Analysis Shows Sheriff's Race Did Not Cost McLeod Spot in Run-off

GOP  12 District congressional candidate Wright McLeod

Thursday, August 2, 2012
Augusta, GA
From CityStink.net Reports


Unless 425 extra votes miraculously show up somewhere for Wright McLeod , it appears very likely that Augusta businessman Rick Allen will face state representative Lee Anderson (R-Appling) in the 12th Georgia congressional GOP run-off election scheduled for August 21st. Anderson finished ahead of his 3 Republican challengers, garnering 20,394 votes for a 35% plurality. Rick Allen came in second with 25.15% with 14,682 votes and Wright McLeod a close third with 24.42% share, just 424 votes behind Allen. Since the margin is less than 1%, McLeod can demand a recount, though he has not said for certain if he will. As of late Wednesday only 35 absentee ballots were left uncounted, certainly not enough to make up up the 424 vote gap with Allen.

A popular theory going around in the metro Augusta area is that the large number of republican cross-overs taking a democratic ballot in order to vote for Cpt. Scott Peebles in the Richmond County Sheriff's race cost Wright McLeod a spot in the run-off with Anderson. However, after analyzing the vote and comparing it with republican turnout in previous General Primary elections, that theory may be wrong.

In the July 31st general primary election, there were a total of 36,978 votes cast  for a 35% turnout of registered voters which is significantly higher than what is typically seen for midsummer general primaries. However, only 6,695  republican ballots were cast of this total, or 6.37% of total registered voters in Richmond County.

In the 2010 July general primary, only 14,861 total votes were cast  for a 14.60% total turnout, and it had  competitive races for Governor on the ballots of both  parties. Of that total, 6,932 republican ballots were cast accounting for 6.81% of all registered voters.  Turnout for the 2008 July general primary was a little better with 22,051 votes cast for a total turnout of 23.15%. But despite the higher turnout, only 6,026 republican ballots were cast or 6.33% of all registered voters. In the 2006 July general primary, a total of 5,084 republican ballots were cast or a mere 5.64% of total registered voters.

So if we compare republican turnout for the previous three July general primary elections in Richmond County (2010, 2008, and 2006), we get an average of 6.26% republican turnout of all registered voters. That means that the republican turnout for this past Tuesday's general primary was actually 0.11% higher than the average despite republicans crossing-over to take a democratic ballot to vote for Peebles. What we can assume is that the higher than usual total turnout of 35% for this past Tuesday's primary election was because of the highly competitive democratic sheriff's race. Many of those voters may not have even bothered to show up at the polls if not for the Sheriff's race.

Wright McLeod was the top vote-getter in  Richmond County's republican congressional  primary this past Tuesday, but only barely. McLeod received a total of 2,487 votes for 38.28% of the total, but Rick Allen was close behind with 2,417 votes for 37.20%.  That means only 70 votes separated the two men in Richmond County. Based on these percentages alone... 39,300 republican ballots would have had to have been cast in Richmond County on Tuesday for McLeod to have made up the 425 vote gap district-wide. That is more than all ballots cast this past Tuesday's primary, democrat and republican combined! Clearly, the cross-over vote in Richmond County did not cost McLeod the election. For the Sheriff's race to have had a significant impact, one would have to assume that Peebles voters would have broken overwhelmingly in Mcleod's favor, but as you can see in the totals, McLeod and Allen ran neck and neck in Richmond County, and any republican cross-over votes for Peebles would have likely broken similarly with a 1.08% spread between the two candidates.

If the  margin of the vote in Richmond County had of been wider between McLeod and Allen then a case could be made that the Sheriff's race had some impact and kept Mcleod our of the run-off, but that is not what happened.

What likely cost McLeod a spot in the run-off was the vote in Laurens County. Lee Anderson won that county handily with 2, 017 votes, but Allen had a strong showing with 1,303 votes, which was 842 votes greater than McLeod, who received only 461 votes in Laurens County, the poorest showing there of all 4 GOP candidates. Allen was also able to pad his totals by edging out Mcleod in Coffee, Effingham, Emmanuel, Evans, Jeff Davis, Montgomery, Jenkins and Toombs counties.

One other factor could be the overwhelmingly negative press given McLeod by the Morris owned newspapers, especially articles written by Larry Peterson of the Morris-owned Savannah Morning News, which frequently appeared in the Augusta Chronicle, another Morris-owned paper. But, McLeod narrowly won Richmond County, home of the Augusta Chronicle, and bested Allen in neighboring suburban Columbia County. McLeod did lose Effingham County which borders Chatham County, home of the Savannah Morning news, but not by a large margin. Mcleod bested Allen in Bulloch County by 200 votes.

 But clearly if McLeod had of had a better showing in Laurens County and kept it close, he would be the one facing Anderson in the run-off instead of Rick Allen. So it's not the republican cross-overs in  the Richmond County Sheriff's race to blame for McLeod's defeat, but rather perhaps the campaign not investing enough resources on the ground in the more rural southern counties of the 12th district like Laurens. The negative press from the Morris-owned papers probably did have an impact too but not as much where some might have expected. Laurens County is much closer to Macon, a city where Morris Communications does not own the daily paper, than Augusta or Savannah, where they do.

But, some political observers say the barrage of negative political ads referencing Larry Peterson headlines in the Morris-owned papers took their toll by depressing McLeod's overall numbers throughout the district when he had appeared to be the clear front-runner just a few months ago.  Will Lee Anderson now get the same treatment from  the Morris-owned papers like McLeod did? We shall soon find out, but Anderson will have his own problems aside from the poison pen of Larry Peterson. T-SPLOST anyone? ***

CS

** the voting statistics cited in this article come from the Richmond County Board of Elections and the Georgia Secretary of State's Office.**

T-SPLOST Passes in CSRA Despite Columbia County Saying No

Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Augusta, GA
By The Outsider


Bucking a statewide trend, it appears that the T-SPLOST tax has passed in the 13 county Central Savannah River Area region. The latest vote totals as of 11pm on July 31 showed a margin of 56% voting in favor and  44% voting against with a more than 6,000 vote spread. This is by far the best showing for the T-SPLOST   in all 12 regions of the state, where latest totals showed that the tax was failing in 9 out of 12 regions.

Perhaps the biggest repudiation of T-SPLOST came in the  metro Atlanta region, where voters are rejecting the tax by a wide margin of 63% against and 37% in favor. This, after millions of dollars were poured into the Atlanta region by pro T-SPLOST groups  for an ad blitz pitching the tax. Its failure in the metro Atlanta region will make things very complicated, since the law states that any region which does not pass the tax will have their state transportation matching funds slashed....and with metro Atlanta comprising nearly 50% of the state's population, that's a lot of money. You can now expect a barrage of lawsuits challenging the efficacy of T-SPLOST now that it seems to have failed in 75% of the regions, including the states's most populous metropolitan area.

The T-SPLOST also failed in Coastal Georgia, which after metro Atlanta accounted for the most spending by Pro T-SPLOST groups. In fact, Chatham County rejected the tax by over 57%  despite the Savannah port deepening being a signature project touted by T-SPLOST backers.

So why did it pass in the CSRA? 
By looking at the most recent vote totals, it appears that T-SPLOST mainly passed here because of Augusta-Richmond County (the most populous county in the region) where it was approved by more than 58% of the vote with a nearly 6,000 vote margin. T-SPLOST did particularly well in predominately African-American voting precincts in Richmond County. The tax found its softest support in West Augusta and South Richmond County precincts with a slight majority of those precincts rejecting T-SPLOST.

The story was completely different in Columbia County where over 58% of voters rejected the T-SPLOST.   The latest totals showed 14,358 voting against and 10,340 voting in favor. But even though Columbia County voters resoundly  rejected T-SPLOST, they will  still be taxed anyway. Lincoln County and Glascock County also rejected the T-SPLOST. The nine other rural counties passed it, presumably because of the promise from politicians that they would be getting over $87 million in additional tax revenue from populous Richmond and Columbia Counties

Since this is a regional tax regime, Columbia County is tied to the other 12 counties in the CSRA region, including Augusta-Richmond County. Under the provisions of the tax district, Columbia County will be a donor county, giving up  over $23 million of its sales tax proceeds to other counties in the region. But under the T-SPLOST regime Augusta/Richmond County will be giving away $63 million of its sales tax proceeds to other counties, which makes the overwhelming support there even more baffling. Columbia County will also now be married to what many political observers consider a corrupt and incompetent Augusta-Richmond County for control of transportation dollars.

Impact on the 12th District Congressional Race
Lee Anderson voted for T-SPLOST in the Georgia General Assembly, and now he appears to be in a run-off for the 12 Georgia Congressional GOP nomination with either Rick Allen or Wright McCleod. Anderson defended his T-SPLOST vote by saying he was only voting to give the people a say in the matter. However, critics charged that the regional vote was unfair and would subject individual counties to the tax even if their voters overwhelmingly opposed it at the polls. That scenario now seems to have been born out in Columbia County. All 3 of Anderson's GOP challengers said they were against T-SPLOST. Now there is speculation of whether there will be a voter backlash against Anderson in his home base of Columbia County because of the T-SPLOST outcome.

Also in the hot seat is Columbia County commission chairman Ron Cross, who heavily promoted T-SPLOST. Seeing as how it failed by such a wide margin there, his critics have yet another example to show  how the commission chairman is out of touch with the average voter in Columbia County. If there is any bright spot for Columbia County over the T-SPLOST outcome is that it may lead to the overwhelming passage of a referendum imposing term limits on county commissioners and the chairman.

Now the CSRA region will have one of the highest sales taxes in the state, making it less competitive for business. However, neighboring South Carolina  retailers are likely to see a jump in business from T-SPLOST. ***
Stay Tuned... more to come
OS

Related Stories:

• Don & Ron's $87.6 Million Pot of Gold
• 15 Reasons to Detest T-SPLOST and Punish its Promoters
• Al Gray Warns Rural County Leaders Over 'Shameful' T-Splost
• Al Gray: Vote No to T-SPLOST (Video)
• Why T-SPLOST Must Be Defeated (Video)

Video: Peas Lost to T-SPLOST

Monday, July 30, 2012
Augusta, GA
By Al Gray

In his latest anti T-SPLOST video, Al Gray, explains how our buying power will be pea'd away if T-SPLOST passes. Watch his video below.

Government Watchdogs Meet with D.A. Over ParkingGate

Friday, July 27, 2012
Augusta, GA
From CityStink.net Reports


Government watchdogs and CityStink.net contributors Lori Davis and Al Gray will meet with District attorney Ashley Wright at 3:00pm today to discuss the evidence they have uncovered in the TEE Center Parking deck debacle. Davis spoke at the July 17 Augusta commission meeting and urged city leaders to halt a management contract with Augusta Riverfront LLC for the $12 million publicly financed parking deck at 9th and Reynolds Streets. The contract was tabled because there were not a sufficient number of votes for it to proceed.

After Ms Davis' presentation before commissioners, Mayor Deke Copenhaver sarcastically suggested that she needed to take this matter to the District Attorney and it was time for her to "put up or shut up." Cost Recovery Specialist Al Gray, who has done much of the analysis on the transactions and deals concerning the parking deck for Augusta Today and CityStink.net, said the mayor's statements were strange considering  all of the reports they have released concerning the parking deck have been backed up by the city's own documents. At this same July 27th commission meeting a forensic audit looking into the parking deck deals was voted down and a substitute motion by Joe Jackson to forward the matter the the District Attorney and GBI passed.

Gray says that government watchdogs have had to go through an unwieldy, expensive and time consuming process to obtain public records to uncover the truth, and they have encountered stonewalling from some government officials in this process. Gray says "I would hope that between the Mayor and DA, we gain access to all information to answer our issues or that the DA takes action to investigate with a promise to address them with supporting documents."

Lori Davis says that she is confident that the evidence and truth is on their side and they already have hundreds of pages of documents to prove it. Al Gray says that a comparison matrix  he was asked to put together shows that the management contract under consideration with Augusta Riverfront LLC amounted to a "blank check" and did not meet the city's own RFP guidelines. In fact, he says that Augusta Riverfront LLC never even submitted a bid, whereas other companies did, like Aampco Parking Systems, that met the city's RFP guidelines. But city administrator Fred Russell ignored the RFP guidelines and ignored the bids from the companies who  had agreed to the city's terms  in favor of the "blank check" contract with Augusta Riverfront LLC. This shows a wanton disregard for the interests of the taxpayers.

But some political observers believe that the DA is a dead end and point to the handling of the David Fry case as an example, citing that the District Attorney was too eager to accept an Alford Plea by Fry's defense attorney to keep the matter from going to trial. They also question whether she can remain unbiased on the matter since she is running for re-election this year, and her boyfriend, Donnie Smith is running for the District 7 commission seat being vacated by Jerry Brigham. Donnie Smith was the first to suggest the matter be forwarded to the D.A. he has also stated on the record that he doesn't believe there is any "smoking gun" in the case to warrant further investigation.

Lori Davis says she is not quite sure what will come out of the meeting today but says, "I hope that the DA will provide citizen support  that we have not been getting from our Mayor and some of the commissioners. I also hope she can remain unbiased because I am sure that she will be getting a lot of pressure from outside sources."

**We will have an update after their meeting with the Distrtict Attorney.***
CS

Related:

• Why is the Parking Deck Contract This Rigged?
• Cutting Through the Spin Over ParkingGate
• Lori Davis Appeals to Conscience of Commissioners
• Fox 54 Swallows Deke Bait

Special Report: No R.W. Allen GuaranTEE?

July 25, 2012

Augusta, GA

By Bradley E. Owens

**Editor's Note: Orange Text Links to supporting documents referenced in this article**

Augusta Today member Dean Klopotic submitted a Georgia Open Records Request seeking the R.W. Allen LLC (RWA) billings for the Tee Center related contracts they are performing. The Law Department of the city of Augusta issued a response which included RWA invoice number 24 representing costs through March 31, 2012. Our investigating team has since obtained RWA invoice number 26 from other sources in city government and turned the documents over to cost recovery accounting specialist Al Gray for analysis and review.

RWA boasts of having an “Open Books Policy” but their Tee Center project manager Jim Cely declined to allow us to visit their offices to view supporting documents to the billings obtained through the Georgia Open Records Request.  RWA CEO Rick W. Allen, currently a candidate for Georgia's 12^th Congressional District, had previously pledged to allow Mr. Gray access to the billing detail records. Despite being assured they would cooperate we were not allowed to see the documents and instead, Cely gave instructions to direct inquiries to Augusta Administrator Fred Russell....the same Fred Russell who has displayed a pattern of withholding VITAL information from Augusta Commissioners on the TEE Center and its companion parking deck across the street.

The Tee Center Contract with R.W. Allen LLC is a Construction Manager at Risk guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract. Under a fast track, a cost plus contract with a GMP, the Construction Manager sets its fee, general conditions (overhead) expenses, and other costs necessary to construct a total facility.  These contracts are or can be comprised of multiple subcontracts and work with the CM (RWA in this case) self-performing portions as if they had been subcontracted. In other words, they can hire themselves to do certain parts of the job as the Construction Manager. 

Once the drawings and design work is 75% complete the GMP was officially set at a price of $29,700,000 and accepted by the Augusta Commission. There have been two change orders (“change orders” are contract modifications which usually are increases in the cost of the fixed price cap due to unforeseen “changes” that affect the construction itself) executed which bring the total price to $30,113,215.  So as you can see, the agreed upon price of the TEE Center construction was $29,700,000.00 but due to the two “change orders” the final projected price tag (there could be more change orders before it is completed so I say “projected”) is now a cool $30,113,215.

Since the more detailed supporting documents for RWA’s invoices (which are pretty vague) are not likely to be in the possession of the Augusta government and therefore open records accessible and the honcho over at RWA, 12^th District candidate R.W. Allen, has already broken his pledge to allow us access to the documents (a politician breaking a pledge to the tax payer? SAY IT ISN’T SO!); here are the questions we would pose to Mr. Russell and to Program Manager Heery International to find out the details of these invoices for us, the lowly tax payer footing the entire bill of $30mil and change.

Has there been Double Billing of General Conditions Costs?

Let’s be clear here, these are complicated contracts but the billing is not if you are willing to bear with me and see the questions we are asking.

Article 7.4.1 sets out the components of the contract price and these are repeated in Exhibit A in the contract. to be paid by Augusta, so a cost has to fall into one of those two categories and be authorized by the terms of the contract to be billed. To cover the contractor’s overhead costs, called “General Conditions” in construction language, RWA put in a General Conditions Guaranteed Maximum cost of $1,082,670 in the contract and in Exhibit G.

The capped GC cost is described this way on page 56: Items that are included within the General Conditions Costs for which the Construction Manager is entitled to no additional compensation include without limitation:.....viii "That portion of insurance GL and Auto Builders Risk and P&P bond premiums that can be directly attributed to this Contract for Construction".....ix. Fees and assessments for the building permit and for other permits licensesand inspections for which the Construction Manager is required by theContract for Construction to pay.

Looking at the latest payment application available, on line 2 of the Form G703 appearing on page 2,

we find an amount listed for General Conditions costs of $1,082,475, which is only $195 less than the stated limit in the contract. Augusta is making progress payments, which total $697,917 (less 5% retained by Augusta) through this invoice, based upon component invoicing and RWA labor charges. In addition to the GC costs, we found $167,585 charged on page 2, line 19 of the G703 schedule for P&P Bonds. 


Based upon the contract having capped GC costs to INCLUDE the P&P bonds, separate invoicing in this manner appears to be a duplicate charge, especially since the contract also says this: “The overhead and profit component for any change includes the cost of bonds and insurance"which seems to preclude the additional billing of P&P bonds separately in this manner. The P&P bonds for the subcontractors are in their OWN costs.

Besides the P&P bond issue, there is the same issue with the $48,961 of permit costs on line 18 of the payment request.

These two issues relating to costs billed separately that appear to be already covered by capped General Conditions total $216,546. It is recommended that these costs be reallocated against the capped GC costs of $1,082,670, or line 2 on the G703 billing schedule of values. 

Extension of General Conditions without Required Change Order?

Accompanying payment request number 24 was a document entitled “Augusta TEE Center Contingency Log” which includes a $16,393 item labeled “extended builders risk cost due to delays. There was an invoice supplied showing the builder's risk policy was being extended to October 2012.  ”The contract says this - All adjustments in compensation or extensions of time shall be by change order (page 38)"

No change order was found to extend the duration of the project, so shouldn't this charge be covered by the capped General Conditions that includes builder's risk insurance?

A much more important and broader issue, is whether RWA intends to collect extended general conditions for the approximately 6 months greater time until completion of the project to include the more costly GC costs, like supervision. The project duration in the contract was set at 24 months, yet the project is on the 26^th monthly billing.

Does the charging of builder's risk premiums for project delays mean that there will be a costly claim for extended General Conditions at the end of the project? Will extension costs be continued to be charged against the contract contingency, instead of being authorized by change order, as the contract apparently requires?

Lack of Pricing Details limits Change Order Price Analysis?

Augusta Today and City Stink contributor Lori Davis submitted a Georgia Open Records Request on another matter concerning the TEE center kitchen equipment that was added to the RWA contract as Change Order 1 to increase the Contract Price to a total of $29,276,987. Included in the information provided  was the pricing from the subcontractor, itemized by equipment price, but unsupported by cost versus overhead and profit analysis of the pricing.

The contract says this in Article 15:"If and to the extent the change involves work of one or more subcontractors the overhead andprofit component for subcontractors shall be fifteen percent 15 and theoverhead and profit component for the Construction Manager shall be seven percent 7 of the amount allocable for subcontracted work."

Unless there is additional analysis not presented with the City's response to the GORA request, how can RWA tell whether the 15% limitation on overhead and profit has been met with respect to Change Order 1? Is sufficient cost information being obtained on other project changes to meet the contract limitations on combined overhead and profit?

Construction Equipment Rentals in Steel Costs?

Within the supporting backup for Payment Application 24 for the steel cost category was an invoice to RWA for construction equipment rental.  The contract has this inclusion within the definition of General Conditions costs: "xviii Rental charges for temporary facilities and for machinery equipment and tools not customarily owned by construction workers"

Since the equipment rentals seem to be within General Conditions (Overhead), wouldn't such costs be covered by the allowed 15% overhead and profit markup allowed on work self-performed by the Contractor?

Summary

1.      Aren't $216,546 of bond and permit costs separately billed also within the capped General Conditions expense in this contract?

2.      Did the billing of $16,393 for extending insurance coverage to October 2012 presage a claim for an additional number of months of general conditions expense, including Contractor Supervisory labor, and unforeseen costs.? Without a change order, should this item have been charged to contingency?

3.      Is there sufficient cost detail provided by subcontractors to assure that contract limitations on maximum, combined overhead and profit can be verified?

4.      Are construction equipment rentals separately billable from overhead and profit markups?

5.      Will Augusta review the contract to assure that all contingency and allowances are recaptured by the city at project completion on this major contract? Others?

We expect that the Mayor and the City Commission will assure that these questions are answered.***

B.O.


**Augusta Today members Al Gray, Lori Davis, and Dean Klopnik also contributed to this report**

**Below is the GMP Construction Contract between RW Allen Construction on the city of Augusta for the TEE Center:

RWA GMP Contract

T-SPLOST Report: Don & Ron's $87 Million Tax Give-Away

Just Dandy or Downright Irresponsible?

Monday, July 23, 2012
Augusta, GA

By IndyInjun

A loose coalition of anti-tax and community activists has arisen locally to oppose T-Splost, which is the chosen acronym for a proposed new 1% sales tax dedicated to transportation. This measure is Referendum Item 1 on the July 31 Georgia primary election ballot. If passed, the sales tax rate in most counties in the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) increase from 7% to 8%, for a whopping 14.3% sales tax increase.

The funds collected from the new 1% T-Splost in all of the 13 counties in the CSRA  region would be dispensed in two pots. 75% of the money goes into a designated, preapproved investment list projects, called the “Constrained Investment List.” Many, if not most, of these projects in the CSRA have long been on the Georgia Department of Transportation’s planned projects list to be built with motor fuel tax funds. For example, the extension of Riverwatch Parkway to Washington Road in Evans has been on the DOT planned list for a decade or more. Columbia and Richmond Counties are MPO’s (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) under the authorizing bill, the Transportation Investment Act of 2010, and will be empowered to use the new T-Splost funds largely without DOT involvement.

The horse trading with the other 11 counties was thorny. As best can be told, the trade-off was to build the large investment list projects in Augusta and Columbia County early in the 10 years of the T-Splost, while the Investment list projects for the rural counties are delayed largely to the last 3 years, carrying the risk that the funds will run out. The bill says that these projects are guaranteed to be built but provides no funds.

Dandy Don Loves Taxes

The other 11 counties are willing to be in this arrangement only by virtue of the 25% “Discretionary” Funds or Cash Pot. This 25% is set based upon a combination of road miles and population which vastly favors the rural counties.

How much money is Augusta and Columbia County giving up into the Cash Pot for the rural counties? An astounding $87.6 million!  Augusta gives up $63 million and Columbia County gives up $23 million in cash! Proof of this is found in the spreadsheet that the CSRA Regional Commission provided, although it required extending some of the data and calculations to divulge the truth of the matter.

Don Grantham, Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation Board for the Augusta Region, and CSRA Regional Transportation Roundtable Chairman Ron Cross were extremely generous with the “cash pot” funds to be doled out from their counties!

Why aren’t these figures being publicized? ***


IJ

CSRA TSplost Revenue Gains and Losses by County

Signs of Desperation for the Tax Hikers

Money No Object to Ram T-Splost Down the People’s Throats

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Appling, Georgia

By Hwy221

From the $8 million Lobbyist Shill Group ConnectGA2012, birthed to pitch the Transportation ‘Investment’ Act, to the various tax-loving Chambers of Commerce cheerleaders, the “New Jobs!” cries from Helen to Hahira sound like some obsessive mantra. The people of Georgia have never seen a slicker effort to separate them from their money than from these T-Splost salesmen.

With a little effort, salesman-in-thief Nathan Deal almost begins to look like Euctice Haney from Green Acres and after you watch this clip, you will understand why. When old Nathan came back from Congress, pursued by an ethics investigation, yet elected in a landslide over Roy Barnes, he was encouraged to think that Georgians are all rubes like Sam Drucker and Oliver Wendell Douglas.


(click video below to play)

If we buy off on his T-Splost scam, well maybe we are past all hope.

Take a gander at what folks headed west on Washington Road (Highway 104) have been treated to starting this week. Scarcely 100 yards apart, with no visible ROAD WORK between, are two signs like this, one on each side of the road.

(click image to enlarge)

For what purpose are they there?

Based upon the positioning of these signs and the obvious lack of road improvements around, our sales tax dollars are only at work buying loudly colored signs pitching more sales taxes.

These people are shameless in their manipulative hijinks aren’t they?

The sure sign that we see is very clear – COLUMBIA COUNTY HAS MORE SALES TAX MONEY THAN IT NEEDS!

T-Splost? Let’s make that into the bug-on-a-windshield thing it sounds like.


Just say NO! to T-Splost!***

• Join the Anti T-SPLOST movement on Facebook

Related Stories:

• 15 Reasons to Detest T-SPLOST and Punish Its Promoters
• Al Gray Warns Rural County Leaders About "Shameful" T-SPLOST