EDITOR:

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the actions taken by the county board and the Parks and Recreation Department, particularly regarding Fuller Park. Your claims of fiscal responsibility seem to contradict recent decisions, especially the proposal to spend $75,000 on a pavilion, and parking lot on undeveloped land.

Building a pavilion in the area proposed between the day-use and camping sections is not only financially imprudent but also environmentally disruptive. This site would require extensive road relocation, fill hauling, and tree clearing, along with the challenge of bringing electricity to an undeveloped area. Conversely, a pavilion located in the designated day-use area, which already has existing infrastructure — including a cleared road, water, and electricity — would greatly benefit the county financially and minimize environmental impact.

Moreover, the proposed site has been controversial for years. The day-use area is out of compliance with the trust fund grant from the DNR Recreation Division. The DNR has specified the necessary actions for compliance, but these directives have been repeatedly ignored. We have been without a public five-year plan for two years, despite its importance in applying for further grants. The county also may bear the responsibility of $300,000 due to misappropriated funds. Such negligence raises severe concerns about our financial accountability.

The ongoing disregard for safety and infrastructure — such as the failure to remove dead fallen trees along the river — poses additional risks. This situation could lead to tragic accidents, particularly for kayakers. Moreover, the Parks and Recreation Board’s frequent reformation has obscured accountability, allowing critical issues to remain unaddressed.

The financial implications of underutilization of the seasonal campsites at Fuller Park further illustrate our mismanagement. With only 40 sites available, losing the 10 sites to “seasonal rates” results in considerable revenue loss.

Seasonal campers typically pay less than $16 a night, generating $2,500 for 157 nights. In comparison, the same sites rented as non-seasonal at $35 per night for just 78 days yield $2,700. Removing the seasonal option is not only financially advantageous but also less demanding for the county’s resources as these sites also have electrical hookups.

No rate study has been done to determine if seasonal rentals actually make money for the county.

In light of these concerns, I urge the county board and the Parks and Recreation Department to reconsider the proposed site for the pavilion. Moving it to the cleared day-use area would align with genuine fiscal responsibility while improving compliance with the trust fund requirements.

Let us prioritize our existing infrastructure and the preservation of our natural environment over unnecessary development.

Cheryl Corbiere

Escanaba