MooShoo- He had to file for a permit with the state to use the $1.8 million for anything other than parks and conservation. I was at the board meeting when the supervisors voted against the use of his permit- 22/9, and other meetings leading up to the vote. The tax levy is supposed to be used to pay for the county budget, not the one time ATC payment. If the finance committee would have voted to save less money for projects currently not underway, they would have had more to spend on the 2009 budget. My information comes straight from the county meetings, so I add it here where the Gazette did not. Get your facts straight before pointing out non-existent short-comings in my postings, please.

Are you people not listeneing? The money is for parks and conservation only. Nothing else. While I feel the dollar amounts the county gave for expenditures at Carver-Roehl park are rediculous, there are a lot of reasonable projects that need attention, i.e. fixing all of the currently contaminated wells in the parks, replacing rundown bathroom facilities, erosion control on Magnolia Bluff, extending a bike path to connect with a state trail; all of which fall under the parks and conservation intent for which the money was received.

The county farm buildings around the jail look like three mile island. They should clean up what they started before beginning new projects.

I find it funny that all three parks listed for improvment all invole park where hoeseback riding is allowed. Maybe some one should take a good long look and see what is not allowed in the county parks. BIKES. Thats right no bikes in county parks. Somthing is wrong with that in My eyes. I have no problem with horses and their trails but do have a problem that the county dosnt allow any type of biking other than on the paved or improved roads.

The land conservation department can get funding from other sources, while the parks cannot. This money is not intended for farm preservation, because it is not conservation. I agree with partarican1 on this point. We need food, but the farms in this county do not generally produce food for humans, they feed animals. I think it would be wiser of the county board to farm the county farm instead of renting it out, and use the food to fill the local food pantries and feed the inmates. The land around the county complex should be saved for expansion of the jail and not a prairie restoration.

I too, think it's rediculous to spend so much money on a new entrance to Carver-Roehl park.

But as I've said before, there is a difference between preservation of farmland and conservation of farmland, and the 2 aren't even close be definition. No, the money was not allocated to both groups; it was allocated to the county parks by the company who gave it. The county administrator is the one divided it. The parks have been historically underfunded and this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to fix the problems in the existing parks. If the county board divides this money in half, they better be prepared to fork over a larger portion of the 2010 budget to the parks.

Why not make some of the co parks camp grounds and make money instead of wasting it.

$75,000 to fix the culvert at Carver Roehl? Wow, I hope that's because they're doing it right. They could always leave it. How many times did it close the park last year? Three, or four at the most, and it always goes down pretty quick.
What ever happened to saving money? "Stimulate the Economy" by giving it to county residents!
What about the people who own the land the lines will be on? Do they get paid?

On that investment note..... Maybe they should provide some private loans where they can charge interest on re-payment. Those loans would put some money out in the community where it's needed since the banks are so hard to get money from these days.

"10,000 to restore county-owned property on the county campus along Highway 51. The idle property has been taken over by invasive species".Mmmmmm. Would invasive species then be homeless? Nancy Pelosi got 50 million for those mice in CA.

Do all these parks get that much use to warrant this kind of spending? The same with the bike trail. Does that get that much use to spend money we really don't have to waste? If there is a park that gets greatly used and repairs need to be done, then yes spend the money where the public will get benefits from it. Lets not spend money just to spend because it is there. We saw what that did to our country.

Land conservation proposes to split the money in half, while the Parks committee proposes 250K to conservation and the rest to them - no doubt that parks need some upgrading, but what makes parks more in need than conservation? The money was allocated to both of them - seems a split is the only fair way. Farmland that is lost to development will never again be productive for future food growth. Parks are not in danger of being developed. No farms, no food.

The money was given to the county for the purpose of park land and conservation efforts. The money isn't for spending on the county budget. The administrator had to apply for a conditional use permit to spend the moey for other reasons, and the county board objected to this 22/9. And for the record, farmland preservation is not the same as farmland conservation. If these farms don't get placed into soil and water conservation programs right away, it's business as usual.

How about investing it so the county could make more money from it, It seems like every time the government gets a nickel in it's pocket it has to go to the candystore like a little kid and spend it! Isn't that what got our economy into this mess we're in now? Is our government leaders so reckless with money that they forgot how to conserve, especially with money that just came their way?

How about a couple of air conditioners for Rock Haven?

Re: county-owned property on the county campus along Highway 51... "remove trees and stumps and buy prairie grass seeds and new trees." Has anyone noticed the condition of the old county farm? Unfortunately, it has deteriorated to look like a war zone. Seems like money for clean-up might be needed before new plants.

I would like to see the money used to pay off some outstanding bonds/bills. I would also like to see my tax base dropped after said bills/bonds are paid.
But we know that government doesn't work that way.

would like to see the Ice Age Trail finished from Milton to where it runs along HWY 26. Jefferson Co has blacktop on the trail from the county line (by the Stagecoach) to Fort. A State-wide trail system with gaping holes near the perimeter of one of the largest, most productive counties in the State is saddening considering the grants that are available under the Federal & State DOT grant programs. That to me is the equivalent of making a building handicap accessible right down to the bathrooms, doors, elevators, tables, and light switches only to have no disabled parking. If connected, maybe some of the people that you are concerned about finding alternative ways of transportation for, could ride a bike to work! Some tiny "park" with a tree and a bench out in the middle of no-where can wait. Not every park needs a $50,000 play set or paved parking lot. Prioritize! Get the trail from Milton to Janesville, and the connection to the trial in Walworth Co via Janesville/Milton in place so that in a few years when Hwy 26 is done, the County will have a case to be made that it is in the best interest of the people to have a trail-crossing 26. If the trail is not important enough to build now, why should we be surprised when the State DOT turns the Hwy 26 crossing down for lack of funds in 2012? Without it, it makes it much harder, much more expensive to connect the trail to Walworth Co to bridge the gap in the STATE WIDE Ice Age Trail. This would not use all of the money or anywhere near it.