THE CITY REBORN FROM THE ASHES OF AMERICA'S MOST DISASTROUS FOREST FIRE
From our readers
What myself and many of my neighbors would have liked to see mentioned in your story was the huge waste of tax dollars on this project by Marinette County officials. When the project could have been done for $1.5 million but is now going way over the $3.5 million it seems to most reasonable thinking people that things are not being done right.
The first mistake seems to have been made when the county hired an unlicensed road commissioner which put a burden on taxpayers in that he had to begin to contract design work with a private firm. They also caused a burden to taxpayers with this selection since the party did not live in Marinette County and he has been allowed to drive a county truck to his home each day.
Driveway cuts were made for the original design, culverts were installed, and utility lines moved. Even though cost records of this work were requested, Marinette County would not make those figures available to the public. The road commissioner now intends to do all these changes over again and pass the costs to taxpayers. The decision to install ditches that are not needed will add a considerable maintenance cost for the life of the road on top of the initial installation costs.
It appears to many local residents that all these decisions are being made because we have a Marinette County Board that does not want to admit they allowed some mistakes and they do not want to be resourceful with taxpayer dollars. Since Marinette County is decreasing in population was it the best interest of our residents to over-spend and over-improve? Marinette County is one of the lowest income counties in Wisconsin. We need leaders who can be aware of this in their decisions.
If these representatives were spending their own money, would they insist on increasing the costs three times what the project could have been done for? They are misleading the public also when they are calling the wider lane a bike/walking path extension. A legal bike/walking path is 5 not 3. This extension could have been provided at a much reduced cost also without ditching.