Let the budget talks begin.
Most county government departments have sent in their budget requests for 2010, and budget hearings will begin this month, according to county commission chair Anthony Dove.
The first budget meeting will be held Thursday, July 9 at 4 p.m. with the sheriff’s department.
Dove told the board of commissioners Monday night that most county department heads have submitted their budget requests for next year to finance officer Kathy Clark. Dove has asked each department head to shave five percent off their budget next year, a move to offset the anticipated revenue shortfalls in 2010.
And Dove added that overall adjustments might need to be made to the 2009 budget in the coming months, depending on revenue flow.
The chairman said recently that the county property tax collection rate is at 89 percent at this point and that the budget is set on a projected 97 percent collection rate.
Despite no plans at this point to raise the mill rate, he noted that county property taxpayers are already going to feel the pinch of the state’s decision to eliminate the Homeowners’ Tax Relief Grant, which will tack on another $233 to homeowners’ bills, according to tax commissioner Louise Watson.
Dove also provided commissioners with a six-month overview of employees’ salaries, which the board plans to review at the upcoming BOC meeting Monday night.
In other business:
•Commissioners approved a pledge agreement with Merchants and Farmers Bank in connection with an upcoming city of Comer SPLOST anticipation loan ($200,000 line of credit) for downtown water line improvements.
•The board agreed to allow chairman Dove to sign a proclamation declaring July 4 “Mayor John Waggoner Day.” Dove will recognize the long-time Colbert mayor and read the proclamation during the annual Independence Day Celebration in Colbert on Saturday.
•Commissioners approved a variance of the subdivision regulations to allow property owner Robert Sides to further subdivide his 32.24 acre property on Parham Town Road for his wife and children, due to health reasons. Zoning administrator Linda Fortson told the board that Sides meets all the legal requirements for the rezone, except for a three-year time limit requirement that would normally prevent further subdividing of the property until December, 2010.
•The board agreed to hire 4-H Club members at $10 per hour (two-hour minimum) to run the taping system during BOC meetings, beginning with the July 6 meeting. Dove said he would like to provide county 4-H members/students with the opportunity to run the system and gain experience, while at the same time saving the county money, since it will cost less to pay them to run the equipment during meetings than to pay overtime to county IT director Gary Venable. Venable has agreed to provide training to the students.
•Commissioners voted 3-2 (commissioners John Pethel and Mike Youngblood voted “no”) to pay $325 for the county government to be included on a county “place mat” caricature map, which will include participating county businesses.
•The board approved the re-appointment of Sheila Collins to another five-year term on the Madison County Department of Family and Children Services board.
•Commissioners approved a $635.81 tax refund for property owner Sharon Turpin for two outbuildings on her property with overstated square footage on the property assessment.
•The board agreed to increase the county’s monthly contribution for the annual Indigent Defense Fund agreement to $5,645 per month, up from the current $4,868 paid per month. County attorney Mike Pruett told commissioners that the increase is based on a rolling average of the judicial district’s increased caseload.
•Commissioners approved the continuation of two contracts with Whitworth Parole Center for inmate work details.
•The BOC held a 20-minute closed session to discuss land acquisition, personnel matters and potential litigation, but took no action in open session.
No objection to poultry farmer / livestock farmer having these conservation status and tax reduction but if land just with house and growing Kudzu with adequate live stock to fee on it maybe some conservation easement should be rescinded. Our schools and all need funds. Can not be a next BOC meeting but can monies lost be asked and what can we do about it. Again no objection to taxpaying farmer or even tree growers recieving livelyhood from farming getting these breaks
Look at it this way. Let the county do what you suggest and remove the conservation easements from land. Owners cannot afford to just let the land be pasture and simultaneously pay the full tax rate unless they own the land outright and are wealthy. So, all of these owners are now forced to sell. All of this extra property in the market forces values DOWN. The downward pressure in the ensuing real estate market forces all other property values DOWN. That results in an even worse scenario for tax collection than the one you have with the conservation easements in place. You actually end up with LESS money for the county without the conservation easements in place because the elimination of the conservation status forces ALL property values to go down thanks to overabundance of property for sale.
Of course, some people DO like the scenario described above very much. They are the developers who want to snatch up as much of the pasture and farmland as they can get for pennies on the dollar. It's no surprise then that the people who are most vocal about eliminating conservation easements are the DEVELOPERS and REALTORS who don't give a damn about Madison County, the govt., the schools, the farmers, or the residents. They just want to buy land in bulk for CHEAP, hold it until they can rezone, subdivide and then sell it HIGH in the form of tiny lots or poorly built houses. By the way, all of these new residents require MORE SCHOOLS and demand MORE SERVICES. What do you think that does to your tax base? Adding residents to a county to get more tax dollars has been tried thousands of times in thousands of places and it hasn't resulted in lower taxes yet, ANYWHERE. The exact opposite is true: more residents demanding more schools and services results in HIGHER TAXES. Look to any of the counties to our west towards Atlanta and see as many examples of the "more residents = higher taxes" tried-and-true formula as you care to see.
Most of the developers who profit from the scenario above don't live here, and even those that do are only trying to make enough money to leave and finance their home on a golf course and their cabin in the mountain and their big, fancy SUV.
Thank your lucky stars that Madison County has people who are willing to put land into conservation. It is a sacrifice they make because those property owners care more about what happens on their land than about how much money they could put in their pockets by selling to a rich developer. Without conservation status, Madison County would already look like Oconee and Gwinnett, and those developers are gnashing their teeth that Madison County hasn't caved yet. Or at least they were before the bubble they built their fortunes and futures on burst. Don't think they aren't ready to make the same mistake again. They are ready if there is a fast, easy buck to be made.
Look around you. See all those former farms and pastures that were divided up by developers? See all those vacant lots they can't sell now? See all those vacant houses half-finished or in foreclosure? Those houses are built on land that someone sold out to a developer often the because the property taxes had simply become too much for them to hold on or they lost their conservation status.
Do you really want all of Madison County to be covered with overgrown subdivisions no one is buying? With empty half-finished houses builders walked away from? With empty, overgrown foreclosed homes? Do you honestly think that will result in a net gain in the tax base? Or a net loss?
The events of the last decade in Madison County are trying to TEACH you something about what happens when one goes for short term profits, or short term gains in the tax base, and one neglects the long term health, beauty, and sustainability of a community. It is up to you to LEARN. Remember, those who do not LEARN from history are doomed to REPEAT it.
Thanks again to all of the property owners who are willing to make the personal and financial sacrifices to put their land into conservation status. Some of us understand what an important contribution to our community, our children's future, and yes, the long-term stability and sustainability of our TAX BASE your sacrifice constitutes and preserves.
I have been reading comments on these pages for a long time and I believe your comment was one of the most intelligent I have ever read. Keep up the good work.
I want legit farmers such a pasture's with cows on hwy 29 to benefit from conservation due to labor of land issues. I OBJECT as do many those persons with home they intend to live in and 10 to 20 acres with Kudzu growing and not making living from farming or tree growing and getting large tax break especially when enjoying having their children educated in MC excellent local schools. So YOU note or suggest if I have 11.4 acres of land and pines and pasture that I should get conservation tax status as I am in a way a oxygen farmer. YOU mention MC and change from decades ago. WELL many many think it is better today good sir with proper or attempted proper development. I do not disagree with conservation tax plans but WHAT I do disagree with are the NOT TRUE farmers who do not generate legit proper revenue from farming getting these breaks. I also wonder why the state made suggestion of conservation tax issues ? Also others post asking if on BOA and business / family / legal / partnership with someone coming before you should you if on BOA submit or do initial vote or second vote or sustain from voting ? To me if you know that person in the above ways that is a conflict of interest and may be a cause of concern to others. That said not sure it is a problem either.
NO, you do not have to "make a living" from farming to qualify for conservation status. It's no one's business how one makes a living - if they have land that qualifies for conservation, that property will qualify regardless of what they do "for a living."
"attempted proper development" Is that what they are calling all of the shoddily constructed subdivisions and empty foreclosed houses these days?
We here in Madison County will take farmland and conservation over "attempted proper development" any day.
So simple even a CAVEMAN can figure it out!