The new docks are IN (Stout Street and Knapp Street docks)

 

The new Knapp Street dock

At long last, the new and expanded city docks are IN. Constructed right here in Chetek at Lake Country Custom Docks (Lake Country Custom Docks), Stout Street dock was expanded from a 1-slip dock to one that can now accommodate 4 boats. The new Knapp Street dock – located at the corner of Mound and Knapp – is a 3-slip dock. With the placement of garbage cans at both and a porta potty at the Stout Street location, they are now officially open and ready to receive watercraft.

Three years ago, following a year-long survey in which the city solicited input from locals and guests alike on things that would enhance their experience in the City of Lakes access for boaters to the downtown business district was one among many other suggestions we received. First Ward Alderman Scott Bachowski got the ball rolling and the council first looked at expanding the Stout Street dock from a 1-slip dock to an 8-slip one. Due to concerns expressed by the neighbors that it could potentially make their quiet corner of town a lot more noisier, the council then began to have a conversation about the narrow strip of undeveloped land at the corner of Mound and Knapp Streets.

Knapp Street shoreline before improvements

Since improvements

People have been having fun on our lakes
for many a year

According to one of the lifelong residents I know, way back-in-the-day, when the Blueberry Express still brought tourists to our town, for those vacationing on the island, a wagon would pick them up at the depot and transport them to this little spit of land at the end of what is now Knapp Street. A ferry then would take them OUT to the island from there (mind you, this was way before the causeway was built). The depot and the days of when passengers came to the city by rail are long gone but the city has maintained ownership of this small tract of land ever since. We just decided that the time had come to do something with it.

The hope of creating two smaller docks instead of one larger and longer one is that traffic and trash concerns that the neighbors understandably have will be mitigated. The Stout Street dock is wheel chair accessible. The Knapp Street dock definitely is not. In fact, it's a bit of climb up the ramp to Mound Street but given the possibility that there may be Native American remains beneath the soil (it is called Mound Street for a reason) we wanted to avoid the expense and the time involved in an archaeological survey. Lake Country assures us that the ramp is safe even when wet but all the same it's a good thing it has hand rails.

Stout Street dock before improvements

Improved Stout Street dock site

This project cost $22,800 (including the purchase of the new docks and prerequesite tree removal at the Knapp Street location). We want to thank everyone who gave and contributed to the dock expansion cause to a total of $13,150 including:

Sterling Bank

Community Club

Xcel Energy

Lion's Club

Chetek Chamber

Resort Owners Association

TLS Companies & Marquee Construction (Todd & Heidi Severson)

Sweetwater & Fostbites (Jason Fostvedt)

David & Linda Mickelson

Larry & Vicki Hagness

Michael Hover

Red Cedar Riders

Rod 'n Gun

Bill Waite

The remaining balance of $9,650 will be appropriated from both the Park Development and Fixed Asset funds.

The new docks will be governed by the same rules that apply to our parks in that they will be open from 7 am to 10 pm and overnight docking is not permitted. While there are no parking meters at the docks the rule of thumb is that boaters will observe a two-hour limit. Those who use the Knapp Street site, where there is no fencing to indicate the next-door neighbors' property, boaters are kindly reminded to stay on the ramp and respect private property.

These are great additions to our city and I think will prove to be assets for both downtown business owners and the folks that pull up at one of these docks to frequent their favorite dining establishment or pick up what supplies they need for their stay in the City of Lakes.

That's A Wrap (enter the BolaWrap)

 

Last night at our regular monthly meeting, the city council approved unanimously to appropriate a penny less than $2,100 (i.e., $2,099.99) given to the Chetek Police Department from the Law Enforcement Foundation of Barron County (LEFB) to purchase two bolawraps (and plenty of cartridges to fire them).

The LEFB is a non-profit local

organization (Law Enforcement Foundation of Barron County) that is dedicated to wherever they can pick-up the slack for Barron County police departments who have enough to fund their operations but not enough for other tools in their tool box that can make their job both safer and more effective. Last night, with the help of the LEFB, CPD picked up another gadget – or actually two – that if needed can help restrain a resisting subject without having to taze them. It's called the BolaWrap. As Chief Ambrozaitus put it, “it's like Wonder Woman's lasso without the truth”.

One of Wonder Woman's gadgets is
the lasso of truth

It seems like on a regular basis there's a story on national media outlets describing police having to detain a resisting suspect who is brandishing a knife and threatening to harm himself or others. These are potentially very dangerous encounters for both the suspect and officers. With a single shot, however, they can be temporarily immobilized allowing police the extra seconds they need to disarm them.

Here are two videos – one for promotional purposes – and the other (following the council meeting last night) of Chief A allowing Officer Breidenbach to use him as a guinea pig to demonstrate to the council how it works. (“It's the only time she will be allowed to do this,” Chief says). 

Just like any other device the police employ officers have to be certified in the proper use of it and each member of the department has already been so certified. While we can hope our officers rarely have to use the device, it's good to know they have it should the need arise. Ultimately, we want our men and women in blue to get home safely after their shift is over and those who are resisting arrest be detained in the most humane way possible.

Just to clarify (a response to the Chetek Ambulance Commission and Concerned Citizens of Chetek)

 

Last week's Alert

If you're a regular subscriber to The Chetek Alert you're aware that there seems to be a dust-up of sorts lately between the Chetek Ambulance Commission (CAC) and some of their personnel as well as with the city itself. In last week's Alert there was a letter from the CAC and a large three-column ad taken out by the group calling themselves the “Concerned Citizens of Chetek”, made up of an anonymous group of “members of the ambulance service”, seeking to address “negative attention” of late from (among others) “the city of Chetek”.

There was way more to this ad

On the main, the bulk of the ad seeks to clarify things that one of their employees and members of his family said at a recent city council meeting. Given that the city does not run the ambulance service I am not going to comment on internal matters nor pick a side in that dispute. That is a personnel issue that the CAC is responsible for resolving and it's not our place to meddle. But given we are a paying customer at the table – a customer, by the way, who in the last few years has seen significant increases to our annual subsidy – I think it's fair for us to have a better understanding how that dollar figure is arrived at.

Honestly, up until last November, most of what I knew about the CAC I learned through 4^th Ward Alderman Mark Edwards, our representative on the commission. But on the morning of November 7 after receiving a call from an upset owner of one of our local restaurants who wanted to know why one of their customers was laying on the floor for 45 minutes awaiting an ambulance, I've tried to learn a few things more. Granted what happened on that morning was something of a perfect storm but we were out of service that morning and I wanted to know why. Since then I've attended a few CAC meetings in seeking a better understanding of just how it works.

With regards to the EMTs who man the rig and come running when we are in need, it cannot be said enough how grateful we are for your service. This isn't your primary job and we appreciate the sacrifices you make to provide emergency services to our citizens. If we have a bone to pick, it certainly isn't with any of you. But given that subsidies have increased significantly over the last few years it is not for nothing that without coordination every single council member and myself were in attendance at the CAC's April meeting. We have questions that we're seeking answers for and if you feel unfairly treated by our increased attention to the commission that hasn't been our intention.

As far as the commission offering to post a regular column of sorts in The Chetek Alert or at a social media site that might be a good thing to better educate all of us of the challenges of your industry that most of us are not aware of. But the bottom line for every elected official, every member of the commission included, is to be able to assure those who put us in those places of authority – the taxpayers – are getting the very best service that our tax dollars can afford.

Zooming in on City business

 

One of the staples of all municipal government is the monthly common council meeting. I don't know how it goes in other communities but per ordinance (Article 5, Section 2) our regular common council meetings are held on the second Tuesday of every month at city hall. And with exception to matters covered under Wisconsin State Statue 19.85 (dealing with personnel and other contractual matters) these meetings are open to the public.

But in case you hadn't noticed, a pandemic changes everything including how a city conducts its business.

During the shut-down last year city hall continued to conduct day-to-day service even though we were closed to the general public. This past summer we opened up again but put a limit on how many people could attend both city council and plan commission meetings. This fall we began holding our meetings via Zoom. Speaking only for myself, a child of the 70s, up until last year the only thing called Zoom I was aware of was that 70s PBS kids' show by the same name. There would be a drum roll and then those bare-footed kids would come running out singing the Zoom song:

We’re gonna ZOOM, ZOOM, ZOOM-A-ZOOM.

I used to watch it now and again

Come on and ZOOM-A, ZOOM-A, ZOOM-A, ZOOM

Come on give it a try

We’re gonna show you why

We’re gonna teach you to fly - high!

Come on and Zoom! Come on and Zoom Zoom!

Obviously, I'm dating myself. Nowadays the only Zoom that matters is the platform that allows people to connect and communicate with each other remotely. Pretty much all municipal departments employ it these days – plan commission, the library board and Lone Oak as well. Meeting this way allows us to still communicate together and prevent the spread of airborne diseases, particularly Covid-19.

Personally, I don't like to meet this way as it seems so artificial and stale. Think about how much communication is made up of the non-verbals and simply being in a room together. And heaven help you if all you have is buggy-speed internet. But given the current state of affairs, it just seems to be the more prudent thing to do for the time being.

Speaking from personal experience, council meetings BC (Before Covid) were, with few exceptions, sparsely attended. Up until the shut-down at my own expense I would put out juice, bars and cookies to help lighten the mood and encourage greater participation from the public to no avail. After all, unless an agenda item directly affects you who wants to spend an hour or more on a metal chair on a weekday night as the council slowly works through its business? There are, it would seem, a lot better ways to spend your evening. But I will say this: since we began broadcasting our meetings via Facebook LIVE, our meetings have been viewed several hundred times. Of course, it doesn't mean that those who tuned in watched the entire meeting but it's way, way more involvement than we've ever had before.

One of the staples of every monthly meeting is PUBLIC COMMENTS. That's where any member of the public can show up and speak their peace about matters that concern them. While the council can't take action on what that person says, they have their attention for the next three minutes. Complaints, ideas, concerns – you name it, we want to hear it. But how does it work now that our meetings are digital?

Here's a couple of ways:

• Join us tomorrow night (the link changes from month to month):

  • Join us on-line by following this link: https://zoom.us/j/95773118201?pwd=akZKaEgySDlLVU5kMUhKVjAwRUlMZzo9

  • Meeting ID: 95773118201

  • Passcode: 602802

• Join us.

  • Dial in by phone 1-312-626-6799 and listen in

• Watch us.

  • Via the City of Chetek's Facebook LIVE or Chetek Alert LIVE feeds.

  • Feel free to type your comments preferably at the front end of the meeting when normally PUBLIC COMMENTS occur.

If four years of mayoral service has taught me anything it's that when people are truly upset or concerned they find a way to let me or other members of the council know about their ire or their reservations about any particular matter. It doesn't mean we jump on it and get right what is perceived wrong but we do try and hear people out and see if we can address what they see as disconcerting. 

Going digital, even if it is ultimately only in the short-term, is not meant to cut the public out or conduct our business on the “down-low”. We have big decisions to make regarding “Area 51” (the 39 acres on Knapp Street) and our future Waste Water Treatment Plant (to name two items) which will become a reality in the next few years. As we make our plans and plod forward we hope we're doing our best to keep everyone who wants to know in the loop.

Funny you should ask: Who ya gonna call OR What's going on with our ambulance service?

This past Saturday morning I got a call from a local restaurant owner who asked me pointedly, “What's going on with our ambulance service?” She then began to relate to me that one of her customers was in need of medical assistance and had laid on the floor “for nearly an hour” before an ambulance arrived. If you read this past week's Chetek Alert you may have caught the article Short of EMTs, Nov 7 medical 911 calls had longer response times (Section A, Page 5) which gives a more detailed account of the particular circumstances that led to the unique situation of an unconscious man waiting nearly 50 minutes before medical personnel arrived. What gives, you ask?

Read all about it (Chetek Alert)

Well, first let's be clear: The City of Chetek does not run the ambulance service. We do not run the fire department either. Both entities are run by commissions made up of representatives from the city and the surrounding townships which contract with the ambulance and the fire department for services. Chief Ryan Olson is not a city employee, either. The only departments that we truly own are the police department and the department of public works. Otherwise, we're a paying customer just like the other neighboring townships are.

Given the fact that our subsidy for ambulance services was north of $40K in 2020 and looks to be a little more than $46K in 2021, shouldn't we expect 24/7 emergency services? I had a conversation with Chief Olson this morning about the ambulance service in general and about November 7 in particular.

According to Olson, nation-wide volunteer departments like Chetek's are in the same boat scrambling to fill their shifts. There are just not as many EMTs out there as there once were. At the present time there are 23 individuals on his roster all of which are part-time. That is, driving the ambulance or riding shot-gun is not their full time gig. Many of these same individuals are already working in the health care field and are often picking up extra hours at their present place of employment. Only three of the twenty-three live within the city limits. The rest hail from around the county and, in one case, another state.

The log says it all

Due to the demographics of our current roster, the main challenge for Olson is filling evening or weekend shifts. As The Alert reported, on the weekend of the 7^th our own ambulance service was out of service (on account of lack of staff to work the weekend). At the time that the 911 call was placed for the patron at our local restaurant, there were already four ambulances in Chetek responding to calls between 9:30-10 a.m.: Marshfield Medical Center (Rice Lake), Mayo (Barron), Bloomer Community (Bloomer) and Rusk County (Bruce) (and therefore the 48-minute wait time before help arrived). It was, if you will, a “perfect storm.” All total there were 11 EMS calls made this past weekend where help had to come from elsewhere to assist those here with medical care.

Olson explained to me that by ordinance the Chetek Ambulance Service does not triage care. That means that if a 911 call comes in for a student with a broken arm at the school and shortly afterward a call comes in on account of a major accident out on Highway 53, they respond to the incident at school as it is literally 'first come, first serve.' Only dispatch can re-direct them otherwise.

And I haven't even mentioned how the reality of Covid-19 is placing even greater stress on an already undermanned force. In the last week alone there were 30 calls just for Meadowbrook alone. The ice, as it were, is getting pretty thin.

20% of the time
CAS is out of service

In my conversations with local commissioners they assure me that what happened last weekend won't happen again but given the reality of the current health emergency we are all living with I'm not sure they can promise that. In the meantime the city is exploring its options regarding contracting with another ambulance service. That's not meant to be a threat. But the fact that 65% of our population are senior citizens, generally the most medically frail in our community, we should do what we can to make sure that the very best service we can afford is available when someone picks up the phone and dials 911.

If you would like to speak with Chief Ryan Olson of the Chetek Ambulance Commission (CAC) you may do so by calling 715-764-5788.

If you would like to speak to the City's representative on the CAC, please call Alderman Mark Edwards at 715-914-9122.

As always you may call the Mayor to lodge your concern about this matter and any other matter by calling 715-925-6078.

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.