Paulding County Chamber

[naturegirl]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

Not that I'm aware of. The promise of 100s of jobs by just building this airport has never been a reality. Silver Comet Terminal Partners, LLC is a start up company with no financial data to back them up. Basically it's a hedge fund, driven by profits. If there are no profits, they can walk away with no responsibility to the taxpayers. They are not subject to open records requests, they will not be subject to oversight by citizens, auditors, ethics or legislators.

http://www.24thstate.com/2013/03/publicprivate-partnerships-are-bad-for-taxpayers.html

The movie studio is a perfect example, it's bleeding to the tune of over $30,000 per month yet the "company" is guaranteed a minimum of $20,000 per month.

 

[mei lan]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

THE RESERVOIR!!!

:rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant

You are going to build a reservoir at the airport? Interesting. :whistle

Let me clarify. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding airport?

Oh. Then never mind. (And I wasn't yelling at you; I was yelling at the BOC.)

 

[naturegirl]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

THE RESERVOIR!!!

:rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant

You are going to build a reservoir at the airport? Interesting. :whistle

Let me clarify. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding airport?

Oh. Then never mind. (And I wasn't yelling at you; I was yelling at the BOC.)

Yes, we voted FOR the reservoir and AGAINST the airport in 1998. Millions of dollars have been spent at both, we have an airport but no reservoir.

 

[ShoeDiva]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

Not that I'm aware of. The promise of 100s of jobs by just building this airport has never been a reality. Silver Comet Terminal Partners, LLC is a start up company with no financial data to back them up. Basically it's a hedge fund, driven by profits. If there are no profits, they can walk away with no responsibility to the taxpayers. They are not subject to open records requests, they will not be subject to oversight by citizens, auditors, ethics or legislators.

http://www.24thstate.com/2013/03/publicprivate-partnerships-are-bad-for-taxpayers.html

Isn't there a project in Miami that is a PPP that is working? I will look at your article in a bit, but from what I understand it is common in other countries. Isn't Sandy Springs a PPP? (I think I read about them in something, but again I am not certain)

I do understand that Silver Comet LLC was recently formed. Have you been given a reason on why it was and not just the partnership with Propeller? I am not sure if that is common to do or not.

 

[ShoeDiva]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

THE RESERVOIR!!!

:rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant

You are going to build a reservoir at the airport? Interesting. :whistle

Let me clarify. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding airport?

Oh. Then never mind. (And I wasn't yelling at you; I was yelling at the BOC.)

) I know. It did make me smile when I read your response.

 

[mach4]

How did Calvin Thompson the AA Chairman not remember he said this? :dunno

Selective memory!

 

[Winchester]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

THE RESERVOIR!!!

:rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant

This project is totally in the hands of the Federal Govt, the County has more then once completed everything they were asked to do by the FEDs, only for them to add new requirements. Then when the FED's finally agree to sign the permits, funding the construction will be next. Anywhere from $30 Million to $100Million will be needed. With people complaining about $3M to $4M, don't look for the County to bring that hot potato to the voters anytime soon!

 

[lotstodo]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

THE RESERVOIR!!!

:rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant

This project is totally in the hands of the Federal Govt, the County has more then once completed everything they were asked to do by the FEDs, only for them to add new requirements. Then when the FED's finally agree to sign the permits, funding the construction will be next. Anywhere from $30 Million to $100Million will be needed. With people complaining about $3M to $4M, don't look for the County to bring that hot potato to the voters anytime soon!

http://www.gefa.org/index.aspx?recordid=586&page=50

Sent from a small screen using fat thumbs.

 

[mei lan]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

THE RESERVOIR!!!

:rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant

This project is totally in the hands of the Federal Govt, the County has more then once completed everything they were asked to do by the FEDs, only for them to add new requirements. Then when the FED's finally agree to sign the permits, funding the construction will be next. Anywhere from $30 Million to $100Million will be needed. With people complaining about $3M to $4M, don't look for the County to bring that hot potato to the voters anytime soon!

http://www.gefa.org/index.aspx?recordid=586&page=50

Sent from a small screen using fat thumbs.

Thanks for the $$$ info, LTD. Also, Winchester, the way I heard it was the reason the permit crap with the Corps of Engineers had to be done twice was because the Shearin crowd didn't do anything with it in their last few months in office and it didn't get done by the Corps' deadline so it had to be done over. IDK.

 

[lotstodo]

Not to nit-pick but ... regardless of the feelings of the people as they cast their votes, Paulding County didn't for or against having an airport. The votes were about funding it. I do understand that there were people that voted against funding it because they did not want it but that's not the same thing.

(not being argumentative ... I just like facts)

You ask those people and they will tell you they voted "against the airport". Yes the ballot was for bonds to fund the airport, but that's not how they saw it. We were told it wasn't going to cost a dime for the taxpayers. We knew better, the county has already spent over 3.5 million dollars on this airport since it was built without the 3.6 million more they want now. This was testimony at the bond hearing on December 2 from Tabitha, the finance director of Paulding County.

So yes they voted against funding it but the taxpayers have been funding it since they first broke ground. That was their first broken promise.

That is some of the reason I lean more towards having some kind of money being made there. We have it, it has been underutilized, yet we fund it. Is there any other project or suggestion that has been put forth to the BOC that would be better for Paulding?

THE RESERVOIR!!!

:rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant :rant

This project is totally in the hands of the Federal Govt, the County has more then once completed everything they were asked to do by the FEDs, only for them to add new requirements. Then when the FED's finally agree to sign the permits, funding the construction will be next. Anywhere from $30 Million to $100Million will be needed. With people complaining about $3M to $4M, don't look for the County to bring that hot potato to the voters anytime soon!

http://www.gefa.org/index.aspx?recordid=586&page=50

Sent from a small screen using fat thumbs.

Thanks for the $$$ info, LTD. Also, Winchester, the way I heard it was the reason the permit crap with the Corps of Engineers had to be done twice was because the Shearin crowd didn't do anything with it in their last few months in office and it didn't get done by the Corps' deadline so it had to be done over. IDK.

Trying to remember here, but I believe that the Corps felt like they didn't adequately address either the leaky pipe situation (Paulding loses nearly 25% of what it purchases from Cobb) or the fact that nearly all of the water taken from the Coosa with this project will end up in the Chattahoochee or evaporated, a pretty big no-no. Cross Basin Projects are rarely approved. Paulding will have to show that they are moving along with a new wastewater plan simultaneously. This is far from a sure thing even though low interest loan money has been appropriated.

 

[Winchester]

Now I haven't kept up with this at all this year, so I don't know what the very latest status is.

Over the last 15 years I have talked to Jerry Shearin and David Austin many times. Mike Smith (County Manager...if he's still here) has taken over the project. But the one story they have all given me, several times, is that once the County completed everything the EPA/EPD wanted, the US Army Corp of Engineers came back with new rules. And then more new rules and then more new rules. Every time the County got close, things would change again. They were even forced into looking at partnerships with Bartow Co, then the City of Emerson and Cartersville....which they all rejected. The County has been on a Merry Go Round since the very start and none of it was the County's fault.

It will get built at some time, just do not know if it will be in my lifetime or not.

 

[naturegirl]

Now I haven't kept up with this at all this year, so I don't know what the very latest status is.

Over the last 15 years I have talked to Jerry Shearin and David Austin many times. Mike Smith (County Manager...if he's still here) has taken over the project. But the one story they have all given me, several times, is that once the County completed everything the EPA/EPD wanted, the US Army Corp of Engineers came back with new rules. And then more new rules and then more new rules. Every time the County got close, things would change again. They were even forced into looking at partnerships with Bartow Co, then the City of Emerson and Cartersville....which they all rejected. The County has been on a Merry Go Round since the very start and none of it was the County's fault.

It will get built at some time, just do not know if it will be in my lifetime or not.

Well what I heard was some of our elected officials made someone down at the Capital pretty angry so it's taken way longer than it should have.

 

[lotstodo]

Now I haven't kept up with this at all this year, so I don't know what the very latest status is.

Over the last 15 years I have talked to Jerry Shearin and David Austin many times. Mike Smith (County Manager...if he's still here) has taken over the project. But the one story they have all given me, several times, is that once the County completed everything the EPA/EPD wanted, the US Army Corp of Engineers came back with new rules. And then more new rules and then more new rules. Every time the County got close, things would change again. They were even forced into looking at partnerships with Bartow Co, then the City of Emerson and Cartersville....which they all rejected. The County has been on a Merry Go Round since the very start and none of it was the County's fault.

It will get built at some time, just do not know if it will be in my lifetime or not.

It's not "new" rules, as I understand it from the EPD. It's an inadequate addressing of valid environmental concerns in the first review. Keep in mind that the Corps could have simply rejected the entire project out of pocket and we would be nowhere. I would prefer to view this as a second opportunity to make a good case.

The corps is predisposed to staying completely out of the "Water Wars", and all involved save Georgia view these reservoir proposals as a deliberate affront to the ongoing talks. It is the job of the Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and the EPD to take all environmental and engineering aspects of a project as well as valid alternatives into consideration before issuing a permit that will allow ground to be broken. That means that if Alabama, the Coosa Riverkeeper, or any stakeholder raises valid environmental questions, these questions must be answered. The entire process ALWAYS involves back and forth. There is no "blame" to assess here. This is simply the process.

I have serious doubts that this will ever be built, as I haven't seen a proposal that will properly address the cross-basin aspects of the project. Paulding's first go at it involved some very suspect growth predictions for the North end of the County vs. the South end, particularly given that the zoning plans already in place were in stark contrast to those predictions. It also completely failed at addressing the existing leakage problem, a problem that if fixed, would yield nearly half the additional volume of supply at less than one third the cost. We will have to do much better this time, because given the political atmosphere in the SE, this thing will move directly from the COE to the 11th district court. The state is hoping for a small window to begin construction should they win COE approval, making this fait accompli.

 

[Winchester]

You can talk to 10 different people and get 10 different answers. I'm not saying my comments are right or wrong, it's what I learned from people directly involved in the discussions. Doesn't matter to me.