Neither side seems ready to take over Renard Island By Ray Barrington News-Chronicle With the clock ticking on Renard Island's future, no action has been taken by either the city or the county to decide what, if anything, will be done with the site. Renard Island, the kidney-shaped collection of dredgings just off the shore at Bay Beach, is almost full. By the end of the year, a decision must be made on what to do with the island. Green Bay port director Dean Haen has made presentations to both the city and county seeking advice, and offering suggestions and options. One would simply continue to pack clean dredgings over the contaminated ones to cap it, leaving a mound in the water and no human use. This would allow continued use of the island for up to five years. If the city or county wanted to use the island for recreational purposes or leave it flat and just let it serve as a natural area, the limit is three years. The county's Education and Recreation Committee briefly discussed the issue Thursday, but did not take any action. Nor has any other governmental body. County parks director Bill Dowell, however, thinks making the island useful would be too costly. "It would be an expensive investment," he said, saying it could cost up to $9 million, including a $2.7 million causeway to connect the island and shore. While it is possible there may be money available from court settlements over the dumping of toxic PCBs into the Fox River, the exact amount is not known. Sup. Tony Theisen, who sits on the Brown County Board and Green Bay City Council, said he wondered if a decision had to be made now, or if the municipalities could still consider it during the three-year period. He did say if it is to be used for recreation, it should be the county, not the city, that develops it. However, he added there is "no constituency clamoring for us to spend money on this." When the issue was presented to the City Council on Tuesday, the Clean Water Action Council handed out letters to the aldermen saying the city should not take ownership of the island. The letter claimed the city's smaller tax base would require higher taxes for the island's maintenance, that activity income would never match island maintenance costs and that "the toxic site leaks like a sieve."