Schuetz opportunity
knocks but once
Editor’s note: This letter is over the 350-word limit for letters to the editor, but is a response to a Sept. 7 letter to the editor which was also over the word limit.
Don Havlik’s Sept. 7 letter to the McFarland Thistle concludes by saying that the world is run by those who take the time to show up.
Perhaps if former Trustee Havlik had shown up for Village Board and budget meetings his commentary on the Schuetz property would include accurate information.
The Schuetz property is on the village’s eastern border nested between the former Urso property to its north and DNR land to its south.
The potential for this land to provide the public access to its beautiful vistas and connections to the Urso parkland is not yet, and may not become, a reality. That is because the village has not purchased the property
The village board only went so far as to exercise an option to purchase by February 2007 if an additional $163,500 is raised outside of village funds.
That amount represents half of the $327,000 that remains after the accounting for the grant funding received from the DNR Stewardship Fund and the County Land Conservation Fund (a fund established by a county-wide referendum). Those two grants cover about 65 percent of the total acquisition cost.
Among the projects that the county looked at, this one ranked the highest. That is because they recognized not only the value it would add to adjacent parkland, but they also recognized the high risk of the land being developed and lost forever.
Shortly before the village board’s action, I learned from county staff that the reason the county was not able to provide more than 15 percent funding was that the property is not shown in the project boundaries of the County’s Open Space Plan.
I have since asked that the land be included as the county is nearing its final revision of the plan. With that inclusion, we may see an additional 10 percent funding from the county.
With the village’s share at either 25 percent or 35 percent, it’s a tremendous value that will serve the village for generations. The acquisition cost that was negotiated about two years ago has not been adjusted for inflation.
The state’s own appraisal of the property is consistent with the village’s Latest land sales suggest that the village would be doing very well to acquire the land at the most recent appraisal.
The property is not eligible for
PDR in the Town of
Practically, we could not leave the property in the town as we will eventually grow eastward beyond it and state law prohibits creating town islands.
That fact aside, if left in Dunn or if the property was included in the PDR program, the public would not have access to it.
In closing, I want to extend my
gratitude to the Schuetz family. To
date, I’m sure they have declined opportunities to develop the land. It is their sincere wish to see the property
come into the
If the village does eventually acquire their property, it will be due in large measure to the friendship and patience of the Schuetz’s.
Patrick Miles
McFarland