, everyone did well. They honored the three minute rule and no one tried to interrupt anyone as they made their statement or behaved in a way that was awkward. A “robust” argument was had but it remained civil throughout.

This was from the last time we dealt with the use
of Dixon Street in 2016

Following the public hearing (which also included a brief discussion about Jason Fostvedt's appeal to build a four-plex on the site of the beauty shop that burned down a month ago), the Plan Commission meeting began. In my limited experience, Plan Commission meetings tend to be short affairs usually never going longer than 30 minutes. But not that night. Since The Mill's Conditional Use Permit was up for review it was the intent of the Commission to amend their lease according to the information they had heard during the Public Hearing. I want to commend the Commission who didn't try to brush off any of the concerns that either Mr. Crotteau (Lake Country Marina) or the neighbors had; rather, they painstakingly worked their way through the lion's share of them. City Attorney Randi Osberg was present and took notes and promised that by February's Council meeting (the following week) the proposed amendments would be in written form and ready for the Council to sign off on or add to.

Here they are in the form that the council approved unanimously the following week with no additional changes:

1. Allow angled parking on west side of Dixon only; no parking on east side of Dixon. City will pay for and erect appropriate parking signs.
2. The Mills' owner is to work with the City on getting reflectors or other visual aids on the street closing fencing wherever and whenever erected.
3. Dead-end/no through street. The current “Dead End” sign is to be moved closer to Sixth Street on Banks Street to discourage cars from entering initially.
4. Large illuminating sign facing east (“The Mill”) is to be shut off when closed for business, generally at dark and not after midnight.
5. Chains are to be up for events and down when events are not occurring.
6. Operator (i.e., The Helms) is to offer shuttle services for guests from off-site parking locations.

Added to their lease (which had not been included before) were limits to their hours of operation, namely:

The facility must be closed/the operation closed no later than 10 pm on Sundays through Thursdays and by 12 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. An exception will be allowed to extend operations to midnight on Sundays or Mondays that are nationally recognized

holidays (when national banks are closed.)

If I recall it took us about two and a half hours to get through this meeting that seemed to crawl at times on all fours. But the members of the Commission wanted to get it as right as possible so that The Mill can still operate with the least amount of intrusion to their neighbors' lives.

This sign will have to be moved closer to Sixth Street

It's only my opinion, mind you, but I think that while no one got everything everyone got something. I understand that a few of the neighbors wish The Mill would sprout wings and move out of town – or at least to a place more conducive to that sort of business. I understand that a lot of folks in town who will never attend any event at The Mill will not be satisfied that Dixon Street now is treated for all intents and purposes as a vacated (i.e., abandoned) road. And I understand that the big lighted sign on the outside - “lit up like a Norwegian church” - looks cool from a promotional stand-point. But herein compromises have to be made. The neighbors didn't like the big lighted sign being left on all the time.  That night, following the Plan Commission's conclusion, it was off – for the first time since they opened the place. Mr. Crotteau doesn't like for his guys to be inconvenienced so it's now a binding agreement that the chain stays down (unless, of course, an event is going on). One of the neighbors resents the fact that guests of The Mill park on his lawn that abuts Dixon Street. The city at our expense will be erecting “No Parking” signs on the east side of Dixon Street to inform out-of-towners where they can and cannot park. The Mill wanted to stay open until midnight any time they had an event. The neighbors wanted them to be closed by 9 (as they have little kids who need to get to bed). From herein out, their hours of operation have been set. The Mill has to be dark by 10 pm on weeknights but can stay open until midnight on the weekends. In my mind, that's split the difference.

Light is off now when not in operation

Understandably, several people exited the council chamber that night feeling disappointed as their concerns about noise and guests of The Mill smoking and drinking outside of their facility (something prohibited by law) didn't seem to be acknowledged (this meeting on this night was only about the use of Dixon Street). They didn't win everything they fought for – but they won some things because they showed up, they made phone calls, they wrote letters. That's what I call a “robust” local democracy in action so kudos to them for staying the course and expressing their dissatisfaction in constructive ways. If you ask me, that's what its all about - neighbors seeking to resolve matters in a civil manner even if in the end nobody got all the concessions and changes they were seeking.

I wish I could say this is the last we will hear about that corner of town. My guess it won't be. But my hope will always be that neighbors – be it the ones at the end of Banks Street or in any other neighborhood in town - will take it on themselves to be good neighbors first and work out between themselves what can be worked out before having to go before the council to arbitrate their differences.

On Second Thought (some further thoughts about this matter of a room tax)

We're all in this together

 "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately"

- Benjamin Franklin, reportedly after placing his signature on the Declaration of Independence

If you read the front page of last week's Chetek Alert then you know that after indicating at January's council meeting that the City would vote upon the issue of a room tax at this month's meeting, we've called an audible and decided to table the matter for the time being. What gives?

Last week's front page of The Chetek Alert

Honestly, a month ago I was for the thing. Based on the literature I had read it seemed to me a “no-brainer”. Every year our city swells during the summer months with the influx of out-of-town guests. Why not consider a small “user-fee” if only to help “spread the love” of what our corner of the county has to offer? If Barron, with only two hotels, can pass a room tax what is stopping us from doing the same? Besides, would people really stop coming back to our area because of the addition of, say, a 5% room tax? Personally, I looked at the passage of a room tax as initiating a pilot program of a kind that perhaps later – after it was proven successful – the townships would want in on. These were the sum of my thoughts at the time.

But since then I've received a bit of an education of sorts courtesy of several of the resort owners in and out of town that has caused me to reconsider my opinion. And while processing all that each of them have had to say about the matter and gaining a little better understanding of the nature of their business my statements I made at last month's council meeting were, at the very least, naive. At worst, they reveal that I didn't know what I was talking about. So I'm grateful for the schooling I've since undergone thanks to people like Rick Puritin (Shorewood Resort), Dave Howes (Outers Resort), Carl Kuester (Grand View Lodge) and Jane Thurston (Oak Grove Resort and the President of the Chetek Resort Owners Association).

Andy Schommer of Big Catch Fishing Expedition

The long and short of it as I now understand the matter is that there's a big difference between running a hotel and running a resort. Both involve lodging. Both have reputations to uphold for cleanliness and service. Both hope my stay with them is an enjoyable experience. But after that the differences begin to mount significantly to the bottom line. Mainly, if I'm someone on my way through and just need a place for the night or weekend, I'm probably not seeking a rapport with, say, Ron Hartl of the Chain of Lakes Motel (nice guy though he is, however). I may not even catch his name. I just need a comfortable bed and a place to shower. Cable is a nice amenity, too. But if I'm coming to Chetek to spend a week on the lake fishing and maybe play a round of golf at Sioux Creek Golf Course for a change-up and you're Rick or Dave, they're seeking to build a relationship with me because if I have a great time, I may just come back next year...and the year after that and the year after that. A $5 extra charge at America's Best Value Inn for a night's stay I'm going to pay without batting an eye. But a $50 extra charge for a week's stay may give me pause especially if across the lake I can stay at Crimson Hue Resort (which resides in the Town of Chetek) for $50 less.

Yeah, not us

Let me state the obvious: we are not the Dells (even though the population on the green sign outside of their town is just a few hundred more than ours). A room tax in the Wisconsin Dells-Lake Delton community is a no-brainer. Hundreds of thousands of tourists descend upon that area every year and frequent the many hotels, inns, B&Bs and the like that can be found there. All of us who go there pay the 8% room tax as part of the price of admission to our Dells' experience. Clearly, people don't come to the Chain for our theme parks or to play on our gigantic water slides. They come to get away from whatever rat race they hail from and enjoy a week on the lake and the comparatively serene ambiance of our neck of the woods. And catch a lot of fish if they can.

We don't got one of those either

We are not Hayward, either (even though their town is as big as ours), who experience the influx of lots of fat cats from Minnesota (or so I'm told). People don't come to the Chain to bag trophy fish or slay Muskies (although if they can land a $50 tagged crappie that would be a sweet award).

These are shallow lakes we live around that teem with pan fish, bass, walleye and northern and our resorts cater to the folks who are looking for that kind of action out on our waters.

If we pass a room tax for the city alone who can blame the three resorts in town (Outers, Grandview and Shorewood) for calling “foul” when there are plenty of other resorts in the surrounding townships who stand to gain by their mandatory rate increase. It's not a level playing field.

And then there's the fair question: What are we going to do with the money we collect? By rule, if we were to pass a room tax, 30% collected would go to the city and 70% would have to be spent on promoting increased tourism to our area. Every resorter I spoke with was emphatic about NOT needing more money for advertising. “We don't need another website!” (that's a direct quote from one of them). Besides, how do you promote just Chetek and not the surrounding area? It's pretty clear that if we don't have a project in mind – for example, a splash pad or a community swimming pool or some other "thing" that would enhance the Chetek experience for your typical out-of-towner – I don't think we have a prayer of getting the resorters to ever be in favor of signing off on such a thing.

It sounds like something he would have said

On July 2, 1776, 55 men signed the Declaration of Independence (the final copy was not officially posted until July 4). After placing his signature upon the document Benjamin Franklin reportedly said, “We must all hang together or we most certainly will hang separately.” While there is some small debate as to whether he actually said that it certainly captures the reality of the cause of the 13 colonies. Either work together for the greater good or be picked off one by one by the might of Great Britain. Although the stakes are not as dire as they were in 1776, I think all of us who live in the southeast corner of Barron County should have the same mindset with regards to the economics of our area to say nothing of the overall health of the Chain. The city and the surrounding townships need to see ourselves almost joined at the hip in addressing issues like promoting tourism and keeping people coming back to the lake year after year.

This may be overstating it a bit but we need to see that we're all in this together

So, we're going to wait. We're going to wait until all the resorters are back from their winter getaways so that together with them and with the surrounding township boards see if we can find a way forward. First Ward Alderman Scott Bachowski, who initiated this most recent discussion on a room tax (I have it on good authority that this isn't the first time it's been kicked around) is in favor of waiting, too. So is the rest of the council. We all feel that if there's a chance of coming to some shared consensus on where we can work together for the betterment of us all than its well worth the wait to hopefully get it right rather than rush to judgment and trod where even angels fear to tread.

Funny you should ask: Why is Xcel pulling the plug on our holiday cheer?

I'm sure by now you've heard the news: Xcel Energy has informed us that this will be the last year for the Christmas wreath lights and the flags to be hung on the poles on Second and Dallas Streets. Citing safety issues and referencing the National Electric Safety Code, the “Bible” of the electrical utility industry that every state except California refers to, everything must come down – holiday lights, banners, hanging flower pots and even Old Glory on Second Street. (Carl Cooley did a very informative article about this matter that was published in the Wednesday, November 1 issue of the Chetek Alert see Xcel Energy to Prohibit Flags.)

She is a grand old flag

Understandably, there's been a reasonably loud hue and cry about this. After all, the lights are pretty much brand new having been bought and donated to the city by the Friends of Holiday Lights for Chetek citizen committee in 2015. And the flags? Well, they've been hanging on those poles on Second and Dallas Streets pretty much as long as anyone can remember. What will Liberty Fest look like if the parade route is decidedly absent of the Stars and Stripes?

"Strings of street lights..."

First of all, we have to remember this: we don't own the poles. Xcel Energy does. I don't know how many street lights and utility poles there are within the city limits but Xcel owns every last one of 'em. Except, of course, the four light poles out on the long bridge. We learned this the hard way when a summer ago one of them just keeled over, the bottom totally rusted out. Fortunately no one was hurt but when Public Works Director Dan Knapp called Xcel to let them know that one of their poles went down he was informed that in actuality while the State owned the bridge and the county maintained it, the poles belonged to us. At $10,000 a piece those are some light poles. But beyond that, the rest of the poles in town are theirs and so therefore we have to abide by their rules.

Does this affect, say, other municipalities like Barron and Rice Lake? Actually it doesn't because both these neighboring cities have their own utility company. Not us.

Here's a wreath that will have to be moved

But here's the good news. Right before Christmas, Dan and I met with Xcel Energy representative Larry Loverude to discuss this matter and were pleased to learn that (just like Carl reported in his November 1^st article) that we can keep our holiday lights after all. Xcel, in fact, allows decorations on street lights “but only if they don't have power distribution lines on them” (quoting Carl's article). In our case of the 25 lighted wreaths only four of them are currently posted on poles that are “hot”. Dan and the guys will have to relocate those four wreaths but next year things should pretty much look the same as they always do at Christmastime. That's a relief.

Some new arrangement will have to be worked out

And what about the flags? Well, that's another matter. Technically, the Chamber of Commerce is the one that finances and puts up the flags so they'll have to work things out with Xcel. Larry brought in a catalog of sorts featuring ground-mounted flags but that, of course, won't work downtown. There was some thought about various businesses purchasing mounts for the side of their building as well but again those are Chamber-issues that for the time being we'll leave to them.

It's just my opinion but looking forward, we ought to decorate those four poles we own out on the bridge and, say, deck out Main Street Park to the nines as well. Several people called Carmen when the news broke that Xcel was pulling the plug on our holiday lights and if you were one of those folks you may be hearing from me soon to get your input on keeping our city looking festive and bright.

We get by with a little help from our friends

"I guess sometimes, there aren't just enough rocks."  Forrest Gump

If you're a fan, you know what I mean

What A Difference A Year Makes

A year ago about this time there was a bit of a cloud over 220 Stout Street. It wasn't as ominous as, say, the shadow monster above the fictional town of Hawkins, Indiana of Stranger Things-fame but it definitely cast a dark shadow over the city. Mainly, we were looking at a $150,000 shortfall in the 2017 budget. Primarily driven by the dramatic increase in the cost of health insurance, the budget committee had recommended to the council that Chetek's PD be reduced by one full-time officer to right the ship, as it were. At the November 2016 meeting the council endorsed that recommendation but in order to prevent one of our younger guys from being laid off, then Chief Mark Petersen offered to retire. As Ernest Lawrence Thayer would put it, there was no joy in Mudville as we approached the new year.

What a difference a year makes, however. At the city council meeting this coming Tuesday, the council is expected to endorse without any significant changes the proposed 2018 budget which includes, among other things, a 3% pay increase for our employees (last year we were only able to offer a 1% increase). We received high marks at our annual audit last month and insurance costs have leveled off a bit. It's true our garbage utility rates will be going up but that is driven largely by the county who this past summer essentially “fired” the management firm who had run the Waste-to-Energy facility since its inception in the 1980s and made it

Maybe I'm overstating it but things are looking up

officially a county operation. Barron County Administrator Jeff French has made it no secret that if we're going to continue to operate the only county-run incinerator in the entire state we'll have to pay for it. (It's still a good deal, though, than the alternative – burying our trash in a hole that is certain to leak one day.) The new garbage truck the city recently purchased will allow us to continue to provide residential garbage service but allow the second man who otherwise would be working on the truck to tend to other projects around town. And while the Central States issue is still a bitter pill to swallow we are closer to the end of that matter than to the beginning. So, all in all things are looking up as we approach 2018. 

The 2018 budget hearing will be held this coming Tuesday, November 14, at 5:30 pm, a half hour before the monthly council meeting, and is open to the public.

There are no words

Gone before their time

It's been a difficult year for Chetek. The tornado this past May and Owen Knutson's untimely death a week later and then the tragic, violent deaths of Brenda Turner and her 17 year-old daughter, Natalie, a member of the same graduating class of Owen, just last week. How much can a little town take, right? Of course, we are not the only city to suffer tragedy in recent months – Las Vegas, Manhattan, and sadly, Sutherland Springs, Texas just this past Sunday – to name three. But as all of us know when you live in a small community you feel these losses more acutely because if you didn't know, say, Owen or Natalie, you probably know someone who did. And given the circumstances of these losses it feels, especially for those directly affected, as if life has kicked them directly in the solar plexus and left them gasping for breath.

#Unite4Chetek Campaign

I know I shouldn't say this in polite company but "flippin' awesome"

I don't know whose idea it was but just last Thursday, students, educators and members of communities all over northwestern Wisconsin wore purple in our honor. If you use social media you already know about this as throughout that day and the weekend that followed countless pictures from Chippewa to Shell Lake, from Bloomer to Spooner, were posted of people young and old donning purple as a sign of unanimity with us as we grieve. I know I speak for all of us when I say we are overwhelmed by such a demonstration of love and concern. It is, perhaps, one of the first best things to come out of such a grievous loss and as mayor I simply want to convey my heartfelt appreciation.

I think of that scene in Forrest Gump when Jenny returns to the dilapidated farm house of her youth, the place where she had experienced so much pain and suffering at the hands of her father, in anger she starts to grab for rocks to throw at the house. When she can't find any more in despair she falls to the ground and begins to weep. Quietly, Forrest sits down beside her in her grief and you hear his poignant voice-over, “I guess sometimes, there just aren't enough rocks.” All of you who wore purple this past Thursday did what Forrest did for Jenny – you wept with us. One of the Bible's admonitions is to “mourn with those who mourn”. And somehow this little kindness of wearing one of our school colors in our honor becomes a very big thing after all.

We will get through this. As the old ones are wont to say, “This too will pass.” But how comforting to be reminded that we are not alone as we go through this. Like the words Billy Shears wrote but the Beatles sang out, "We get by with a little help from our friends."

The list of the schools and communities that I am aware of who participated in the #Unite4Chetek campaign (forgive me if your town is not listed here):

Barron

Cumberland

Prairie Farm

Durand, Arkansaw

Ladysmith

Cameron

Flambeau

Bloomer

Maple

Bruce

Eureka Illinois

New Auburn

Spooner

Cornell

The final word on Dixon Street

E. Repair. Lessee shall fully repair all damage to the street, other than ordinary wear and tear, and will provide routine maintenance, such as snowplowing, during the term hereof.

Temporary Use Agreement from the City of Chetek to The Mill, Properties Chetek LLC

Back in early September the Street Committee met at The Mill to discuss the use of Dixon Street, the street outside their front door, and address right-of-way issues. The Temporary Use Agreement with Buddy and Nancy Helms, the owners of The Mill, was nearing its renewal and some questions had been raised by both council members and the public about the use of the street by non-Mill customers.

Technically speaking, Dixon is not a street at all. It's a lien that sometime along the way was paved. But according to City Attorney Randi Osberg if it's paved like a road and maintained like a road whatever else it may be it's a road. When The Mill officially hung up their shingle this past spring I understood our agreement to be essentially that when they had an event going on they had the right to close off the street. Otherwise, Dixon was free to travel for any who needed to get from here to there. But that's not what is in the lease. In Section 5 (RESPONSIBILITIES – LESSEE), Letter E (Repair) it clearly states what is printed above – that for however long the lease continues The Mill is responsible for the maintenance of the road (including snow plowing) and therefore for all intents and purposes it is a private road. That made any further discussion about who gets to use it and when mute.

Unless you are attending an event at The Mill best not go down this road

I have lived in the neighborhood where The Mill stands all but ten months of our twenty-six years of residence in Chetek. For most of that time I always thought that what is now referred to as “Dixon” was actually Eighth Street but I drove it multiple times a day EVERY DAY to and from Refuge or to and from school. The guys at ABC used it as a quick egress to and from work. School buses as well as parents who have kids at Roselawn and at the HS/MS traveled it daily being the artery that it is. But when the concrete barriers at Center and at Stout went in this past May all of that changed. Now traffic is rerouted onto Sixth Street which everyone knows can be a pretty tight squeeze for trucks and buses. But, as we are wont to say these days, now “it is what it is.”

Speaking only about the road, the immediate neighbors who live just east of The Mill on Banks Street are satisfied with the change. It was not uncommon for traffic to zip along Dixon at a high rate of speed and as parents of small children, like many of them are, they were very concerned for the safety of their kids. Now that the road is essentially closed to thru traffic their concerns have been alleviated. (The Mill, of course, generates other neighborhood issues but they are an entirely different matter.)

For my part, I apologize for unintentionally adding to the confusion by suggesting that Dixon could be traversed when The Mill was not in operation. My signature is at the bottom of that document which presumes that I am fully aware of what's contained within. Obviously, I didn't read the lease thoroughly enough. It wasn't even in the "fine" print.

Change is difficult for everyone regardless of our age or disposition. I used to be able to get home from Refuge in about a minute. Now that same trip via Center and Sixth probably takes me a minute and a half. I know, how inconvenient, right? Things could be worse. I could live in a city that actually has a stop-and-go light. Now that would be something, wouldn't it?