Jump to content
Good Bye Covingtonian. Gonna miss your comments. But as a great baseball player once said, it ain't over till it's over. If you choose to come back and don't want your name out there all you have to do is setup a fake facebook page with a fake name.
All Ellis has talked about is spending- Spending money we don't have,
What wasn't mentioned in the article is this. Henderson said he also wanted to borrow to speed up his 4th district SPLOST projects. It's disgusting to me that Ellis would even have this on a work session agenda to break the promise to SPLOST voters of no bonding and borrowing.
As stated the courtrooms are used ONLY 170 days a year. Use them more is the answer. If the judges knew the expansion was needed sooner why did they allow the language be put in SPLOST in 2011 that they wouldn't bond or borrow? They are wanting this sped up more for luxury instead of need. If they bond or borrow they will have misled or lied to the voters on the 2011 SPLOST intentionally as there hasn't been a significant increase in population since SPLOST was passed. Hope SPLOST voters remember this on the next SPLOST. At least Commissioner Schulz cares about being honest to the voters.
I spoke against this local option preference at the county commission meeting tonight with no luck. It was voted in 5 to 0. Of course most of these commissioners either own local business or kin to ones that do.
Doesn't the school system believe in the constitution? They wouldn't let posters supporting God to be put up beside them. What these students are in desperate need of is a church environment with youth ministers to help them learn what is right or wrong and who to hang out with. Or I guess we could keep building prisons. Separation of church and state was put in the constitution so NO one church could take over and run the government. It was not put in to eliminate churches and God as many are trying to use it for today.
Sorry, I was there. This wasn't a strategic plan work session. It was a spending spree work session being pushed by the chair. Honesty to the taxpayers compels me to make that statement.
I'm against this local preference policy on bidding for these reason. It could add to higher tax and higher bid amounts. It very well could decrease the number of bids coming in with out of county bidders not wanting to take part in the process where even if they have the low original bid they want get the job due to the local option. The more bids you get usually means the cheaper you can get the work done. It could also very well lead to good ole boy politics in the bidding process. If the locals want the job they should submit the lower bids.
I don't care where this poster came from it needs to be taken down or others saying God is Alive and Great should be allowed to go up beside it. You either let all posters with the word God in it or you allow none.
@Bemused, Gosh I have to agree with you again. If you are going to take the low LOCAL bid then they need to state with the bid that local bidders only need apply. Which wouldn't be good because you would have a non competitive bidding process and costs would go up. My understanding from the work session tonight is that a local clause will be put into the bidding process where if a local bidder comes within 5% of the top bid they will be able to match the lower bid. I still don't think this is good because it will run off out of county bidders who want put in the effort to go through the bidding process to lose in this manner. My advice to local bidders would be to place the lowest bid if they want the job.
Last login: Tuesday, September 3, 2013