Industrial authority receives $2 million loan/grant

Industrial authority receives $2 million loan/grant

Posted by

in Top Stories

Friday, April 15. 2011

Comments (48)

Madison County’s Industrial Development and Building Authority (IDA) received a $2,014,136 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan/grant package from the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA) recently to finance the purchase of Blacks Creek Church Road water lines currently owned by the city of Commerce.

The funds will also be used to install new water lines down Neese Diamond Hill Road, across Hwy. 106 South then down Neese Commerce Road to Hwy. 98 West and then to the Jackson/Madison county line, where there will be a tie-in with the Commerce water system.

Water lines will also be extended from Neese Diamond Hill Road down Hwy. 29 South to Bryant Drive, where the lines will be tied in with the Hull-Sanford water system.

The authority will pay three percent interest on a 20-year note for $1,409,895 of the funds, with a grant for the remaining $604,241.

IDA executive director Marvin White said the county plans to purchase water from the city of Commerce under a long-term contract similar to the one the Authority currently has with Franklin County and the city of Royston for the Harrison water system, which should be at a cost of $2.10 - $2.25 per 1,000 gallons per day.

“This is going to mean something to people in that area with their (homeowner’s) insurance,” White said, pointing out that having water lines and fire hydrants in the area should lower insurance premiums. He said the Authority hopes to pick up enough new water customers in the Neese area to pay the expense of the loan.

And with the exception of the Harrison water system, the completion of this project will provide water line connections between Commerce, Hull/Sanford, James Holcomb Road, Danielsville, Madico, Colbert and Comer.

White said water lines were installed along Black’s Creek Church Road in May 2001 by the city of Commerce to provide water to homeowners in that area, with the IDA agreeing to purchase the lines from Commerce in 10 years (May 2011) for a pre-set price of $120,000.

In March the IDA awarded the Neese area water line and meter installation project to Griffin Brothers with a bid of $1,563,938, pending approval of the GEFA loan.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 matt on 04/15/11 at 07:40 AM [Reply]

Why does the county even need this?? Money wasted if you ask me.

#2 MC teacher on 04/15/11 at 09:35 AM [Reply]

Dear Matt,

We are wasting money on Sam Bruce Rd so why not waste it here. Matt apply for conservation tax for your property if 10 acres of more and pay less and expect me to pay more. So Matt until we come to grips with our debt problems we will continue to waste money. BUT : when barrel of oil based on say Euro and reaches $150 range Matt we ALL WILL BE hurt by our wasteful behavior.

#3 Anonymous on 04/15/11 at 12:51 PM [Reply]

More PORK and more of our tax dollars down the drain (literally) from the "conservative" republicans!

#4 anon on 04/15/11 at 01:05 PM [Reply]

Have they not heard there is no building going on ? We waste all this money for non sense waste waste waste and keep wasting ! That's the way we do things here in Madison County and it's OK. NOT !!!!!!

#5 Anonymous on 04/15/11 at 02:13 PM [Reply]

To Anonymous : are you not the guy who supports Sam Bruce Road ? That is a Pethel thing and the guy who waved petition is he not a democrat or once in that party unless I am mistaken. So I view them as the problem with the county tax and debt issues today. I do agree though with you that OUR BUSH fella president before Obama was a obama in disguise.

#6 E.J. on 04/15/11 at 02:42 PM [Reply]

This is not waste. This is progress towards the future and the far future at a really good price and will create jobs now for the locals to install the pipes. Seems like a good deal to me. It is also a part of long-ago planning, good planning, to accommodate a little growth in order to reduce our property taxes. One day we may all find our wells contaminated by the past 75 years of pollution and/or leaking petroleum and natural gas from the massive lines that run under our county. I will be grateful, at that time, to be able to turn to a monitored water system already in place.

#6.1 Redneck on 04/15/11 at 06:20 PM [Reply]

E.J. start screaming about conservation tax issues and maybe plenty of money to do stuff live water lines.

#7 Redneck on 04/15/11 at 03:46 PM [Reply]

I see similar in Pethel and Obama. Take from the taxpayers who pay and give to others. Guess get me one of them conservation tax and maybe all should and that way no money for nothin.

#8 Anonymous on 04/15/11 at 07:45 PM [Reply]

What is a conservation tax and is it good or bad?

#8.1 Redneck on 04/16/11 at 12:17 PM [Reply]

Supposed to be for farming like activities or even what I call legit tree farming and as family has timber people doubt one can really justify 10 acres as tree growing for harvest. Ask church members about this and you will learn about it. BOA needs to check each parcel to see if correct use. I pay taxes and have more 10 acres but not used for tree harvest or fruit/nut stuff and do not h ave in this tax as I think it is wrong. Guess some people think if can get away with it then so be it. Wrong to me.

#8.1.1 E.J. on 04/18/11 at 07:40 AM [Reply]

The church is not the place to learn about government taxes. The church is supposed to administer to spiritual and moral needs, not political opinions. I would suggest taking responsibility upon yourself to find out what you need to know rather than sitting back and letting the church tell you what to think and what to do.

#8.1.1.1 Miss MC on 04/18/11 at 10:15 AM [Reply]

E.J. the minister is not discussing this. In the parking lot or over church dinner the conversation concerning conservation tax is discussed. If you take it and not entitled to it that is not Christan or what ever belief you have I bet taking when it is not correct is wrong. I will not cast first stone. I saw where someone has asked newspaper to look into this. This should be done. So E.J. next time after church as someone in parking lot about this tax issue and bet can get a discussion going.

#8.1.1.2 Ben Had on 04/19/11 at 07:44 AM [Reply]

Thank you EJ for this comment.The last thing we need is for our electorate to be getting their opinions from a bunch of half-wit preachers.

#8.1.2 lamar on 04/18/11 at 12:19 PM [Reply]

Any parcel under conservation or preferential assessment is a matter of public record.This is information provided on the property record card. If people have either and do not qualify, they can be reported to the BOA.I f a parcel does not comply, the penalty is something like the amount saved over the time of the contract times two.If there are a number of them like some people believe, that would be a substantial amount of money coming back into the digest.Of course it would cost the county a lot of money also.There will be Taxpayers who will appeal all the way to superior court to keep from paying.

#8.2 lamar on 04/16/11 at 04:20 PM [Reply]

What people are referring to is a pair of ten year contracts a taxpayer can enter with their county tax authority and receive a lower appraisal,for tax purposes, on either land( conservation) or agricultural outbuildings( preferential).The tax assessor's office has pamphlets that explain the filing process, when you can apply, and all the stipulations involved in both contracts.It was originated way back when the first oil embargoes were pushing the cost of farming thru the roof and farmers were lobbying their representatives for tax breaks to lower production costs.I personally believe if a person is involved in a family owned agricultural pursuit it is a good thing. The bad thing about it is it is not available to every body and is too often awarded to people who do not apply to the stipulations. There are pretty severe penalties for breaches of either of these agreements.

#8.2.1 Redneck on 04/18/11 at 02:40 PM [Reply]

Lamar : are penalties being done ? Bet you will say no. This conservation tax issue seems to be under radar to BOC but then they want it to be. I am tired of BOC not looking into this. I too vote that PAPER should investigate this and would start with BOC and who on it has this tax. Lamar I know you have been in MC long enough including think someone told me employed somewhere. How would you get this looked into ? Maybe you and E.J. need to get together and raise heck.

#8.2.1.1 lamar on 04/19/11 at 11:47 AM [Reply]

I had a post yesterday that, for whatever reason did not get printed. I stated that it was a matter of public record who had conservation or preferential assessments.IF a person thinks someone is not in compliance, they can report them to the BOA.Here's the rub,the penalty for a proven breach is something like the balance of tax value saved times two.If there are a number of non-conforming parcels you are looking at a chunk of money.You are also looking at an enormous amount of county money being spent to cover court costs,because, I believe most folks will appeal all the way to superior court.As to the current BOA and appraisal staff, I think they are doing a much better job at reviewing these applications when they receive them.

#8.2.1.1.1 Lawyer friend on 04/21/11 at 01:33 PM [Reply]

Yes lawyers have friends. Could a person and lawyer sue a person for having a conservation tax and prove they do not and get any money from them or what the county collects ? Lamar is this possible ?

Next question is for BOA to have all parcels reviewed by staff and sites visited. If found not to be conservation parcels then return to normal tax basis and make people go to Superior Court and just have BOA people show up and note why changed. Bet when court journal posted and people see neighbors protesting unjustified conservation tax that many in the wrong will not fight it.

#8.2.1.1.1.1 lamar on 04/22/11 at 10:43 AM [Reply]

You don't have to sue anybody.Report suspected violations to the BOA thru the assessor's office and let them do their job.Superior Court is only involved if the tax payer appeals the the decision of the BOA to the Board of Equalization and the BOE upholds the decision to nullify the contract.The last venue of appeal is Superior Court. I don't think there are that many parcels in violation due to the fact that some of the criteria set by previous BOA'S were too vague.Good people applied and got it because they were told it was the thing to do.I think if you contact our current BOA,you will find that they do a decent job of reviewing parcels and making sure the appraisal staff does their jobs correctly.As taxpayers try to renew some of these non-conforming parcels over the next few years, they can be denied.

#8.2.1.1.1.1.1 MC taxed tooo on 04/23/11 at 11:24 AM [Reply]

Lamar : you were brisk in reply which somewhat unlike you and unless more to story. On renewal problem is have to wait unless wrong for 10 yr period based on what I was told when called BOA and chatted with staff. I was one who felt back taxes need paying and recall many saying not much would be gained. Seemed most people paid. This conservation tax issue is something I am hearing more and more about and surprised some farmers are the ones who think issue could be out of control in that prior BOA may have been more lenient in giving out this break. I wonder in board member seconded a parcel for this and was a friend or business partner is it legal. Do not know all these answers but think something not right.

#8.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 lamar on 04/26/11 at 10:58 AM [Reply]

Listen,I believe there are breaches out there, but I'm not sure there are enough to offset the money it will take to correct them.The taxpayers will end up footing the bill for those cases that appeal all the way to superior court.There is already a precedent case that I believe was found in favor of the taxpayer, mainly due to the confusion of some of the criteria and policies of previous BOAs. Times are still pretty hard and I think it could turn into another Sam Bruce Rd. type issue that will eventually end up costing us, the taxpayers.By all means if you can prove someone is in breach, report it to the BOA and inform your commissioner at the same time, it would be a good chance to see who really has the best interests of the county in mind.You have to be willing to take it all the way because at some point you will be called on to testify.I do not qualify for either assessment due to small acreage, but sometime in the near future we are putting the whole farm in a family trust and will go back to cattle and horses.It would only be good sense to apply then. Anyway I didn't mean to sound vague, I just don't see the good taxpayers not getting the short end of the stick in this deal.Besides, if a hundred breaches were found and successfully prosecuted, do you honestly think our taxes would decrease? Government always finds something to spend it on.

#8.2.2 MC person on 04/18/11 at 05:39 PM [Reply]

Is this the lamar who noted on this board if our county tax commissioner would name those or put up for sale property with back taxes that a million or more would be collected. You were right. Now do you feel there is revenue that is significant that can be collected on parcels that are not really conservation parcels ?. Who on BOC will listen. Nobody and that E.J. why this problem talked about at church or at school or at...

#8.3 E.J. on 04/16/11 at 07:30 PM [Reply]

This is an excellent question and I would like the folks screaming for reform of the conservation tax to provide their explanation of what it is so we can know if they understand the issue they are so upset about.

#8.3.1 Teacher on 04/18/11 at 02:45 PM [Reply]

E.J. see Lamar's comment above. Call BOA and ask them last time they did penalty. Call BOA and ask how many conservation parcels they check out each year. Problem is BOA people seem to have a 2 yr employment cycle. Wonder if this dampens their zeal for correcting or not supporting conservation tax thing. I find people who take advantage of this tax who really should not have are the type I prefer not to associate with.

#8.3.1.1 Taxed on 04/18/11 at 08:32 PM [Reply]

I think Teacher is right in saying this has to be addressed to the BOA (Board of Assessors) rather than to the BOC (Board of Commissioners).

#8.3.2 Redneck on 04/21/11 at 11:02 AM [Reply]

E.J we know the issue. WE just can not correct it and it needs correcting.

#8.3.2.1 E.J. on 04/23/11 at 12:30 PM [Reply]

But I, and maybe a lot of others, don't know the details of the issue. If you want support for your issue, please explain it to us. If you want me to do my own research, then you fail to support your own issue. You may have a legitiment complaint that I may want to support, but I don't have time to look into it. Inform me and I may support you. Your response here says to me that I need to butt out of knowing the issue because you and "we" already know all about it and I should just blindly follow your lead. That is not how one gets support from people. And it is incredibly arrogant!

#8.3.2.1.1 Taxed in MC on 04/25/11 at 03:52 PM [Reply]

E.J. the issue is : SOME DO QUALITY IN MANY OF OUR OPINIONS AND DO NOT DESERVE TAX BREAK. Problem is if turn in neighbor or ask neighbor " do you really qualify for this " and you will get cool no a COLD stare. If old board indeed in 2007, 2008 and 2009 did not correctly assign conservation tax break issue correctly then present BOA needs to up do this by whatever means. Are taxes support that department. Like idea of person noting bullies as they do exist. Last county election showed to many a lack of civility. So E.J. just pick say 2008 and go to meeting and pick 10 approved conservation parcels ( I to remember someone do the cut and paste for some of these and that would be good place to start ). Learn what conservation tax criteria are and proceed. think you will find some which by this tax standards may not apply. Me if I complain to BOA I do have some concern for my property. So to me you have enough information to " get er done " as some say.

#9 Redneck resident on 04/25/11 at 10:59 AM [Reply]

E.J. : lot at BOA meeting say 2007 to early 2009. See what parcels became conservation parcels. Someone on another post had some of these listed. Then say go visit 10 and see if they really qualify. That said if you do this and raise issue I do hope you are not afraid of adult bullies. Find prior posting where some lady noted 2 such parcels on her road and only 1 in her view was correct in being conservation tax status.

Read Lamar comments about vague and all. If you are strong person E.J. with some time visit 10 parcels and let us know but my money is some will not qualify. Wonder what tax collection for county would be if 20% do not qualify any longer ?

#10 Computer Guy MC on 04/26/11 at 08:28 AM [Reply]

To Mr. or Mrs. E.J. : here is the data people are discussing. More can be found. I helped you as you requested whoever you are EJ so now you turn to do leg work.

August 2008 BOA meeting

Conservation
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Pine Hill Farm LLC
on Map 0056 – Parcel 075-01. Board Member Jim Escoe seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Board Member Jim Escoe to approve conservation use for Brush Creek Farm
LLC on Map 0057 – Parcel 001-A. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. A roll call vote
was recorded as follows: Chairperson Samantha Garland, NO; Vice Chairman Larry Stewart, NO;
Board Member Jim Escoe, YES; and Board Member Bob Fowler YES: The motion was died (2) two
YES vote to (2) two NO vote.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for RC & Betty
Whitehead on Map 0057 – Parcel 001-A02. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion
passed with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for P David Ragland
on Map 0084 – Parcel 044. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for P David Ragland
on Map 0084 – Parcel 044-AOZ. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed
with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for P David Ragland &
Gail Ragland on Map 0084 – Parcel 045. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion
passed with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for John & Chris Kelley
on Map 0048 – Parcel 013. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent. z Page 3 October 9, 2008
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Kenneth Lance on
Map 0048 – Parcel 017. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Earl James Jr &
Linda JoAnn Beusse Etal on Map 0048 – Parcel 058. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the
motion. Motion passed with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Earl James Jr &
Linda JoAnn Beusse Etal on Map 0048 – Parcel 059. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the
motion. Motion passed with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Harvey Joe
Haggard on Map 0048 – Parcel 066. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed
with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Bruce Caldwell on
Map 0049 – Parcel 034. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Timothy Wilson on
Map 0049 – Parcel 099. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to table conservation use for Robert Solomon on
Map 0050 – Parcel 048-02. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for E Nelson Nash on
Map 0050 – Parcel 012. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for E Nelson Nash on
Map 0050 – Parcel 038. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for E Nelson Nash on
Map 0051 – Parcel 103. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Adam Nash on
Map 0051 – Parcel 001. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Joe McElreath on
Map 0050 – Parcel 013. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Freddie Coile on
Map 0050 – Parcel 013-D. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Dwayne Roberts on
Map 0051 – Parcel 094. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent. z Page 4 October 9, 2008
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for James Smith on
Map 0054 – Parcel 023. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed with
unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Board Member Jim Escoe to approve conservation use for George Raymond
West on Map 0054 – Parcel 035-A. Vice Chairman Larry Stewart seconded the motion. A roll call vote
was recorded as follows: Chairperson Samantha Garland, YES; Vice Chairman Larry Stewart, YES;
Board Member Jim Escoe, YES; and Board Member Bob Fowler NO: The motion was approved (3)
three YES vote to (1) one NO vote.
Motion was made by Board Member Jim Escoe to approve conservation use for George Raymond
West on Map 0054 – Parcel 035-B. Vice Chairman Larry Stewart seconded the motion. A roll call vote
was recorded as follows: Chairperson Samantha Garland, YES; Vice Chairman Larry Stewart, YES;
Board Member Jim Escoe, YES; and Board Member Bob Fowler NO: The motion was approved (3)
three YES vote to (1) one NO vote.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Kenneth & Marcus
House on Map 0063 – Parcel 062. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed
with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to deny conservation use for Marcus & House
Family Trust on Map 0063 – Parcel 063. Board Member Jim Escoe seconded the motion. . A roll call
vote was recorded as follows: Chairperson Samantha Garland, YES; Vice Chairman Larry Stewart,
YES; Board Member Jim Escoe, YES; and Board Member Bob Fowler NO: The motion was approved
(3) three YES vote to (1) one NO vote.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Kenneth & Cynthia
House on Map 0063 – Parcel 064. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion passed
with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Marcus & House
Family Trust on Map 0063 – Parcel 064-C. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion
passed with unanimous consent.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Larry Stewart to approve conservation use for Marcus & House
Family Trust on Map 0077 – Parcel 005. Board Member Bob Fowler seconded the motion. Motion
passed with unanimous consent.
Policy
Motion was made by Board Member Jim Escoe to approve a new policy for the Q-Public Website

#10.1 lamar on 04/28/11 at 12:27 PM [Reply]

Boy howdy this is good work.I think whoever is investigating should probably go back further. With the school board announcing hard times next year maybe we do need to make an effort to see if there are numerous breaches. One thing I just thought about, reckon how many of these parcels are now in foreclosure or bankruptcy? And how does that affect the collection of breach penalties?

#10.1.1 Boy Howdy on 04/29/11 at 09:59 AM [Reply]

Boy Howdy and computer can find more of these conservation parcels is the board wants.

#11 Bulldog on 04/26/11 at 08:32 PM [Reply]

I don't know about the previous BOA, but new board will not do anything to help. They are three stooges that take the word of the appraisers and never ask a question. If they didn't how can they hold a meeting that last ten or fifteen minutes. Get paid a lot of money for a few minutes work while other people are trying to survive. Also where are the meeting minutes. They haven't been posted on the county web site in months. I believe they are in violation of the sunshine laws. So, don't expect any help from those turkeys. They only know that they are told to vote the same for all three and keep their mouths shut. This comes from their masters on the BOC. And for all of you that don't know and are hanging on his every word, Lamar was once a part of the appraiser team that so many of you are railing against. Talk abour working both sides of the street. Zack, I don't believe you will print this.

#11.1 lamar on 04/28/11 at 11:59 AM [Reply]

Yes sir I did work in the appraiser's office in 2003 and 2004.I use my name on these posts because I honestly believe I did my job to the best of my ability.I left for two reasons as I have stated in the past.A better job for way more money and I was tired of trying to change things that a lot better people than me could do nothing with.I seriously doubt that anybody hangs on any of my words, somebody asked a question and I answered it.I also gave my opinion, which is just that, my opinion.I love Madison county and my small part of Madison County and that's about it.I have apparently offended you sometime in the past and for whatever it was I apologize.Life is much too short to sped it fussing. I will offer one suggestion,if the BOA did something you don't agree with can't you appeal it to the BOE? Also, the BOA is supposed to post minutes on the Board outside the meeting room at the court house,that may be all they have to do to comply, I'm not sure.Once again, if I wronged you I apologize.Hey, Bulldog, ROLL TIDE!!!!

#12 Redneck on 04/29/11 at 09:27 AM [Reply]

To E.J. : you asked for help. Seems computer geek gave you plenty to look into. Now E.J. time for you to do what you said you would.

Lamar : with money tight this conservation tax thing is money. Bulldog seems to me to have bone and think them should also investigate. I will call state and do my part by noting meetings not posted if we sure not done.

On some news station in Atlanta we get wife noted fella with large mansion getting I think this tax break for growing yard grass. Wife noted guy looked stupid trying to defend himself. Wonder how much this goes on in MC.

I thnk this conservation tax stinks as think maybe those that scream we all share need to do things right like that Sam Bruce Rd may then do this break tax. My view and hope wrong.

#12.1 E.J. on 04/30/11 at 11:52 AM [Reply]

"Now E.J. time for you to do what you said you would."

I don't recall saying I would take any action other than to consider this issue. Please quote where I said I would do what you think I would do. Most of these posts about this issue I can't even make sense of as they are so poorly written, like maybe the commenter is foreign or severely ill-educated or uneducated.

#13 Money tight Redneck on 04/29/11 at 02:05 PM [Reply]

"Get paid a lot of money" : above post notes that. How much do they make. Most people like me thought was a thing people did to be a good so call citizen.

If school goin to be tight then I vote yes we look into this tax break.

Go DAWDS

#13.1 Bulldog on 04/29/11 at 07:49 PM [Reply]

$200 for board members, $300 for chairman per month. Seems like a lot of money for a few minutes of time these days. As they say "good work if you can get it". Let's see 200 x 12 =$2400 yearly and 300 x 12 = $3600 yearly for all 3 x 6000 = $18,000 yearly for a few minutes to judge your property.
Lamar, I like your sense of humor (ROLL TIDE). LOL (All is forgiven, the past is the past)
I think I will stay with the Bulldog Nation though. :)
Redneck, check out the county web site where all the meeting minutes are posted. Tell me if you see more than the first few since the new board took over. Previous board has all minutes from their meetings posted.

#13.2 lamar on 04/30/11 at 09:10 AM [Reply]

Exactly what is a dawd if you don't mind me asking?

#14 SardonicVeracity on 04/30/11 at 12:28 AM [Reply]

I wish that you would do a story on the conservation tax so that these idiots would quit muddying up the threads on other stories.

Seems like ten years ago the common thought was "we can't be another Gwinnett County." Now all you deep thinkers are complaining about building infrastructure. The Chinese Government that we are mortgaging the country to will appreciate that we spent so much time worrying about planning for the future. At least it's not a transportation museum?

#14.1 lamar on 04/30/11 at 09:06 AM [Reply]

Did you happen to see the story on channel five the other night about the DOT board member in Gwinnett County who had conservation on a multi- million dollar piece of property,including a 1 ac. parcel his house and two tennis courts were sitting on? The Chief appraiser stated that the farm used to have horses and had trees on it so it more than qualified.He thought the house parcel would probably change.I wonder how long his job will last?

#15 Teacher on 04/30/11 at 04:07 PM [Reply]

"If you want me to do my own research, then you fail to support your own issue."

EJ : from one of your posts. Seems you have parcels and all to do your "research" and let us know what you find. That Ch 5 thing is going to change many counties way of thinking especially with decreasing tax revenue. School budgets make teachers what their pennies and I think in time our benefits will be not as good and I support that by the way. Conservation tax break if used wrong in our county then needs fixing. Your quote EJ plus your posts suggested to me you would research and take action and let other read you post and they think same thing. However found the parcels and all for you well that is cool. So EJ do your research and let us know.

#15.1 E.J. on 05/01/11 at 09:34 AM [Reply]

Don't think my little half-acre would qualify. I really can't understand your post enough to respond fully; perhaps punctuation would help. As to my quote, you don't seem to understand English. How do these two quotes correlate?

"If you want me to do my own research, then you fail to support your own issue."

"Your quote EJ plus your posts suggested to me you would research and take action and let other read you post and they think same thing."

If a person or a group wants others to support their point of view, then they have to gather all pertinent information and present it to others in order to educate them. Then you give reasons for others to support your point of view. You have to prove your case. No one will even respond to you, much less support you, if all you say is that there are people not paying proper taxes in this county. Demonstrate it, explain it, prove it. That may be enough to get others interested. And "interested" does not mean to take action or do research.

#15.2 Redneck on 05/01/11 at 11:45 AM [Reply]

Yea I to read EJ posts and thought once Howdy Boy or whoever got those parcel numbers and all did good job. I can not find them today on the internet by the way. Can others find more listings for us ? So EJ I may not be the smartest tool in the shed but to me your posts suggests you would investigate. So visit the parcels listed at least and let us know ? Or better than that if parcels listed not conservation tax qualify ask paper to do article on this and will keep you out of the issue unless you want to discuss with BOC/BOA

#15.2.1 E.J. on 05/01/11 at 07:23 PM [Reply]

"Can others find more listings for us ?"

This is my point; you want others to do your work for you. I do not see how you misinterpret my statements; I give up with y'all. You're hopeless!

#15.2.1.1 Teacher MC on 05/02/11 at 03:17 PM [Reply]

Typed fast there EJ. Have other things to do. I think you have enough data to do your investigation unless you do not want to either due to fear from bullies if you find things out that bother you enough to report the problem or your someone who has friends with this break. We will never truly know now will we.

Can others help with finding more on net about BOA meetings and conservation tax parcel approval. Some people EJ may not have net skills you do for example. May have dial up still as not as well as maybe you and I. Or do not know how to do it. So asking someone who has skills is VERY reasonable and thoughtful.

Your post to me if you do not investigate it will suggest to me your future posts are not to be taken seriously.

Typed this in less than 2 minutes as got things to do. BUT I will go to BOA and ask some questions and yes will let the board know. NO EJ will not do immediately as other needs.

#16 NO BS Redneck on 05/02/11 at 12:03 PM [Reply]

To this EJ person. You have been given data from computer guy that I can even read. This was done for you. Yes I think your post suggest once you had data you would investigate. SO you have parcel numbers : you have a date on computer guy post : I too tried to find more BOA postings concerning conservation parcels and can not so hat off to this guy. SO EJ you have enough if you want to "investigate". If you say you do not that is BS. What we are saying if people using this tax break wrong that is wrong EJ. WRONG. SO make up your excuse but bet I am not only person now who realizes that you have enough data and understanding and to say you do not well implies many things to me. Not all bad by the way. LAMAR do not know you but do you think EJ has enough data and with all the posts the ability to understand the issue ? If not Lamar can you educate us more. NOTICE EJ I said us. I too have heard conservation tax issue discussed after church also.

#17 Investigate EJ on 05/03/11 at 11:08 AM [Reply]

Heck there even I will limited reading skills I am told thought you would investigate if got stuff you need. I think you got more stuff than you need to do this. I have more than 10 acres in trees and all and do not take this tax as feel not really in farm business. Guess I am dumb to pay my share of taxes.

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment: E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
Phone*

What is eight minus seven?
: Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
: Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

Industrial authority receives $2 million loan/grant

MadisonJournalTODAY

Industrial authority receives $2 million loan/grant

Recent Stories

Recent Comments

Sister Sites

Archives

Community

Keyword Tags