by John H. Fischer on March 9th, 2010
There have been many critics who say leaders of the City of Wausau have put too much emphasis on downtown, and that resources are being diverted away from some of the more low-income, inner-city neighborhoods. I may be one of those critics.
For a long time, the perception was that once you got outside of an area bounded by 6th Street and the river (east-west), and Scott Street and Forest Street (north-south), you really didn’t matter. I am not saying that is how it was, but that was a very common perception. I was very pleased that for the last year or two, more emphasis is being put on areas outside of the downtown area, including the near west side. However, now there is a perception that once you get outside of an area bounded by 3rd Avenue on the west, 6th Street on the east, Bridge Street on the north and Thomas Street on the south, you just don’t matter.
A meeting I attended on Friday morning, March 5th, will hopefully help to eliminate this perception. The committee, which meets the first Friday of the month fairly early in the morning, is the Mayor’s Neighbor-to-Neighbor Committee. The N-2-N Committee (as it is called) was born as Former Mayor Linda Lawrence’s Core Area Renewal Effort (CARE). Much like the Wausau Century Project, this was a fairly high-government involvement project to do something with Wausau’s low-income neighborhoods. Although the CARE effort ended with Mayor Lawrence, some of the ideas continued on with the N-2-N Committee.
The N-2-N is more of a bottom-up type of organization trying to improve neighborhoods. One of their preferred tools is creating neighborhood associations. They define neighborhoods and help them create an identity and civic pride. They get help from the police department and the inspections department. Two of the most well established neighborhood groups under the N-2-N program are the much publicized Werle Group on the West Side, and the Longfellow Group on the East Side. The N-2-N committee has been working with a newly-formed inner-city neighborhood group on the West Side that has called themselves the “Westies,” and has already seen some improvement for their efforts.
The N-2-N committee is now looking at creating a neighborhood group in one of Wausau’s most problem areas. Their goal is to facilitate residents and property owners with creating an “East Town” neighborhood group. The area they are focusing on runs from 6th Street on the west to the railroad tracks (before Bellis) on the east, by Franklin Street on the north to Forest Street on the south.
The model they have used for other neighborhood groups is going to probably have to be put on the shelf and a completely new approach used because of the very unique and diverse make-up of this area.
Some of the challenges facing the N-2-N Committee include:
- 130 rental homes vs. 34 single-family owner occupied homes
- 42 commercial properties
- 7 large apartment complexes
- 7 owner-occupied rentals
- 5 group homes
- 4 probation & parole houses (TLP)
Based on information available to the N-2-N committee, there are 26 registered sex offenders living in this area. Also, the average age of the homes is around 115 years old (houses range from 1850 to 1960, so the newest properties are still a half-century old). Getting “buy-in” from the home owners is not going to be enough. Rental property owners and tenants are going to play a much larger role if this is going to work because as best the city can calculate, about 80-percent of the housing in this area is rental (and that number might be low).
The two biggest problems identified in this neighborhood are blight and crime. Per the summary statement distributed at the N-2-N meeting, some of the tools that Wausau can use for the blight issue include: inspections with follow-up and enforcement, landlord oversight, and community development grants. For crime, the same statement lists solutions such as increased police presence, enacting a dog ordinance, and enforcing a nuisance ordinance.
I applaud the N-2-N Committee’s desire to look at an area that seems to have been forgotten. However, I am not letting down my guard completely. The City of Wausau’s housing task force came up with a number of recommendations, despite having no real stakeholder input. Many of the recommendations are very heavy-handed. The task force consisted of council members and city staff who, in turn, interviewed other city staff in doing research for their recommendations. There was no input, however, from residents, home owners, renters, or landlords.
I applaud the apparent willingness of the N-2-N Committee to take a similar bottom-up approach in helping strengthen this troubled neighborhood. As an active landlord in this community, I pledge to do what I can to help. However, if city leadership falls back on trying to address these issues without stakeholder involvement, I fear there will be more problems than solutions. Let’s work together and do this right!
by John H. Fischer on February 23rd, 2010
[I know this appeared on Johns blog, but the work is impressive, and I think it is worthy of a larger discussion.]
Let me start off by saying that I don’t know everything and I don’t understand everything. I start out with that statement because something just doesn’t add up for me — it doesn’t make sense to me. Although I admit I don’t know everything there is to know about various sources of development incentives from the local, state and even federal level; to be fair, I am not completely without knowledge either.
At Tuesday’s City of Wausau Plan Commission meeting, after a public hearing, a zoning change was approved for a 40-unit apartment complex near downtown. It would be located where the Zastrow Beer Distribution facility is, on the river just south of Bridge Street. This zoning hearing is not the first step in the process for this development. Although the meeting last night was to get the zoning situated, about a year ago the City of Wausau approved a Developer’s Agreement for this project where the City of Wausau (through various sources, including funds allocated toward development of low-income housing) was going to provide a total of $450,000 towards this development.
Before I start my rant about how this project appears to be an outright abuse of those systems in place to help with our “affordable” housing crisis, it is important that I make a few of my personal thoughts clear.
I do not oppose a development of this nature in this location. This property is currently zoned manufacturing, which made sense back when we floated logs down the river. However, today a mixed use of commercial and high-density housing along the river front makes sense from an urban planning perspective. I also, in concept, don’t have a problem with the Community Development Authority (CDA) using money they have available to eliminate blight. However, I would hope that because this is a limited resource, they would be selective in its use to get the best bang for the buck.
I have said for a while that our rental housing market for “market-based” rentals is saturated. And, reports done not that long ago by the Wausau Daily Herald and City Pages both verified the amount of overbuilding that has happened, and what this overbuilding has done not only to the supply, but also the quality of housing available. However, the market is, though, in my opinion, overbuilt. I cannot and will not object to a private developer proposing a multi-family development in an location that is consistent with that type of use and the developer is taking this gamble with their own money. After all, I am a free-market kind of guy.
Personally, I think we need to take a much closer look at what our government (city and state in this case) is doing when a developer realizes that the only way to make a development profitable in a saturated market is to have the government defer their risk with grants, tax credits, and other incentives.
I did testify at the public hearing. However, my testimony was neither truly in favor or against. Instead, I was providing information. The hearing was only on the zoning aspect of this project, and as I already stated here, this is a good use of that land from an urban planning perspective. Although the hearing was on the zoning, I did try to address the funding issue without being completely out-of-order. I pointed out two facts: The market for “market-rate” multi-family is beyond saturated; and there is a severe shortage of income-based housing (often called subsidized housing, or often labeled “affordable” housing).
We have a crisis when it comes to housing for those with very low incomes. Most of our subsidized housing developments have waiting lists. The waiting list to get on the Section 8 Housing Voucher program has gotten so long with so few people coming off of it, that the Housing Authority isn’t even taking new applications any more. When I testified, I wanted to know how many of the 40 units were targeted to help with this urgent need. I wanted to know how many families this $450,000 would help, what were we spending per family? You can imagine my shock when the final answer to the question as I phrased it was: ZERO. I was told these are “tax credit” units, which differs from those type of units where the rent paid by a tenant is a percentage of their income. In exchange for these “tax credits” (issued by WHEDA), they have to keep the rents at a level that is affordable to “low and moderate income” individuals.
To give you an idea how much help $450,000 could do if targeted differently: The average amount that I get as the Housing Authority portion of the rent payment for my tenants that are on Section 8 is about $260 per month (let’s round that up to $300). That means that someone who just needs a safe roof over their head costs the Section 8 program about $3,600 per year (let’s call it $4,000). At $4,000 per year per family, over 50 families (10% of those on the waiting list) could get safe housing for over 2 years!
(That is based off of the payments I receive, can any one from the Housing Authority correct my numbers as to what the average cost per household is, if my $4,000 per year number is off?)
We must remember that certain types of City funds can only be used certain ways. You can’t just take this $450,000 and use it to fund the voucher program. That is a federal government issue (although WHEDA does provide funding for some of the vouchers our Housing Authority provides). If, instead of cash for clunkers or new home buyers credits, the federal government would put some funding in the Section 8 program, we could solve the problem of this huge waiting list of families that need help AND solve the problem of record vacancy levels in market rate units AT THE SAME TIME. However, the federal government has no time for solutions that make sense, and this post is not about the federal government use of money to solve problems.
It was said at the hearing this is a $6.9 million multifamily development (however the Daily Herald reported it at $7.2 million). That comes out to well over $170,000 per unit. Based on my experience, a good rule of thumb when calculating the financial feasibility of multi-family projects is $100 per month in rent = $10,000 of value. That is a rough guideline. An example of how to use it would be if the market says you can get $600 per month in rent, you are looking at about $60,000 per unit. If you are relatively close, for example $80,000, the project may still cash flow, just the risk increases as you need to sharpen your pencil. However, but if the market dictates $600 per month and the costs are going to be $120,000 per unit, there is no way to make that thing profitable. On this project, we are looking at units that run from $600 to $750 per month with a cost of over $170,000 per unit. You do the math.
One way to make this work is to cut your costs, bringing down the per unit cost. Another way is to not spend less money, but instead someone else’s. One way to do this is to get WHEDA tax credits designed for low income housing. Another place to ask for money is to ask the City of Wausau to throw money at the project. If I remember correctly from information that came out when the developers agreement was being discussed, they are cutting operating costs also, specifically property taxes. It is my understanding this nearly $7 million project is not going to be taxed on $7 million of value.
The person at the hearing representing the developer said at the hearing that as a condition of getting these WHEDA tax credits, they have to keep the rents “low and affordable” for low and moderate income individuals and families. Really? $600 for a one-bedroom? That is not housing for low income individuals. That is “market rate.” Actually, if you look around, that is a little higher that what the market charges for one-bedroom units.
As a matter of fact, only a few of these units will even take those people who do manage to get off the waiting list and get Section 8 vouchers (though I don’t know of too many landlords in town who would turn down a Section 8 tenant, so there is no need for units that take Section 8, the need is for Section 8).
Based on the information handed out last night, of the ten one-bedroom units, only two will be at rates that are eligible for Section 8. Late last year, I had been told by Mary Fisher of the housing authority (no relation) that the highest need is for two-bedroom units. Of the 19 two-bedroom units in this project, only two are priced within Section 8’s guidelines. The other two-bedroom units rent from $650 to $775. (The highest priced two-bedroom unit Section 8 will allow is $631).
The information provided at the public hearing that specifically addressed how this housing will cater to our need to provide safe housing for low income individuals and whether the CDA’s contribution to this project actually created more questions for me than answers. I feel one of the reasons the developer’s agreement passed was that I was not the only one who thought this development would help with our low income housing needs. The biggest question I have, was there a deadline in the developer’s agreement? Now that we know this project won’t help with low income individuals, can that agreement be re-negotiated?
We have a need for housing that is affordable to our low-income families (the market provides plenty of housing for moderate income families). We have programs available through the City of Wausau and through WHEDA to help solve those needs. This project, in my opinion, does nothing to help with our low-income housing problem and that money would best be, not put toward this project,but instead focused more on things that will actually solve the problem.
I close this post as I started, reminding you that I do not know everything, and maybe there is something going on here, something important, that I am missing. If that is the case, I need for someone to explain to me what I am understanding incorrectly. Please educate me – educate us. Because if I am understanding the situation correctly, a great disservice is being done, not only by the City of Wausau, but also by WHEDA.
by John H. Fischer on January 13th, 2010
A while back, an interesting thing happened at city council in Wausau. They took a vote, the person in the audience whose issue it was then asked to speak because they were very confused with what the vote meant, was the item approved or not approved. The item was the Peace Sculpture and the Mayor explained that the sculpture was approved, but the City had to put in place a system for reviewing sculptures, but once that system was made, this one was approved.
Instantly a number of people who voted for the sculpture hit their blue lights to speak. They had understood that this procedure for accepting sculptures had to be developed, and then this proposal would go through that procedure. A review of the minutes determined that to not be the case, and the Mayor’s interpretation of the motion, as amended, was correct.
While I was at the council meeting last night for a completely different issue, we had another one of those “What Did We Just Vote For” moments.
A while back, Trigs got a conditional use to put a sign on the back of the property that could be seen from the freeway. Signs are only allowed to be 30’ high, but with a conditional use, the sign could be over 30’ but not more than 50’ high. The height is actually measured from the curb on the FRONT of the property. In the case of Trigs, they wanted a 50’ sign to get it up high enough to get over the hill in the back of the property and still have freeway visibility. In reality though, the sign is actually only 38’ tall. But, the application was for a 50’ sign because the back of the property is 12’ higher than the front of the property, where the front curb is.
County Market was asking to put up a similar sign. All during the council meeting, they discussed that County Market wanted a 40’ tall sign to be at the same elevation as the Trig’s sign. City staff seemed to think that the geographical features that County Market was dealing with would actually allow for similar visibility with a 30’ tall sign, so that is what staff recommended, and that is what the Plan Commission recommended.
A representative of County Market was allowed to address the Council before the vote to explain why they wanted the sign 10’ higher.
The motion was made to approve the sign, second, and passed unanimously with no discussion. The person representing County Market wanted to know if they got their 30’ sign or their 40’ sign. The Mayor indicated they got the 30’ sign, because no one on the council offered an amendment, they went with the recommendation of Plan Commission.
Alderperson Rasmussen was then quick to point out that when looking at the council agenda, they did approve a sign that “exceeded 30’ in height”, so she inquired if, in fact, they can have the 40 sign.
Good question.
They then called a member of staff to explain the situation. Much like Trigs, County Market must actually measure the height of the sign from the front curb. Also, much like Trigs, the back of the lot is higher than the front of the lot, 10’ higher to be exact. So, on the drawing that they submitted, the 40’ tall sign was actually considered a 50’ sign when measured from the front curb. The Plan Commissions recommendation to the council was to allow for a 40’ tall total height sign (10’ in difference from front curb, 30’ in sign itself). What they approved was what the plan commission recommended, which was a specific sign per drawings and diagrams that is, in fact, in excess of 30’ – even though the sign itself was only 30’ tall.
I was debating if I wanted to go the Council meeting. I had a meeting in Sun Prairie that ran from 3:00 to 6:00 that I needed to leave at 4:30 to be back here in time for the meeting. My item was a conditional use for a business associate that passed the Plan Commission on a unanimous vote. Most things that pass like that see very little discussion and pass at council. I am happy I made it. A question was asked for a clarification on a parking issue, and I was asked to answer that simple question, which I did. However answering that questioned opened the door to other discussion I didn’t see coming – discussion that was brought up at the public hearing, but was not a concern of this particular neighbor at that time. After a minor amendment, we did get our conditional use but I think had I not been there, there might have been a different result.
by John H. Fischer on December 22nd, 2009
The current situation with IC Willies and the status of their liquor license has been put on hold for one week to give attorneys on both sides time to prepare to present their respective cases. However, in following along with this story, the daily police logs, the minutes of the Public Health and Safety Committee, and the article comments on the Wausau Daily Herald website, I have to ask myself a question – When is it OK to “C Willies”???
According to Wausau Police Chief Hardell, since October there have been 15 service calls to IC Willies, 12 of these were for noise (primarily the bass levels) and 2 citations have been issued. In addition, there is a squad parked in the lot, or in the lot next door, every night they are open. However, with all of these noise issues, the item that seems to be “the straw the broke the camel’s back” was the Girls Gone Wild event in mid-November.
For those not familiar with the late night infomercials, Girls Gone Wild (or GGW) basically goes in places where they can find young women who, often with a little bit of “liquid encouragement,” are willing to get naked in front of a camera, and then GGW will sell these videos. Popular places where they are often found filming include college spring break locations and Mardi Gras in New Orleans.
According to Chief Hardell, prior to the GGW event at IC Willies, he had met with their owners and made it very clear what can and cannot happen, what the limitations were of “adult entertainment”. Yet, when police were there during the GGW event (to see if anyone on parole came to check it out), they witnessed just that thing that they gave warnings about. Although the GGW crew was to find the aspiring video stars at the club, the actual filming and nudity was to take place in the private bus they parked on the property, not in the public bar. Yet, it appeared that some of the female customers of the bar were not willing to wait until being in the bus to “let it all hang out.”
So, my question for the readers of Citizen Wausau – What is “adult entertainment”? When does the line get crossed from risqué to that behavior that requires special zoning and special licenses? Should adult entertainment even be allowed? Or, should the argument heard so often in the smoking ban discussions, the business owner should be able to decide what happens within their business establishment, prevail?
In reading the comments on the Wausau Daily Herald articles about this, it seems that a large number of people think that limited nudity happens in night clubs all the time. I really am not into the night club scene myself, but I have talked to a number of people who indicated that to have a woman lift her shirt while on the dance floor is not as uncommon as one would think. Even Mrs. Rent, who tends to be fairly conservative, indicated that if the police saw a couple of customers expose themselves, that maybe they should have cited the women and not come after the bar owner.
On the other hand, many people, including the neighbors, indicated that having certain events, such as the GGW or the Chippendales dancers the following week, is not consistent with the neighborhood. At the Public Health and Safety Committee meeting on Monday night, one neighbor pointed out how inappropriate they feel it was for the GGW bus to be parked in the lot of the business for two days. They had lived in their house for 40 years and indicated “we’re Wausau, not Chicago.” The neighbors asked how they explain to their young children or grand children what Girls Gone Wild is when they see that big bus next door.
Also interesting to me, are the comments that could be found on the Rants and Raves section of Craigslist after the IC Willies Halloween party. Again, many who I have talked to who are night-club regulars tell me that if you are going out and want to see some bare breasts, Halloween is the night to do it. There was probably much more nudity at IC Willies for Halloween than there was for Girls Gone Wild. However, the many of those commenting on Craigslist seemed to be offended by the scantily clad wait staff.
Even the establishments that outright classify themselves as “adult entertainment” or “gentlemen’s clubs” find themselves at the center of controversy. Most municipalities have specific zoning that covers them. I was very active in Schofield government politics when Grand Daddy’s on Grand Avenue was trying to get its conditional use for “adult entertainment.”
More recently, even though Kronenwetter does not have an “adult entertainment” venue since the closing of the New Yorker, the Village Board decided to establish an ordinance that alcohol could not be served at one within the Village. Although the argument was that nudity + alcohol is a problem waiting to happen, most agree the true reason is that by not allowing alcohol to be served, a new business would be less likely to locate themselves in Kronenwetter because they would not be able to compete with the existing establishments in Wausau and Schofield were you could get your nudity with a vodka-sour.
In talking to people about this article, I had one person comment that the Wausau area is always looking to market our region and bring people into the area, to show what a great place this is to live and work and play. That person questioned which would be more likely to generate tourism to Wausau: the new Weston video or Girls Gone Wild – Wausau. Although they make an inappropriate point – they do make a point. Don’t they?
However, no matter what the societal implications are of mixing exotic dancers and alcohol, as far as a police problem, that does not seem to be the case. In looking at the monthly reports that the Police Dept provides to the Public Health and Safety Committee, their really are very few calls to Showtime. In a meeting I was at with Everest Metro Police Chief Wally Sparks last week, a topic of police calls at night clubs and bars came up, and he noted that Grand Daddy’s had very few neighbor complaints and also generated very few calls for service. So, as to Kronenwetter’s argument about adding alcohol to nudity just making the problem worse, based on the Wausau Area’s local “adult entertainment” establishments, it would appear that the opposite is actually true.
This is a complicated issue. I haven’t touched on legitimate concerns about how “adult entertainment” facilities exploit women, or other societal issues. Does a woman on the dance floor taking off her shirt cross the line into adult entertainment? What responsibility does a club owner have when this happens? What is “right”? What is fair? What about the double standard with men and women? If a guy on the dance floor made IC Willies live up to its name, you would most likely have them escorted out and arrested, yet when a woman lets it all hang out, that type of behavior tends to be encouraged. What are the thoughts of Citizen Wausau?
by John H. Fischer on December 4th, 2009
Early next week, the City of Wausau’s CISM committee will again be looking at Third Street, specifically, the direction of traffic flow. They are also including the city’s Traffic and Parking committee in on the discussion.
Currently, traffic on Third Street starting at the Wausau Center mall runs one-way — north. Third Street is scheduled to be redone in 2010, and if the direction of this one way street were going to change, that would be a good time to do it. And, based on a presentation given to the CISM committee, there is overwhelming support of changing Third Street to a one-way street going south instead.
Many have spoken up or made online comments that investing millions of dollars to change the direction of Third Street is irresponsible considering other needs that the City of Wausau has. However, those comments are not really accurate.
The fact of the matter is that Third Street was slated to be redone in 2009, but late in 2008 many downtown businesses asked the city to hold off. It is no mystery that construction makes it difficult on businesses in the area of that construction. And, with much of the redevelopment in downtown, it seems that every single year something was being built that made it harder for downtown businesses to survive. Once one construction project was complete and businesses were ready to get back to normal, a different one was scheduled. It started to look like having downtown torn up and under construction was “normal.” The businesses asked, and received, a one-year break from construction.
During these discussions in 2008, there was talk of whether or not Third Street even needed to be re-done. Many said it was just fine. The street project included sidewalks and planters and there was discussion of why this would be done, as they were just fine as well. I openly admit that I really don’t spend much time downtown other than my frequent trips to the County Courthouse or Wausau City Hall, so as an “outsider” to downtown (but someone who pays a significant amount of taxes); I decided to check out the situation for myself. I spent a day walking up and down Third Street, taking pictures of the street, of the sidewalks, of the planters. I also walked into a few businesses to talk to them about things. I then shared my thoughts (and a few of the pictures) with Citizen Wausau.
My thoughts at that time: That Third Street was in bad shape. Period. Could it last another year? Probably… but seriously something needs to be done. The planters are mostly wood and years of snow and exposure to the elements have them looking kind of crappy. They could be repaired with similar materials for a low cost that would get another 5-10 years of life out of them, but as nice as some of the facades are in our downtown, having “cheap” wood planters is almost more of a distraction than anything else. The sidewalks though, looked to be in GREAT condition. There were a few spots near intersections where repairs were needed. But as a whole, I saw no reason to do anything with the sidewalks.
So, the one year break from construction is nearly over and the City again wants to proceed with the Third Street project. As a matter of fact, based on comments made by council members, waiting the year was actually a good thing because current economic conditions mean that many contractors are desperate for work. Between contractors looking for work and the price of petroleum-based products down, bids for street work have been coming in lower than expected.
But, the question facing the City now, is the direction of traffic flow. Main Street talked with business owners and other people downtown and summarized in their presentation to the City that most wanted the traffic flow to change to southbound. The theory is that many come to downtown from the north, from Bridge Street. And because of the direction of Third, people fall victim to the “can’t get there from here” situation that can often be caused by one-way streets. Main Street feels that it makes sense to come up 3rd which would end at one of the mall entrances. Based on the overwhelming support of the change in direction, CISM recommended going ahead with the change in direction as part of the reconstruction.
Then came the City Council meeting, where many downtown businesses were questioning the change in direction. They claimed to have done their own informal surveys to come up with the conclusion that the majority actually favored keeping things just the way they were.
Councilman Ed Gale (as well as others who are on the CISM committee) indicated that they were making the recommendation on the change in direction based on a very convincing presentation by Main Street, that this is what downtown business owners wanted. However, now that the business owners are making it known that may not be the case, it would be prudent to bring this back to the committee. It was acknowledged that the original public hearing was held at a time of the day that made it difficult for business owners to attend.
Gale said he would be willing to hold the meeting at a time that was late enough to gain maximum input from those affected. Because of notice requirements, this would not be a “public hearing” as defined by state law, but he did indicate that the committee would solicit the input from those attending the meeting, if they wanted to provide input. The meeting notices have just been posted, and the date of the meeting will be Thursday, 12/10.
So, should Third Street be a one-way going north? Should it run south instead? Or, is it time to open up Third Street to traffic going both directions? What are the thoughts of Citizen Wausau?
by John H. Fischer on November 10th, 2009
There is a big push to shop local, the thought being that money spent with locally-owned businesses keeps this money here locally. There are two sides to this philosophy.
Of course there is the shop local side of things. That if you spend money in a store owned by Mr. Smith who lives here locally, Mr. Smith will then use that money to pay other local bills. However, if the money is instead spent in huge big box store, a good chunk of that money leaves the Wausau area never to be seen again, at least not here locally.
However, the counter to that argument is that often (not always, but often) it is more expensive to shop locally. The big box stores are able to use volume to get their products at a lower cost and can use economies of scale to then offer the same product at a lower cost than a local, small retailer. In this economy, everyone is trying to make their dollar go farther, so if you can get the same product for 5-10% less at a big box, doesn’t that make more sense? And, not all of the big box revenues leave the local area, after all, they do employ local people, they do pay local property taxes, etc.
With the big boxes able to out-price the small, locally-owned retailer, how do the small, locally owned retailers continue to stay in business? Simple, they must learn to not compete on price, but instead compete on service.
Being an owner of a local business, I am faced with the same economic realities that our local retailers are faced with. According to the Wausau Daily Herald, in the last five years, there have been over a thousand rental units added to the local market place – most of these from out-of-town investors. They build in a scale that I cannot come close to. Because of economies of scale, they are able to offer their product for less cost than I am. Because of the size of their portfolio, they are able to undercut prices in certain markets (like mine) and make up for it by increasing prices in other more lucrative markets (like Madison or the Fox Valley). Therefore, I am faced with the same dilemma that local retailers face: do I lower prices and try to survive knowing that many customers only care about the price points – even if that means lowering services; OR, do I maintain current price points and services and sell myself using services.
Being a locally-owned company, I understand what locally-owned retailers go through. That is why even though I could save money and help my bottom line by using big box retailers for almost all of my supplies, I feel that us little guys really need to stick together, so whenever practical, I make an effort to use locally owned companies rather than big boxes. Here are just a few examples of how I make an attempt to keep money local:
Appliances
If you do some shopping on price, you will see that as far as a bottom line price, Best Buy will probably be the winner. However, locally-owned Grebes is really not that far out of line. And, based on volume, we can normally get appliances for a little bit less than retail. However, I don’t know that anyone can touch the service level of Grebes. It starts by being recognized and being addressed by name when you enter the store, continues to their willingness to work with us on the delivery and installation schedules, and is topped by a service department that is simply second to none. If I have a tenant with a refrigerator that won’t keep things cool, I know that one call to Grebe’s service department, and the problem is as good as taken care of.
In 2008, my records indicate that $10,867 was spent on new appliances. Although $923 was spent at big boxes like Menards and Home Depot, $4,964 was spent at Grebes and the rest was spent at other local businesses like Yesse Heating, Ace Hardware and Baumgardt Plumbing. So far in 2009, of the $7,118 spent on new appliances, $4,120 went to Grebes and the rest to the other local businesses already mentioned.
Staying local was also done with money spent when appliances simply needed to be repaired instead of replaced. In 2008, all but $792 (which also stayed local) of the $3,632 spent went to Grebes. So far this year, all but $93 of the $1,696 spent went to them.
Carpet
I could probably save money by going to a big box for carpet, but then the problem of coordinating installation comes up. Sometimes, we have a very tight window to work in of only a few days to get the old carpet out, and the new carpet in. Also, from time to time, we will change carpeting in an occupied rental for a long-time tenant, and this requires a great deal of coordination. In 2008 we spent $17,630 in carpet and installation, so far this year, $11,396 has been spent. All of this has gone to locally owned Showcase Carpets and one of their installers. Keeping the money local, and at the same time getting a level of service that no big box could ever match.
Building Supplies
Although we try to keep things local when it comes to general building and maintenance supplies, sometimes simple convenience does matter. Although over 25% of our maintenance supplies are purchased from Ace Hardware in Weston ($4,675 in 2008 and $5,290 so far in 2009), a good chunk is purchased from big box retailers. However, when choosing a big box, the vast majority comes from Menards. First, because they are a Wisconsin company, and second, because I personally HATE the self-check out lanes that they try to steer you to at Home Depot.
So, do those large, out-of-town apartment owners also shop locally for supplies? Or do they get volume discounts from the big boxes and are more concerned about bottom line than supporting the local economy? To be honest, I don’t know because I am not them.
Although I do believe when keeping dollars local when I can, I also know that I am not going to do business with you just because you are local. I chose to do a majority of my business with local companies like Grebes and Ace Hardware and Showcase Carpets because of the service I receive. If you think I should shop in your store because you are local but you don’t offer me a good value, and you don’t offer that “Northwoods Service” that I am willing to pay a little more for – than don’t expect my business. However, I will pay more to be more than just another customer coming through the door.
by John H. Fischer on October 22nd, 2009
On Monday evening during Wausau’s Public Health and Safety Committee meeting, there was a public hearing on some changes to Wausau’s housing code ordinances. The three changes were:
- Establishing a re-inspection fee if building inspectors have to constantly re-inspect a property for the same uncorrected violation.
- Making it a code violation to have a non-operational vehicle (which includes vehicles without proper registration) on a property unless it is in a garage.
- Requiring property owners who don’t live in Marathon County to have a registered agent for service of process within Marathon County.
These are just the first rounds of recommended changes coming to the City from a Task Force that was created at the request of the Mayor some time back. The Task Force was to “be composed of staff and elected alderpersons to study the issues and provide recommendations for a Code Enforcement Program that would ensure decent and safe housing for all City of Wausau residents.” – This statement, in quotes, comes from the Task Force recommendation sheet that was provided to the Committee at Monday’s meeting.
This Task Force consisted of Deb Hadley, Matt Kaiser, Lisa Rasmussen, Ann Werth, Roger Sydow and Tammy Stratz. Their first meeting was held on February 17th, 2009, and their last meeting was on June 23rd. In gathering information for their recommendations, they interviewed Anne Jacobson (city attorney), Cliff Ambriz (property inspector), Mark Sauer (municipal judge), Officer Max LaPorte (police dept) and Mindy Brandenburg (community development specialist).
NOTE: I did request the agendas and minutes from these meetings, but I was told that the City of Wausau feels that an ad hoc committee such as this one does not fall under the open meeting laws so no agendas were posted or “official” minutes taken.
The three proposed ordinance changes that went to public hearing on Monday were all recommendations of this Task Force. The first recommendation of the Task Force is to hire an additional property inspector. Understanding this is not in the budget, a further recommendation is to “work towards a program that would license all rental units which will pay for the additional inspector through these fees.”
I personally find it interesting that this committee has determined that licensing rental properties and using the fees to hire another building inspector will accomplish the goal of improving the quality of housing in Wausau. I also find it personally interesting that the Task Force came to this conclusion even though none of the interviews were done with rental housing providers. (And no, playing phone tag with me for two days doesn’t count.) As a matter of fact, in the meeting minutes from the September 21st, 2009, Public Health and Safety Committee minutes, when “Abitz questioned if this had been brought forward to any of the rental associations, Rasmussen indicated there were some public hearings scheduled and meetings with some of the neighborhood groups.”
In other words… NO! There was one public hearing scheduled (the one we had on Monday) and they want to get this to the Council and approved in November so that notices of the ordinance change requiring the agent be included with the tax bills. And, although I admire the work done by many of the neighborhood groups, I have yet to hear how any of those groups make an effort to include rental property owners.
In a conversation I had with Rob Mentzer of the Wausau Daily Herald, I explained that I understand why the City wants to create this requirement for an agent in county. It makes their job of serving notices easier. But it also creates additional expense. Who is going to be willing to be a registered agent to be served process (and possibly find their name on CCAP just because they are an agent)? What will they charge? How will adding an additional cost, which will most likely just be passed on to the tenants as rent, help make housing better? It may have the opposite effect. Houses and rental properties that are in distress and are being sold may now have a smaller pool of buyers, as out-of-county purchasers may not want to deal with this whole “registered agent” thing.
If the city has to serve process on an out-of-county owner, it may cost more. But in the eventual judgment, those costs get added on and can get recouped. I understand that out-of-state property owners adds another level of difficulty, but when the owner resides out of state, there is a state law (WI SS 704.22) that requires out-of-state residential rental owners to have a designated agent in-state, and that information should be on file with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions.
Reasons given by the Inspections Department for wanting agents include how difficult it is to determine who owns the property. However, I have no problem getting owner information through a quick phone call to the Marathon County Treasurer’s office. Another reason for wanting a designated agent, is because often the owner is a corporation or LLC and you don’t know who to serve. However, I have no problem getting this information on the Department of Financial Institution website, as registered agents for corporate entities are maintained by that department and anyone can go on the website and get this information.
I hear talk that we need to do something about the slum-lords in this town – and I will agree. I spend a great deal of money to make sure that my housing units meet all applicable codes, and I want everyone to play by the same rules that I do. However, and the Inspections Department will agree with me, the slumlords are the minority. The vast majority of rental property owners comply with codes and provide safe housing.
Also, in my experience, there are two kinds of slumlords. There are those that are in it for the money and simply don’t care; and there are those who didn’t realize what they were getting into and simply can’t afford to care.
That first group we can take care of by just aggressively enforcing the ordinances that we currently have.
That second group might be able to be saved with education, guidance, and a culture of understanding, working together. and helping. Having the Task Force make recommendations without soliciting the input of rental housing owners flies in the face of a culture of working together, and creating an additional expense of having to find an in-county agent only takes away more money that the landlord could otherwise use for the needed repairs.
Two of the three recommendations, in my opinion, will help the goal of cleaning up Wausau properties. However, in regards to the agent thing, I have yet to understand how this will actually help. It will only create additional expenses for the good landlords – for the slumlords, this is just another code that they will chose to ignore.
by John H. Fischer on August 12th, 2009
On my blog, I gave some personal commentary on the Wausau City Council meeting of August 11th, and I had been asked to turn my commentary more into something “Front Page”… so here it goes:
For me, there are three reasons to attend government meetings. Reason #1 is because you want something: a zoning change, a conditional use, etc. Reason #2 is because you want to be more familiar (and maybe involved) in what is going on in local government. You want to meet the people behind the names and understand how the process works. Reason #3 is because sometimes… sometimes… the inner-workings of local government is actually just good, honest, entertainment. My attendance last night involved all three of these reasons.
A project that I have been working on for over 10 years, over a quarter my life, is finally nearing completion and three different issues on the agenda were addressing this project. Although I figured my items would be a no-brainer and would pass unanimously with no discussion, it still qualifies as Reason #1.
Based on how many people came up to me after the meeting to ask for my thoughts on a number of things that happened during the meeting, it is fair to say Reason #2 was covered as well.
However, the primary reason for spending over four hours of my life in a second row seat in Council Chambers was Reason #3. I went to the Council meeting to be entertained, and I was not let down. *NOTE: A suggestion for future marathon meetings with standing room attendance that almost went outside… CONCESSIONS! Think of the money that could have been made with the sale of popcorn, candy and soda out in the hallway.
So, for those that didn’t attend, what did you miss?
The meeting started with three citizens being awarded certificates by the Wausau police dept. for going out of their way to assist the police in making some arrests… Kudos to those three!!
Next was public comment for items on the agenda. There were two items that generated TONS of public comment, the 400 block and the 25th Street apartments. All of the comments on the 400 Block were in favor. There have been comments that no one against either the plan or public funding were there, however as more of the discussion centered around a private funding requirement, I heard the applause of at least 10-15 people. In the people speaking under public comments, NONE of that discussion even came close to hinting at exclusive private funding. As a matter of fact, many of them mentioned the public/private partnership which, translated, means generate what funds you can but have taxpayers pick up the rest. I found the comments from Mark Craig of Compass properties interesting — calling the 400 Block not only the City’s front yard, but also his “front yard.” (When I do work to my front yard, I don’t ask the taxpayers of the Town of Wausau to pick up the tab, but then… that’s just me.)
After the council meeting, a few people (including a few council members) asked why I didn’t say anything during the public comment section. Simple… first… everyone in the council knows my thoughts on the matter, how would verbalizing them change anything. Second, I truly believe that each member of the council, at 7:00 PM, knew how they were going to vote once it finally got there, and whatever public comment there was had very little chance of changing a vote. And finally, because verbalizing my thoughts wasn’t going to change anything, and because everyone’s mind was made up long before the hour of public comment, why should I subject myself to the boos and harassment that would have come from speaking against public funding from the 400 Block? (Because based on the reaction of the crowd last night, to be against public funding is no different than being against the plan.)
Between the public comments on the 400 block and the public comments on the 25th Street apartments, the Mayor changed the agenda. An item on the agenda was a settlement offer in a lawsuit the City is involved in with the owners of the M&I Bank building downtown. I assume (but do not claim to know) that this item was moved up because an attorney the city had hired was there to brief the council on this settlement, and I assume she was “on the clock.” So, just after 8 PM, the council considered settling a lawsuit that was filed against the City because of a “discrepancy” in what the assessed value of their property was. If I remember right, this was the assessment for the 2007 tax year. The settlement offer was finally accepted by the City, but not after some discussion. The two major objectors to the settlement were Hadley because she didn’t feel she had enough information to determine if the settlement was the proper course of action, and Kaiser because based on some information he received from the assessor’s office, he felt that the M&I Building was under-assessed.
Personally, I feel that if you hire an attorney, pay them what I assume is already into 5-figures, and they tell you they have a settlement offer and you should take it… well… I guess that’s why I hired the attorney. After all, I listen when an attorney I hired tells me to settle because it is actually in the attorney’s best interest NOT to settle and instead litigate this because by her own statement, litigation would result in over $30,000 more in legal fees with no assurance that the result will be better than the settlement.
Then came the public comments on the 25th Street apartments. I had written a blog entry about this proposed 96-Unit Apartment complex on the East Side after the public hearing because of how that hearing was handled by the developer. It was a TEXTBOOK example of how to present your case. I consider myself pretty good, but I was no where near their league when it came to background work and “selling” the plan. The neighbors of this currently agricultural area are against this type of development, and they showed up in force to object. Of course the developer was there to speak in favor. What I did not learn until after the meeting is that the developer had hired a PR firm to do some of the work. I suppose, if you have to “sell” a plan to the city council, might has well hire a PR firm to do the selling.
The 400 Block was then up for council discussion, which went on another hour or so. It became a Roberts Rules nightmare where even I was confused for a little bit (and I consider myself pretty good with parliamentary procedure). We started with a motion to pass the resolution approving the plan. We then had the Kaiser amendment. Finance Director Groat asked how the amendment would address interest on money already set aside, and the motion for the amendment was modified to take into account that interest. Then after much discussion, there was a motion to amend the amendment. I believe this was done by Gale who re-worded his amendment to the amendment a couple of times to make sure the intent was clear and agreeable to Kaiser. After more discussion, there was suggestion that the amendment to the amendment needed to be amended.
By this time, Rosenburg threw out the motion to send all amendments to the finance committee. That motion then “trumped” all of the other motions relating to amendments, but created a new question. If you have a resolution on the floor, and there is a motion to amend that resolution, and then that amendment to the resolution gets referred to committee, does the original motion also then get held up while the amendment gets polished in committee? The answer is no; because the original motion had not yet been officially amended, it could still be addressed even though the amendments were now sent to committee.
There was also discussion of just adding a line to the resolution clarifying that this is for the plan only and does not address funding. Brezenski seemed dead set against that and pointed out at least three times that the resolution only covers the plan and says nothing about funding. He claimed adding that last statement is redundant. Okay, fine, I agree. It would have been redundant. But, if being a little redundant helps some people sleep better at night, is a little redundancy a bad thing? If the last statement is unneeded and won’t change anything, then why such opposition to it? That part of the meeting greatly puzzled me.
Once the vote on the 400 block was done, there was a “recess” of a few minutes while over half of those stuffing the council chambers who only attended for Reason #1 left. Once the meeting started back up, the Mayor then, out of respect for the 30 or so people there for the 25th Street apartment issue, moved it up on the agenda. After much discussion on everything from Wausau’s comprehensive plan to apartment vacancy rates to legislative procedure, the approval came to a 6-6 vote, and was approved when the Mayor broke the tie. I am actually somewhat surprised that I wasn’t called to the podium to answer questions because shortly after the meeting, two members of city staff as well as three different council members had questions of me concerning this issue.
NOTE – CITIZEN WAUSAU NEWS EXCLUSIVE!!!
Something that just occurred to me and I hope someone reviews the minutes and/or tape of the meeting. This item had two agenda items. There was the proposal to amend the general development plan to allow for the apartments, which is what was approved with the Mayor’s tie-breaking vote. However, there was also the following item on the agenda where if the general development plan change was approved, the Council must now also approve the “Precise Implementation Plan” for this development in order for it to proceed. In all the excitement of that tie vote, I don’t honestly remember that the Precise Plan was ever voted on or approved?
Other interesting parts of the council meeting included the decision by the City to walk away from Veolia after this year ends and go with a different, smaller, more “local” garbage hauler. The biggest concerns that a couple of council members had was that the new hauler (Northern Waste) wouldn’t be able to “ramp up” in time. I assume people somehow associated with Veolia were in the audience because as the question was asked by Gale if they (Northern Waste) would be able to get the trucks they need by January 1st because there is often a lead time, I heard at least three people voice behind me that it can’t be done. I was actually surprised to learn that to service Wausau, only 6 garbage trucks are needed. For personal reasons, I was VERY pleased with the Council’s decision.
Also on the agenda was a new ordinance to limit rummage/garage sales within city limits. Such sales would be restricted to no more than 4 days in row, no more than 4 times each year, and at least a month between sales. When this first came up, there was significant public outcry so a public hearing was held to get input. At that hearing, literally no one showed up to testify, for or against. During the council meeting there was a proposed amendment to change part of it, and a different council member had stated they were thinking about amending it but in a different way. Because the urgency of this ordinance is really not a huge deal, Hadley asked that it just be sent back to committee so they would work out the concerns.
So… I went to the council meeting for the primary purpose of to be entertained, and I was. By the way, yes. My three items on the agenda were passed with a unanimous vote with no discussion.
by John H. Fischer on August 3rd, 2009
A while back, I posted a blog entry that touched on some of my thoughts about shared services amongst the many communities that make up the Greater Wausau Area. What spurred this post was the recent headlines that one of the most successful experiments in shared services (the Everest Metro Police Department) may be nearing its end as the eternal concern of whether the various participants are fairly sharing the cost may tear the department apart.
The editorial coming up in this Sunday’s Wausau Daily Herald will discuss economic development efforts in our region. For those not familiar, I am the same John Fischer (town of Wausau) who will write commentary on Sunday editorials in the “Readers React” part of that section of the paper. My comments on that editorial roughly question our region’s ability to come up with a unified economic development plan when we can’t address anything else in a “unified” way.
The phrase “United We Stand, Divided We Fall” summarizes the situation as I see it in our local area and long term economic stability. To those not familiar with the Wausau area, they see this entire area as Wausau and either don’t realize (or don’t care) that what they think is Wausau is actually a larger metropolitan area of which Wausau is only the largest (in terms of population and equalized value) piece. There is also Schofield, Weston, Rothschild and Rib Mountain. As Wausau expands, the lines between it and the Towns of Wausau, Stettin and Texas also get blurred. One could also argue that Kronenwetter and Mosinee fall under this “metro” umbrella. I do not fault people not familiar with our area for thinking this. I am guilty of this thinking when it comes to areas like Chicago or Los Angeles. Although those areas are comprised of a number of communities, it’s all Chicago to me.
Wausau, with its nearly 40,000 population, is really not a heavy-hitter when it comes to attracting new business/industry into this region. Weston, at just over 10,000 also is only a speck on most radars. Now, a metro-area with a population of over 100,000 being at the crossroads of two major 4-lane highways… THAT metro-area is a PLAYER in the world of business recruitment.
But, we don’t recruit as a region. Don’t get me wrong, we try. We have a very active Chamber of Commerce that is regional in nature. Also, recently most communities have signed a “pact” agreeing not to fight with each other in luring economic development. However, agreeing to not compete with each other is really not the same as working together with a unified goal of what is best for the region is best for the individual communities within the region.
There are some examples of Wausau Area communities working together. The Everest Metro Police Department (a shared police department between the Village of Weston, the Town of Weston, and the City of Schofield) is probably the most prominent example. However other examples include the agreement between Weston and Wausau to share a single piece of fire fighting equipment and Schofield and Rothschild coming together to create a joint aquatic center.
I am not saying that all of the Wausau communities need to come together and form one municipal entity, or that they need to combine key services such as police, fire, or public works. (I am not saying that, but I do believe very strongly that our region, as a whole, could benefit from something like that).
However, I think that it would be worthwhile for our region to have our own “G-7” group. That leaders from Wausau, Schofield, Weston, Rothschild, Rib Mountain, Kronenwetter and even Mosinee get together on at least a quarterly basis (though to be taken seriously, monthly would be better). These leaders could then look at issues the region as a whole is facing and discuss how to best attack these issues as a region.
I think it would be worthwhile for these communities to at least look at simple things that wouldn’t involve losing their identities or sharing services, things like ordinance and zoning codes. If I want to locate a new business here, the regulations that cover a specific type of commercial zoning are different in each community. The building size and parking requirements are different, the permitted and conditional uses are different, everything is different. It would be nice, in trying to recruit a new employer to the area, that the entire area’s zoning code is consistent. Weston and Wausau may have agreed to not compete against each other, but by having different zoning requirements they are still doing just that.
Although I believe that combined police, fire and public works would also help this region to compete as a region, each community has a different level of service, and different levels of service cost different amounts (after all, you get what you pay for). For example, Wausau has fulltime fire and ambulance where Weston only has full time ambulance and Schofield and Rib Mountain are all volunteer departments. Wausau and Everest Metro are both large police departments with many extras such as motorcycle patrols, school liaison officers, K-9 units, and dedicated detectives, where Rib Mountain doesn’t even have its own police force and is served through the County Sheriff’s department. Because of these vast differences in levels of services (and costs associated with these services), combining them all is clearly an impossible dream.
However, for our Wausau region to truly be all it can be, we must have a unified vision at a minimum in economic development. And I truly believe that having the leaders of the various municipalities get together over a cup of coffee (or maybe even a beer) on a monthly basis would be a great first step in opening the lines of communication. For, to truly be able to work together, we must first fully understand our differences.
I don’t want this to be some prediction of doom and gloom by saying that failing to work together on a common goal will lead to failure. History clearly shows that is not the case. However, we (as a region) could be so much more than we (as a bunch of individual communities) can ever attain.
by John H. Fischer on July 1st, 2009
This Saturday, July Fourth, we will be celebrating the 233rd anniversary of “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World,” which is a term often used when describing the act of the 13 British colonies in North America declaring their independence from the Crown, located an ocean away.
As has been tradition for some time, we Americans have decided that the best way to celebrate a “Shot Heard ‘Round the World” is with shooting other things that make much noise to be heard – specifically fireworks.
Wausau has a great deal to offer for a community our size. Those people who complain there is nothing to do really have not looked. The arts are well represented. Thanks to Rib Mountain and the Wisconsin River, we have year-round recreational opportunities, and I have already posted about the benefits of having the Wisconsin Woodchucks call Wausau home.
Considering the size of the overall Wausau Metro area, it is surprising that we really don’t have a truly impressive fireworks display for Independence Day. I find that truly sad.
Before you start attacking me for me talking down about the Jaycee’s celebration at Marathon Park, I am not doing that. I think they have a great way to spend some time, good low-cost entertainment for the entire family. Normally they have fireworks two or three nights during their celebration. However, I just don’t think that the fireworks they have at Marathon Park really do the Wausau area justice; I personally think that a community our size, on the Fourth itself, deserves more.
As a pyrotechnician myself, specifically one who has worked as part of the fireworks crew shooting the Jaycee’s shows for a few years, I understand what is going on and why they are limited to the type of show that they have. And, some people actually prefer their show. Their show is not allowed to use some of the really big, really fancy shells, so instead they have lower-level effects. And because those bigger shells are much more expensive: by having ONLY lower-level effects, they can have much more of them. Based on pure “number of shots,” there is a lot going on during the Marathon Park fireworks show – never a dull moment.
The Marathon Park fireworks for the Jaycee’s was my second ever show as part of a fireworks crew in 1993 (my first show was with the same crew doing a large show in Merrill a few weeks earlier, shooting off of an island in the Wisconsin River, we had some seriously big shells to work with). At that time, the aerial part of the show consisted of 3” and 4” diameter shells along with some mid-level effects. (Mid-level are those items that go in the air at least 50 feet, but do not go over 200’ – on average, the height of an aerial shell is the inch diameter x 100 – 3” shell goes 300’, 5” shell goes 500’, etc.)
With improvements made to Marathon Park, the 4” shells were removed from the show. Shortly thereafter, our crew was moved to the Rhinelander Fourth show, which was shot from a golf course across the river from Hodag park. Rhinelander’s show featured all the way up to 12” diameter shells shot out of mortar that was nearly 6’ tall. So, here I was in Rhinelander with a very impressive show, but I couldn’t understood why the much larger area of Wausau didn’t have a show like this?
Because of budget cuts, Rhinelander starting shooting their show themselves, and we were awarded the Weyawega show. That show went up to 5” and was still more impressive than Wausau’s. Our crew then returned to Wausau a few years ago, and the Fire Dept. was dead set against our using even 3” shells.
I am no longer part of a crew, but instead have my own crew. I now shoot a show in Pell Lake, a very small township just south of Lake Geneva, an impressive show lasting 35 minutes with up to 6” shells.
I understand the problem. Although I would disagree with the Fire Dept. about the safety of 3” shells in Marathon Park, anything bigger than 3” does pose an issue with how close buildings and other structures are. However, we have other areas in the Wausau area where larger shells could be fired. The weekend after the Fourth larger shells will be part of the fireworks associated with the Balloon Rally, launched from the Wausau Airport over the river.
There has to be a way that the Wausau Area can be treated to a Fourth of July fireworks show with some of the larger shells that can have pretty impressive effects without interfering too badly with the Jaycee’s shows. The Jaycee’s can keep doing the great job they are doing and have their “mid-level” show a couple of times, but on the Fourth itself, can’t we please have a decent show? Too many people go to Stevens Point or Mosinee or Merrill.
