Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1877-10-11
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ROAD
AND BRIDGE FUND.
For the Considefation Of the Beard Of County
SUPERVISOR.

L deem 1t duty and privilege to
make few remarks pertaining to
the distribution of the Fund raised
by the County for Roads and Bridges
for the present year.
At the meeting of the Board in
1876, the question arose, What
amount of taxes to levy to aid in de-
fraying the extra expense entailed
upon the different towns by reason
of the severe freshets of the year
1876. 1t seems all towns suffered
severely and each chairman of the
different towns, asserted or claimed
that his town suffered most severely.
DIR. Hubbel, of Bosoobel, called the
attention of the Board to the Road
Law of 1866, which limits the power
of the Board TO raise q county tax
for roads and bridges to an amount
not exceeding $4,000, and this seems
to have become regular tax, and
to be annually levied.
am in favor of this tax, but think
there might be great Improvement
in its distribution. / consider the
present method unfair and not busi-
ness like. The chairman of the
Board appoints committee which
committee must rely upon the rep.
reservations of the members of the
Board, and the influence exercised
by each of them, controls the amount
his town will receive as his portion
of this fund. Now if the Board
would pass resolution that all ap-
plication must be done by petitions
signed by 20 freeholders Of said town
setting forth in percise items, where
for the aid is wanted, giving the To-
cation of bridge or bridges to be
built, and estimates of cost, and that
an order be issued that the aid grant
ed shall be expended for tho building
or repairing of such bridge or bridges
only, and that the County Clerk
issue an order only upon and after
the filing of certificate by the
Town Board, that the work has
been done in conformity with the
petition. would further recon-
mend that the chairman of each
town annually furnish an exact and
specific statement of cash expenses
incurred tor the maintenance OF
County Roads and Bridges, separate
from that of town Roads and Bridges
at time of making the annual report
of spring election, and that failure
to make such report shall deprive
such town of all benefits and rights
to those funds for road and brloges
during said year and these reports
to be recorded in book kept for
that purpose by the County Clerk.
Such reports would give the commit
tee annually appointed to distribute
the said fund, an accurate idea of the
needs and wants of each town, and
would greatly facilitate fair and
impartial distribution.
am in favor of restricting the use
of this fund to the building and re-
pairing of bridges only, and for
roads only in case an entirely new
county road be laid out, and l think
those towns which have the greatest
expenditure should have the greatest
amount of aid, and l would add that
consideration should be had where
q town contains main thoroughfare
or highway from which it derives
but little benefit but which is neces-
sary for the people of other towns, as
for instance the road to Boscobel
running through the town of Marion
or the road from Lancaster to Cass.
vile through the town of Beetown,
or to Platteville through the town of
Ellenboro, where they have to main
tain expensive bridges. Under the
present rules of the Board, town
must raise and expend at least so
per cent of the amount of aid asked
or received from the County. L ad.
vocate that this rule be amended to
read, IAN amount equal to aid received
from the County. have certain in.
formation that there remained 1926
unpaid appropriation claims from
1876 at the session of 1876, and one
certain town at least claiming 800
of that amount failed to raise even
$50 for the same purpose, yet it's
chairman at the session of 1876 came
forward with sn application for a
further 800. He was as lucky as
myself and got nothing, and l say,
served him right
Iapplied for the same amount 800
and did it fairly--showing that
my town had actually disbursed the
amount of $407 go on bridges during
the year 1876. | also gave them an
exact statement of the location of
bridges to be repaired during the en-
suing year 1877, remarkiDg to the
committee, that if they found any
town in greater need than mine, to
give it to them. The town | repre-
sent paid $40 toward this $4,000
fund in 1876, if the Abstract of the
Assessment Roll publised Oct. 26,
1876, in the HERALD is correct, and
here are towns having good bridges
and expanding large amounts for
this purpose, and paying large pro-
portion of this fund, receive little or
nothing to aid them in this work.
For instance the town of Lancaster
levied during the years 1876 and
1877 the sum of $500, two thousand
of it in 1876, and received 800 from
the county, but had to pay the sum
of 1924. 54 towards this fund. Thus
showing that Lancaster does much
for it's bridges, pays large portion
of the fund and gets but little in re-
turn. l would also advocate that
the County Clerk furnish the COM
mittee q statement of the amount
paid by each town az it's share of