Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:25 AM

Subject: Purchase of Schuetz property

Chris,

I read your guest editorial in the January 25, 2007 issue of the Thistle.

It is my understanding that the purpose of the developer's "fees in lieu of park land dedication" is to permit the village to purchase of land for parks without cost to the taxpayers.

The Schuetz family have been very supportive of the purchase of their property for park use at a fair price, and even offer to delay receiving payment until "fees in lieu of park land dedication" have been received. The village cost for the property is less than $10,000 per acre.

Requiring a portion of the purchase price to be provided by contributions, in my view, is intended to sabotage the purchase.

Your editorial states ".... earmark fees in lieu of parkland dedication collected in the future for parklands identified in our eastside growth area". Isn't that exactly what this purchase would do?

I urge you to reconsider your position in this matter, and authorize purchase of the property, with the village portion to be paid with future "fees".

Keith Goodwin

Retired Professional Engineer

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:40 PM

Subject: Re: Purchase of Schuetz property

Thanks for the email Keith. I proposed the compromise because in August, there were not enough votes to pass the purchase. Without the compromise, the whole deal would have failed, which I didn't want to happen. I have never heard from the Schuetz's that they would wait to be paid until in lieu of fees were paid to the Village. The Village would have to borrow all of the money, and hopefully repay that borrowing with future in lieu of fees. The Schuetz property is not in the Village's eastside growth area. There are several other parcels of land that are identified in that growth area that we will need to figure out how to pay for in the future also.

Chris Klar

Sent: Friday, February 7, 2007 3:20 PM

Subject: Re: Purchase of Schuetz property

Dear Keith,

Thank you so much for your e-mail to Chris. His answers never seem to change, and they are always self-serving.

He is correct that there were not enough votes to pass the purchase. He neglects to say that he, who claims to not want the deal to fail, voted NO. If he had voted YES, there would have been enough votes!

If he has never heard from the Schuetz’s that they would wait, it’s because he has never asked. He has never asked because, from the outset, he didn’t think this was “…a prudent expense for the village.” His efforts have been aimed at sabotage, as you state so clearly.

A delayed closing will not endanger any of the grants. If the Village and the Schuetz’s agree to a July, 2008 closing, several good things will happen. The deal will be sealed; the grants will still be there; the Schuetz’s will have more than a year to arrange their affairs; and, some, if not all, of the fees in lieu will have been paid. Borrowing was never necessary. Had Chris been in favor of the purchase, he would have been as creative in pursuing positive solutions as he’s been in creating obstacles.

The “official” east side growth area, the one that R.A. Smith has been hired to help design, is 81 acres that lie east of the Schuetz Parkland. Chris is splitting semantic hairs here. Schuetz is on our side of the boundary agreement with Town of Dunn. It is ours to buy or ignore, preserve or develop. At least this time, he didn’t repeat the refrain about “Dunn won’t let it develop.”

I sincerely hope that there are other parcels identified as parkland in the east side growth area. The fees in lieu expected from the Holscher Rd. developments amount to $1.5 million when all is said and done. Future Village Board members with far more vision than Chris has displayed will, no doubt, pursue other grants to assist in those purchases. As it now stands, we’ll probably have to pay less than $200,000 for Schuetz.

As for the recent change in the fees in lieu statute, municipalities all over the state are even now lobbying the new legislature to restore the requirement. This has hit towns and villages very hard, and they are mobilizing to repair the damage. We can have hope that our fees in lieu fund will continue to grow as new developments come on stream.

Keith, I really appreciate your efforts on behalf of the Schuetz Parkland. I hope you’ll attend the rally in the Skaalen Village Clubhouse Saturday, Feb. 10, at 9:30. If you’re there, please introduce yourself to me. I’d like to shake your hand.

Warm regards,

Sheila Plotkin