Letter: Targeted repair would cost less

Are there no engineers or masons out there who could confirm that a “targeted repair” would be a more viable solution...?

I attended the latest council meeting where it was announced that there would be a contract made with the company

who had just charged $7,000 for a study and given an estimate of a cost of up to $175,000 to remedy the situation.

It seemed that they recommended filling in the whole gravel pit again but, during the short public input moments allowed after it had all been “decided,” I stated my opinion that there is, within basic construction remedies, a concept known as “targeted repair,” which always costs far less and often is a far better solution that could easily be made to work—and save well over $100,000 of our tax money.

It seemed that council and staff were not interested in exploring this avenue and there was no further discussion allowed on that subject.

Earlier someone indicated that we need to leave such things to the experts. Councillor Butler tried to question about the seemingly excessive expense but it didn’t go any further.

Someone else, in another place, said that you have to be an engineer or a mason to understand the ins and outs of big construction and such financial arrangements. Really?

Are there no engineers or masons out there who could confirm that a “targeted repair” would be a more viable solution in this situation? Seriously.

James Hamilton, Grand Forks