It's simply a fact. Over 90% of all Golf Courses and Private Clubs, across the country, are Paying Too Much
Property Tax!
Property Tax!
Helping You Determine Your "Fair" Share
A Call To Arms
By Peter Blais
When it comes to property taxes, it sometimes pays to fight city hall
There's an old saying that you can't fight city hall. Unfortunately, many golf course owners accept this axiom as sacrosanct with respect to property taxes. Yet when it comes to winning or losing a battle that could potentially provide a payday of thousands of dollars, it sometimes makes sense to take up your arms to preserve your share of the proverbial pie.
Consider the case of Colonial Springs Golf Course, a daily fee facility located on land owned by Pinelawn Cemetery in Farmingdale, New York. After years of paying six-digit property taxes, the club’s owners decided to challenge their annual assessment. The battle wasn’t easy: Officials had to thoroughly research the club’s operations and also enlist the professional services of attorney Brad Cronin and appraiser William Sherman, who provided testimony relating to golf course values. But in the end, the effort paid off. In early 2007, the 27-hole complex won a court case that yielded a tax rebate of $929,827, plus interest, from levies paid to Suffolk County from 1999 to 2005.
Farther down the Eastern Seaboard, course owners in South Carolina amassed a larger attack in 2003-2004, when the South Carolina Golf Course Owners Association hired an attorney and made his services available, free of charge, to any operator who thought he or she was being unfairly taxed. After consulting with the attorney, those owners who were still convinced they had paid too much in taxes could move forward with an appeal at their own expense.
Much like the concentrated efforts of Colonial Springs, the individual appeals of South Carolina operators produced victories. Each of the more than 20 owners who appealed their taxes won their cases, amounting to more than $100 million in collective appraisal rollbacks. These efforts also spawned negotiations with the state assessors’ association and led to the eventual passing of legislation that provides more equitable valuation procedures-policies that please owners, assessors and legislators alike.
In the case of South Carolina, the tax-relief triumph produced an ancillary victory in the court of public opinion, as many former opponents of valuation reform (including a major Myrtle Beach newspaper) reversed their stance when it was revealed that unfair tax treatment contributed to the eventual demise of more than 15 area courses. Unfortunately, it took the course closures-coupled with the “Economic Impact of Golf on South Carolina” study conducted by the state’s Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department, which showed the golf industry employs 30,000 people, pays a significant amount of taxes and helps preserve open space-before golf’s detractors saw the industry’s significance.
Despite their differences, these two cases share a common thread: success. All of which proves that you can fight City Hall, whether going it alone or joining a group to stand for a common goal. The key, as evidenced by both examples, is having hard, empirical data to back your claims and the resolve to see things through to the end.
Fighting the Good Fight
Anyone who’s been in the business of operating golf courses for very long realizes that property taxation is a major issue. In fact, at most facilities, property taxes represent the second-highest operating cost, behind employee compensation. According to GVI Consulting, the property tax expense for most golf courses ranges from 2 percent to 6 percent of total gross income. For many operators, that’s reason enough to take a stand against the government.
If you need more incentive, consider this: Historically, appeals made by golf course owners have proven favorable. In a 2004 survey of NGCOA member operators, 67 out of 262 respondents-almost one in four-reported having appealed their valuations in an attempt to lower tax liabilities. Of those 67, only 13 had failed to win any relief. What’s more, the majority of respondents reported reductions of more than 10 percent, while a select few received reductions of 30 percent or higher.
Given these success rates, the essential questions for operators become: When does a course owner go it alone or become part of an owners’ group when trying to affect property tax change? And, perhaps as importantly, what mode of attack works best in each case?
As with most areas of business, there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for appealing an individual assessment. Little surprise, then, that many owners choose to fly solo when opting to fight a tax bill. This, of course, has its inherent strengths (intimate knowledge of the individual facility) and weaknesses (no collective voice or strength in numbers).
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to fighting the government mano-a-mano is the opponent. Because many assessors have limited knowledge about golf course values and the fact that golf is commonly viewed as a sport for the rich, assessments are often unrealistic.
“Sometimes, assessors-particularly when it comes to private clubs-feel they can afford whatever burden is placed on them,” Sherman says. “So, they put an unreasonably high number on the value of the property and place the onus of challenging it on the club.”
What’s more, many course owners aren’t aware they might make good candidates for appeal, an especially costly mistake considering the type of money potentially at stake. “If property taxes make up a significant portion of the operating expenses, it severely impacts the property’s value,” explains Tom Kitz, a partner with American Property Analysts in Toledo, Ohio. “If the assessed value is high, that makes property taxes high and, consequently, the amount of net income available for debt service is low. If the property tax can be successfully appealed, more income is left over for debt service and, as a result, the value increases.”
To further complicate matters, tax bills are often mailed during the height of the golf season. In Texas, for example, assessments usually arrive in May and many owners may overlook them while tending to other areas of their business. Unfortunately, most states impose a deadline for filing an appeal (in Texas, it’s 30 days from receipt of a bill), so tossing a tax bill to the side and forgetting about it can potentially cost a company thousands of dollars.
“You lose the opportunity if you don’t make the appeal during that timeframe,” explains Joe Dengel, president of Texas-based golf course appraisal firm Joseph Dengel & Associates. “I would advise owners to stay on top of their assessments and tax bills. When they receive a bill, don’t let the appeal deadline pass without at least considering whether an appeal makes sense.”
Timelines aside, there are three generally accepted methods for assessing courses: replacement cost, income and market value. Most assessors assign value based on replacement cost information since those figures are easier to obtain and require little knowledge of the golf industry. However, Dengel argues that replacement cost data is also less reliable than statistics gathered by other methods because golf courses are often built as amenities to a surrounding development. Developers reap large profits from sales of lots and homes that are tied to the course’s availability, but course owners incur substantial course construction costs yet are able to produce only a fraction of the income associated with those costs. As such, most experts agree that assessments based on income analysis or sales of nearby properties provide a more accurate reflection of facility value.
Regardless of the assessment method, appealing a tax bill requires some soul-searching and, more often than not, professional help. Most experts encourage potential plaintiffs to hire a professional appraiser, who can make valuations related to income or comparable course sales. Based on that information, if an owner makes the decision to move forward with an appeal, then the services of an attorney and, quite often, an accountant will become necessary.
Even with the help of professionals and accurate data, success isn’t guaranteed. While most observers believe the potential prize is worth the fight, individual operators have to decide whether it’s a risk they’re willing to take.
“My advice is that owners make an honest assessment as to what their property is worth, understanding that if they make an appeal, they may have to bare their financial souls and open the books,” Kitz warns.
Interestingly, success rates for appeals and costs vary by state. For example, appealing taxes in Michigan can be an expensive process that often proves fruitless, particularly in cash-strapped locales. Meanwhile, in neighboring Ohio, appeals are generally less costly and time-consuming.
“It’s the way the state appeal codes are written,” Kitz notes. “The assessments are done differently in the two states.”
In Ohio, estimates of value for assessment purposes are done at the county level; Michigan, on the other hand, executes assessments at the community or township level. “The result is more consistency and a more streamlined appeals process in Ohio rather than across the border in Michigan,” Kitz adds.
Chances for success-or at least a more reasonable judgment-can vary with a state’s appeals process following the local community or county appeal. In California, the owner goes before a tax appeal board, while in New York, he or she appears before a judge.
“When a club goes before judges, they’re [judges] generally very careful about any written decision because they don’t want to be challenged in the future,” Sherman says. “Owners often have a better chance at an equitable decision before a judge than before a board. But every situation is different.”
Strength In Numbers
Although there’s something innately inspiring and, no doubt, “American” about taking on the government independently, it’s hard to discount the power often found when individuals unite for a common cause. Granted, the SCGCOA’s efforts ultimately proved financially beneficial for a number of operators who appealed their assessments, but owners’ groups are, in general, better-suited to aid operators by helping get them recognized as a certain class of property owners, either through the judicial or legislative process. Even Sedalik admits that the major victory which came from his group’s efforts was getting course owners, local assessors and state legislators to sit down together and adopt legislation to correct tax issues.
The same can be said for operators in New York, where last year, a group of 34 private golf clubs on Long Island combined efforts to challenge excessive property valuations imposed by the Nassau County Assessor. After the New York State Supreme Court heard several lawsuits filed by the owners, Nassau County and the clubs eventually agreed to negotiate values for all properties based on the results of the various lawsuits. (The basis for value was a capitalization of percentage rents that would accrue to the private clubs if the clubs were operated for profit.) In the end, the estimated reduction of values-which included tax years 2002 through 2006-averaged $670,000 per club, or a total reduced valuation of approximately $20 million.
Course operators in Maryland have also found strength in numbers, particularly with respect to a bill enacted in 1971 that required all “country club land” to be taxed at an open-space zoning classification rather than being assessed at the higher rate applied to other recreational entities. Interestingly, this effort paired two parties formerly on opposite sides of the law-private club operators and owners of public facilities-in a united effort to affect change.
At the time of the legislation’s passing, the boundaries of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area were quickly transforming once-rural land into suburbia. Lawmakers, seeking to preserve areas of open space, passed the Open Space Law, which, in essence, gave tax breaks to a number of private clubs located in those regions. The original legislation impacted few privately owned public courses and those that were effected often lacked the political clout to have their facilities grouped under the new classification. Not surprisingly, many daily fee operators felt slighted.
By 1999, however, the attorney general for the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) determined that private country clubs were not being taxed heavily enough and developed new guidelines. Observers estimated the revised tax assessments for private clubs would raise valuations from 20 percent to 50 percent. What’s more, many daily fee owners-the same operators who were excluded from the 1971 Open Space legislation-faced property tax uncertainty and were seeing their taxes rising as much as a 100 percent in a three-year assessment cycle.
Staring at monumental tax increases, private club operators began lobbying for an amendment to the 1971 legislation, hoping to lock in a set tax rate for open space on golf courses. Eventually, daily fee owners convinced the country clubs to join ranks in their efforts for equality, knowing both groups’ chances for victory increased if they could present a united front. With help from the University of Maryland, the operators developed a new “Evaluation System for Golf Courses” that replaced the Marshall & Swift Commercial Estimator, a set of guidelines long used by state assessors that leaned heavily on course yardages and par to determine values.
After a year of working with SDAT, the state agency adopted a portion of the owners’ recommended system. The new valuation guidelines, which included safeguards to protect against erroneous operator reporting, were designed to be easy enough for use by an assessor without any training or knowledge of golf or agronomy. While the owners would have preferred adoption of the entire program, John Shields, president of the Maryland Golf Course Owners Association, contends that partial implementation was “certainly better than before.”
Hoping to make things “better than before” is the ideal that compelled owners in Nevada to take action against the Clark County Assessor’s office. According to Stan Spraul, general manager of Southern Highlands Golf Club, and Ted Tylman, executive director of the Nevada Golf Course Owners Association, a number of operators in the county had appealed their assessment and won in court, only to have the assessor’s office raise the valuations to the same level the very next year, necessitating another costly court battle.
Following a meeting between owners and the Clark County Assessor-during which he warned that assessments would be increasing as much as 35 percent the next year and there was little owners could do about it-Spraul and Tylman set out to discover what changes were needed to allow all Nevada courses to be treated equally. In late 2004, the chapter hired two respected lobbyists who proposed changes to the golf course property tax laws as an amendment to a state Senate bill.
In 2005, Senate Bill (SB) 394 was presented to a committee with the golf course amendment attached. Eventually, the amendment and bill were accepted and, shortly thereafter, signed into law by Governor Kenny Guinn.
The end result for course owners? Based on information from the Clark County Assessor’s office for the past two years, property tax values for golf courses have been reduced by $438 million, which reflects a decrease of 50.8 percent. This, in turn, has yielded a total tax savings of approximately $4.4 million for operators.
No doubt, successful group efforts like those in Nevada, Maryland and South Carolina have inspired the New York Golf Course Owners Association. New York operators have lined up legislator support and plan to arm lawmakers with an economic study detailing the importance of golf to the state. Ultimately, operators hope to lower valuations on tax bills from local property assessors.
Even if their efforts bear fruit, New York operators-like any individual owner or group-would be well-served to learn from their Nevada counterparts. The Nevada chapter has been forced to rehire lobbyists to thwart efforts to overturn the assessment changes enacted by SB-394 and is taking additional measures to further ensure the valuation system remains in place.
“Now is not the time to become complacent,” Spraul and Tylman warn fellow operators. “With everything from the fuel to run our maintenance equipment to the water needed to continue to provide quality courses rising in price, we need certainty when it comes to our property tax assessments.”
Good advice for all who take up the call to arms.
Peter Blais is a Maine-based freelance writer.
By Peter Blais
When it comes to property taxes, it sometimes pays to fight city hall
There's an old saying that you can't fight city hall. Unfortunately, many golf course owners accept this axiom as sacrosanct with respect to property taxes. Yet when it comes to winning or losing a battle that could potentially provide a payday of thousands of dollars, it sometimes makes sense to take up your arms to preserve your share of the proverbial pie.
Consider the case of Colonial Springs Golf Course, a daily fee facility located on land owned by Pinelawn Cemetery in Farmingdale, New York. After years of paying six-digit property taxes, the club’s owners decided to challenge their annual assessment. The battle wasn’t easy: Officials had to thoroughly research the club’s operations and also enlist the professional services of attorney Brad Cronin and appraiser William Sherman, who provided testimony relating to golf course values. But in the end, the effort paid off. In early 2007, the 27-hole complex won a court case that yielded a tax rebate of $929,827, plus interest, from levies paid to Suffolk County from 1999 to 2005.
Farther down the Eastern Seaboard, course owners in South Carolina amassed a larger attack in 2003-2004, when the South Carolina Golf Course Owners Association hired an attorney and made his services available, free of charge, to any operator who thought he or she was being unfairly taxed. After consulting with the attorney, those owners who were still convinced they had paid too much in taxes could move forward with an appeal at their own expense.
Much like the concentrated efforts of Colonial Springs, the individual appeals of South Carolina operators produced victories. Each of the more than 20 owners who appealed their taxes won their cases, amounting to more than $100 million in collective appraisal rollbacks. These efforts also spawned negotiations with the state assessors’ association and led to the eventual passing of legislation that provides more equitable valuation procedures-policies that please owners, assessors and legislators alike.
In the case of South Carolina, the tax-relief triumph produced an ancillary victory in the court of public opinion, as many former opponents of valuation reform (including a major Myrtle Beach newspaper) reversed their stance when it was revealed that unfair tax treatment contributed to the eventual demise of more than 15 area courses. Unfortunately, it took the course closures-coupled with the “Economic Impact of Golf on South Carolina” study conducted by the state’s Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department, which showed the golf industry employs 30,000 people, pays a significant amount of taxes and helps preserve open space-before golf’s detractors saw the industry’s significance.
Despite their differences, these two cases share a common thread: success. All of which proves that you can fight City Hall, whether going it alone or joining a group to stand for a common goal. The key, as evidenced by both examples, is having hard, empirical data to back your claims and the resolve to see things through to the end.
Fighting the Good Fight
Anyone who’s been in the business of operating golf courses for very long realizes that property taxation is a major issue. In fact, at most facilities, property taxes represent the second-highest operating cost, behind employee compensation. According to GVI Consulting, the property tax expense for most golf courses ranges from 2 percent to 6 percent of total gross income. For many operators, that’s reason enough to take a stand against the government.
If you need more incentive, consider this: Historically, appeals made by golf course owners have proven favorable. In a 2004 survey of NGCOA member operators, 67 out of 262 respondents-almost one in four-reported having appealed their valuations in an attempt to lower tax liabilities. Of those 67, only 13 had failed to win any relief. What’s more, the majority of respondents reported reductions of more than 10 percent, while a select few received reductions of 30 percent or higher.
Given these success rates, the essential questions for operators become: When does a course owner go it alone or become part of an owners’ group when trying to affect property tax change? And, perhaps as importantly, what mode of attack works best in each case?
As with most areas of business, there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for appealing an individual assessment. Little surprise, then, that many owners choose to fly solo when opting to fight a tax bill. This, of course, has its inherent strengths (intimate knowledge of the individual facility) and weaknesses (no collective voice or strength in numbers).
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to fighting the government mano-a-mano is the opponent. Because many assessors have limited knowledge about golf course values and the fact that golf is commonly viewed as a sport for the rich, assessments are often unrealistic.
“Sometimes, assessors-particularly when it comes to private clubs-feel they can afford whatever burden is placed on them,” Sherman says. “So, they put an unreasonably high number on the value of the property and place the onus of challenging it on the club.”
What’s more, many course owners aren’t aware they might make good candidates for appeal, an especially costly mistake considering the type of money potentially at stake. “If property taxes make up a significant portion of the operating expenses, it severely impacts the property’s value,” explains Tom Kitz, a partner with American Property Analysts in Toledo, Ohio. “If the assessed value is high, that makes property taxes high and, consequently, the amount of net income available for debt service is low. If the property tax can be successfully appealed, more income is left over for debt service and, as a result, the value increases.”
To further complicate matters, tax bills are often mailed during the height of the golf season. In Texas, for example, assessments usually arrive in May and many owners may overlook them while tending to other areas of their business. Unfortunately, most states impose a deadline for filing an appeal (in Texas, it’s 30 days from receipt of a bill), so tossing a tax bill to the side and forgetting about it can potentially cost a company thousands of dollars.
“You lose the opportunity if you don’t make the appeal during that timeframe,” explains Joe Dengel, president of Texas-based golf course appraisal firm Joseph Dengel & Associates. “I would advise owners to stay on top of their assessments and tax bills. When they receive a bill, don’t let the appeal deadline pass without at least considering whether an appeal makes sense.”
Timelines aside, there are three generally accepted methods for assessing courses: replacement cost, income and market value. Most assessors assign value based on replacement cost information since those figures are easier to obtain and require little knowledge of the golf industry. However, Dengel argues that replacement cost data is also less reliable than statistics gathered by other methods because golf courses are often built as amenities to a surrounding development. Developers reap large profits from sales of lots and homes that are tied to the course’s availability, but course owners incur substantial course construction costs yet are able to produce only a fraction of the income associated with those costs. As such, most experts agree that assessments based on income analysis or sales of nearby properties provide a more accurate reflection of facility value.
Regardless of the assessment method, appealing a tax bill requires some soul-searching and, more often than not, professional help. Most experts encourage potential plaintiffs to hire a professional appraiser, who can make valuations related to income or comparable course sales. Based on that information, if an owner makes the decision to move forward with an appeal, then the services of an attorney and, quite often, an accountant will become necessary.
Even with the help of professionals and accurate data, success isn’t guaranteed. While most observers believe the potential prize is worth the fight, individual operators have to decide whether it’s a risk they’re willing to take.
“My advice is that owners make an honest assessment as to what their property is worth, understanding that if they make an appeal, they may have to bare their financial souls and open the books,” Kitz warns.
Interestingly, success rates for appeals and costs vary by state. For example, appealing taxes in Michigan can be an expensive process that often proves fruitless, particularly in cash-strapped locales. Meanwhile, in neighboring Ohio, appeals are generally less costly and time-consuming.
“It’s the way the state appeal codes are written,” Kitz notes. “The assessments are done differently in the two states.”
In Ohio, estimates of value for assessment purposes are done at the county level; Michigan, on the other hand, executes assessments at the community or township level. “The result is more consistency and a more streamlined appeals process in Ohio rather than across the border in Michigan,” Kitz adds.
Chances for success-or at least a more reasonable judgment-can vary with a state’s appeals process following the local community or county appeal. In California, the owner goes before a tax appeal board, while in New York, he or she appears before a judge.
“When a club goes before judges, they’re [judges] generally very careful about any written decision because they don’t want to be challenged in the future,” Sherman says. “Owners often have a better chance at an equitable decision before a judge than before a board. But every situation is different.”
Strength In Numbers
Although there’s something innately inspiring and, no doubt, “American” about taking on the government independently, it’s hard to discount the power often found when individuals unite for a common cause. Granted, the SCGCOA’s efforts ultimately proved financially beneficial for a number of operators who appealed their assessments, but owners’ groups are, in general, better-suited to aid operators by helping get them recognized as a certain class of property owners, either through the judicial or legislative process. Even Sedalik admits that the major victory which came from his group’s efforts was getting course owners, local assessors and state legislators to sit down together and adopt legislation to correct tax issues.
The same can be said for operators in New York, where last year, a group of 34 private golf clubs on Long Island combined efforts to challenge excessive property valuations imposed by the Nassau County Assessor. After the New York State Supreme Court heard several lawsuits filed by the owners, Nassau County and the clubs eventually agreed to negotiate values for all properties based on the results of the various lawsuits. (The basis for value was a capitalization of percentage rents that would accrue to the private clubs if the clubs were operated for profit.) In the end, the estimated reduction of values-which included tax years 2002 through 2006-averaged $670,000 per club, or a total reduced valuation of approximately $20 million.
Course operators in Maryland have also found strength in numbers, particularly with respect to a bill enacted in 1971 that required all “country club land” to be taxed at an open-space zoning classification rather than being assessed at the higher rate applied to other recreational entities. Interestingly, this effort paired two parties formerly on opposite sides of the law-private club operators and owners of public facilities-in a united effort to affect change.
At the time of the legislation’s passing, the boundaries of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area were quickly transforming once-rural land into suburbia. Lawmakers, seeking to preserve areas of open space, passed the Open Space Law, which, in essence, gave tax breaks to a number of private clubs located in those regions. The original legislation impacted few privately owned public courses and those that were effected often lacked the political clout to have their facilities grouped under the new classification. Not surprisingly, many daily fee operators felt slighted.
By 1999, however, the attorney general for the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) determined that private country clubs were not being taxed heavily enough and developed new guidelines. Observers estimated the revised tax assessments for private clubs would raise valuations from 20 percent to 50 percent. What’s more, many daily fee owners-the same operators who were excluded from the 1971 Open Space legislation-faced property tax uncertainty and were seeing their taxes rising as much as a 100 percent in a three-year assessment cycle.
Staring at monumental tax increases, private club operators began lobbying for an amendment to the 1971 legislation, hoping to lock in a set tax rate for open space on golf courses. Eventually, daily fee owners convinced the country clubs to join ranks in their efforts for equality, knowing both groups’ chances for victory increased if they could present a united front. With help from the University of Maryland, the operators developed a new “Evaluation System for Golf Courses” that replaced the Marshall & Swift Commercial Estimator, a set of guidelines long used by state assessors that leaned heavily on course yardages and par to determine values.
After a year of working with SDAT, the state agency adopted a portion of the owners’ recommended system. The new valuation guidelines, which included safeguards to protect against erroneous operator reporting, were designed to be easy enough for use by an assessor without any training or knowledge of golf or agronomy. While the owners would have preferred adoption of the entire program, John Shields, president of the Maryland Golf Course Owners Association, contends that partial implementation was “certainly better than before.”
Hoping to make things “better than before” is the ideal that compelled owners in Nevada to take action against the Clark County Assessor’s office. According to Stan Spraul, general manager of Southern Highlands Golf Club, and Ted Tylman, executive director of the Nevada Golf Course Owners Association, a number of operators in the county had appealed their assessment and won in court, only to have the assessor’s office raise the valuations to the same level the very next year, necessitating another costly court battle.
Following a meeting between owners and the Clark County Assessor-during which he warned that assessments would be increasing as much as 35 percent the next year and there was little owners could do about it-Spraul and Tylman set out to discover what changes were needed to allow all Nevada courses to be treated equally. In late 2004, the chapter hired two respected lobbyists who proposed changes to the golf course property tax laws as an amendment to a state Senate bill.
In 2005, Senate Bill (SB) 394 was presented to a committee with the golf course amendment attached. Eventually, the amendment and bill were accepted and, shortly thereafter, signed into law by Governor Kenny Guinn.
The end result for course owners? Based on information from the Clark County Assessor’s office for the past two years, property tax values for golf courses have been reduced by $438 million, which reflects a decrease of 50.8 percent. This, in turn, has yielded a total tax savings of approximately $4.4 million for operators.
No doubt, successful group efforts like those in Nevada, Maryland and South Carolina have inspired the New York Golf Course Owners Association. New York operators have lined up legislator support and plan to arm lawmakers with an economic study detailing the importance of golf to the state. Ultimately, operators hope to lower valuations on tax bills from local property assessors.
Even if their efforts bear fruit, New York operators-like any individual owner or group-would be well-served to learn from their Nevada counterparts. The Nevada chapter has been forced to rehire lobbyists to thwart efforts to overturn the assessment changes enacted by SB-394 and is taking additional measures to further ensure the valuation system remains in place.
“Now is not the time to become complacent,” Spraul and Tylman warn fellow operators. “With everything from the fuel to run our maintenance equipment to the water needed to continue to provide quality courses rising in price, we need certainty when it comes to our property tax assessments.”
Good advice for all who take up the call to arms.
Peter Blais is a Maine-based freelance writer.
click HERE
for printer friendly page
for printer friendly page
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
