Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues property tax abatements for local manufacturers; one abstention bloc on timber firm
Summary
Fulton County officials voted to continue tax abatements for Rochester Iron & Metal, ROC Fabricating and Ramco for tax year 2025-pay-2026; an existing abatement for a lumber firm was continued with three abstentions.
Fulton County officials voted to continue property tax abatement agreements for several local manufacturers on motions brought during the meeting.
Rochester Iron & Metal and ROC Fabricating each received unanimous approval to continue their abatements for 2025-pay-2026. The council also approved continuation of a tax abatement for Ramco after the company’s founder told the council the firm had submitted the required forms and employee counts following earlier confusion about legal representation.
Council members discussed late or missing filings for some beneficiaries and the effect of abatements on local employment. A council member said she reviews abatements “to see if we are helping whatever firm it is hire more employees” and emphasized that the county looks for new hires as part of abatement justification. Marvin Raymer, introduced himself as “the founder and CEO of Ramco,” told the council his company had hand-delivered completed CF-1 forms and said employee numbers were included on that form.
The council voted to continue an abatement for a lumber firm (identified in the packet as “Mike Lumber”) after noting the company’s paperwork was current. Three members announced abstentions on that vote; the final recorded tally was five yes, zero no, three abstain.
Motions and vote tallies recorded in the meeting: Rochester Iron & Metal (approved, vote recorded 7-0); ROC Fabricating (approved, vote recorded 7-0); Ramco (approved, vote recorded 7-0); Mike Lumber abatement continuation (approved, tally recorded as yes 5, abstain 3).
Council members described the recent late filings for some companies as resulting from changes in outside attorneys and internal turnover at the businesses. One presenter said a previously-hired attorney had filed forms late (filed June 14) and that the companies now have a firm in place to file timely. The council asked only clarifying questions before making decisions.
The council did not change abatement terms during the meeting; members said the action was limited to continuing the existing abatements for the coming year.
