Here is what you will see on election day.
VOTE NO on Question #4
Question #4 -- Binding
Shall the Town of Amesbury be required to reduce the amount of real estate and personal property taxes to be assessed for the fiscal year beginning July first, two thousand and eight by an amount equal to one million dollars ($1,000,000)?
Yes_____ NO______
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Why Put Our Own Back Against The Wall?
Amesbury is one of the few communities in the Commonwealth that does NOT levy property tax up to its allowed limit under Proposition 2 1/2. In 2007, 75% of the communities in the Commonwealth taxed at 99-100% of their allowable amount (according to the MA Municipal Association). It is especially notable that we're not taxing at our limit, given the dramatic reductions in State Aid (we lost 25% or $3,000,000 in Aid since 2000) (DOR website). We could speculate on the reasons why we have not had to tax to our limit despite this lose of revenue (e.g. good financial management, tax base growth) but that's another discussion.
Recent Boston Globe articles (in their 'Override Central' section) have chronicled the woes of communities jammed up against their levy limit. It's a depressing litany--closed school libraries, laid off teachers and public safety personnel, increased school fees, closed sports programs, closed senior centers, not replacing safety equipment. Compounding the problem of being up against the levy limit is that the vast majority of override votes fail (2/3 of them failed in 2006). Councilor McClure and Mayoral Candidate Alison Lindstrom have both said that we can always reverse the underride if we want but the facts contradict this assumption--it would be very difficult to undo this step, once taken.
Having excess levy has two enormous benefits for Amesbury. First and foremost, it buys us flexibility, the ability to respond to unforeseen or uncontrollable cost increases (think 'flood' or 'special education') without having to call for an override to do it. Second, it actually saves us money. If we wipe out our excess levy (which a $1M underride will do), we can count on having our bond rating go down. This is like having your credit rating go down. As Council Candidate Allen Neale has pointed out, a lower bond rating will increase the amount that we spend on bond interest, potentially costing us $100,000's a year in wasted interest payments.
In talking about the underride around town, I've used this basic analogy to personal finances. If you looked at your personal budget and thought "Gee, I need to cut my costs and save some money," would the first thing that you did be to go to your boss and ask if you could get a pay cut, please? No, you would first ask yourself "what can I cut from my expenses? and then "how much salary do I need to cover my costs (mortgage, heat, auto, etc)?" The current Council has asked "what can we cut" and only found 2 line items worth $52,000 to cut. Lowering our income (tax revenue) is meaningless without first asking what it actually costs us to deliver the services that we need to ourselves. It's terrible financial management.
So let's do ourselves a favor and approach our financial situation with common sense and prudence, keeping the hard-earned flexibility and good bond rating that we currently enjoy. We should be excited to have 'excess levy' room---it prevents us from being jammed against the wall.
Recent Boston Globe articles (in their 'Override Central' section) have chronicled the woes of communities jammed up against their levy limit. It's a depressing litany--closed school libraries, laid off teachers and public safety personnel, increased school fees, closed sports programs, closed senior centers, not replacing safety equipment. Compounding the problem of being up against the levy limit is that the vast majority of override votes fail (2/3 of them failed in 2006). Councilor McClure and Mayoral Candidate Alison Lindstrom have both said that we can always reverse the underride if we want but the facts contradict this assumption--it would be very difficult to undo this step, once taken.
Having excess levy has two enormous benefits for Amesbury. First and foremost, it buys us flexibility, the ability to respond to unforeseen or uncontrollable cost increases (think 'flood' or 'special education') without having to call for an override to do it. Second, it actually saves us money. If we wipe out our excess levy (which a $1M underride will do), we can count on having our bond rating go down. This is like having your credit rating go down. As Council Candidate Allen Neale has pointed out, a lower bond rating will increase the amount that we spend on bond interest, potentially costing us $100,000's a year in wasted interest payments.
In talking about the underride around town, I've used this basic analogy to personal finances. If you looked at your personal budget and thought "Gee, I need to cut my costs and save some money," would the first thing that you did be to go to your boss and ask if you could get a pay cut, please? No, you would first ask yourself "what can I cut from my expenses? and then "how much salary do I need to cover my costs (mortgage, heat, auto, etc)?" The current Council has asked "what can we cut" and only found 2 line items worth $52,000 to cut. Lowering our income (tax revenue) is meaningless without first asking what it actually costs us to deliver the services that we need to ourselves. It's terrible financial management.
So let's do ourselves a favor and approach our financial situation with common sense and prudence, keeping the hard-earned flexibility and good bond rating that we currently enjoy. We should be excited to have 'excess levy' room---it prevents us from being jammed against the wall.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Pt. 2 of Cable Discussion on Underride Airs Tonight on Channel 12
The local access show "All About Amesbury" will be airing the 2nd part of a discussion with Municipal Council Candidates Allen Neale and Jonathan Sherwood regarding the underride question tonight at 6:30 p.m. on Comcast Channel 12. The segment will be available for viewing on the internet at www.allaboutamesbury.net on Wednesday, 10/24.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Underride Will Undermine Capital Planning
Submitted by: William Parker
Amesbury’s Master Plan (2004) lays out a vision of what Amesbury should “look like in the next twenty years”. Action items are defined for the Plan Elements, including “Land Use” and “Infrastructure”. Short-, intermediate- and long-term goals define this vision.
Each element is categorized by time frame (Immediate, Near Term, Medium, Long Term and On-going) and is assigned a potential cost (Low, Medium or High) with Low less than $50,000 and High over $250,000. As with all good planning, there is recognition that investments in Amesbury’s future carries price tags.
Without question, the Infrastructure costs in the Master Plan are the big ones. Some significant Master Plan action items coming up:
• the library expansion or relocation
• relocation of the DPW yard
• expansion or relocation of the Fire Department
And we know that we’re facing costly improvements to our water infrastructure.
Good capital planning saves money over the long run, just like making sure you are prepared to pay for a new roof on your house when you need it. It takes well-planned investments to improve and expand Amesbury’s resources. An underride as big as the one on our ballot would dramatically hamper our ability to make these investments and follow our Master Plan. The current council has made much about being fiscal watchdogs but good financial management means knowing how to plan well.
Amesbury’s Master Plan (2004) lays out a vision of what Amesbury should “look like in the next twenty years”. Action items are defined for the Plan Elements, including “Land Use” and “Infrastructure”. Short-, intermediate- and long-term goals define this vision.
Each element is categorized by time frame (Immediate, Near Term, Medium, Long Term and On-going) and is assigned a potential cost (Low, Medium or High) with Low less than $50,000 and High over $250,000. As with all good planning, there is recognition that investments in Amesbury’s future carries price tags.
Without question, the Infrastructure costs in the Master Plan are the big ones. Some significant Master Plan action items coming up:
• the library expansion or relocation
• relocation of the DPW yard
• expansion or relocation of the Fire Department
And we know that we’re facing costly improvements to our water infrastructure.
Good capital planning saves money over the long run, just like making sure you are prepared to pay for a new roof on your house when you need it. It takes well-planned investments to improve and expand Amesbury’s resources. An underride as big as the one on our ballot would dramatically hamper our ability to make these investments and follow our Master Plan. The current council has made much about being fiscal watchdogs but good financial management means knowing how to plan well.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
What Happened in Dennis and Gill—Two Underride Case Studies
Dennis
In September of 2003 the town of Dennis, by Special Town Election voted in favor of an underride. This was in direct response to a Proposition 2 1/2 Override of $176,000 that was passed for the Cape Cod School Budget at the Special Town Meeting in June. It turned out that the amount was not needed for the school’s budget.
In a showing of good faith to taxpayers by the Board of Selectmen, acknowledging that the town many times in the past had diverted money to the schools; they agreed to put forth the underride. It was understood that by voting for an underride would only return the town to its original levy amount and that schools or other town services would not be damaged in the process.
Gill
In 2003 the town of Gill passed an override. It was minimal, the excess would equate to approximately .12 cents for every thousand dollars of value on the tax rate.
In 2003 Gill placed a condition on the salaries of town employees tying their COLA increase to the COLA granted in the Gill-Montague teachers’ contract. The teachers’ contract was ratified, and while it included an increase in salaries, it was not specifically designated as a COLA increase and therefore town employees received no increase. Select Board members felt that was not the intent of the voters and placed a question on the special town meeting to allow the 3% increase that was raised by taxation to go to town employees.
At that same meeting the town also decided that an underride reducing the levy limit by that same dollar amount, would be put to the voters at the annual election in May 2004 to correct the error when the teachers’ contracts were ratified. The amount of the reduction was PLANNED to equal the number by which the Gill-Montague FY04 budget was reduced after the override passed in 2003, $10,833.
In both cases, unlike the Amesbury underride question-where the Council Majority willy-nilly picked a number ($1 million) to go to the ballot—the towns of Gill and Dennis actually used an UNDERRIDE in response to an earlier OVERRIDE attached to results identified for the voters.
Sound familiar? See these previous blog entries:
http://nounderride.blogspot.com/2007/10/look-at-other-underrides-1-upton-in.html
http://nounderride.blogspot.com/2007/10/amesburys-underride-would-be-one-of.html
In September of 2003 the town of Dennis, by Special Town Election voted in favor of an underride. This was in direct response to a Proposition 2 1/2 Override of $176,000 that was passed for the Cape Cod School Budget at the Special Town Meeting in June. It turned out that the amount was not needed for the school’s budget.
In a showing of good faith to taxpayers by the Board of Selectmen, acknowledging that the town many times in the past had diverted money to the schools; they agreed to put forth the underride. It was understood that by voting for an underride would only return the town to its original levy amount and that schools or other town services would not be damaged in the process.
Gill
In 2003 the town of Gill passed an override. It was minimal, the excess would equate to approximately .12 cents for every thousand dollars of value on the tax rate.
In 2003 Gill placed a condition on the salaries of town employees tying their COLA increase to the COLA granted in the Gill-Montague teachers’ contract. The teachers’ contract was ratified, and while it included an increase in salaries, it was not specifically designated as a COLA increase and therefore town employees received no increase. Select Board members felt that was not the intent of the voters and placed a question on the special town meeting to allow the 3% increase that was raised by taxation to go to town employees.
At that same meeting the town also decided that an underride reducing the levy limit by that same dollar amount, would be put to the voters at the annual election in May 2004 to correct the error when the teachers’ contracts were ratified. The amount of the reduction was PLANNED to equal the number by which the Gill-Montague FY04 budget was reduced after the override passed in 2003, $10,833.
In both cases, unlike the Amesbury underride question-where the Council Majority willy-nilly picked a number ($1 million) to go to the ballot—the towns of Gill and Dennis actually used an UNDERRIDE in response to an earlier OVERRIDE attached to results identified for the voters.
Sound familiar? See these previous blog entries:
http://nounderride.blogspot.com/2007/10/look-at-other-underrides-1-upton-in.html
http://nounderride.blogspot.com/2007/10/amesburys-underride-would-be-one-of.html
Friday, October 12, 2007
A Look At Other Underrides - #1- Upton in 2001
An underride has been used only 13 times since Proposition 2 1/2 was enacted. It's a fair question--what led those other communities to reduce their levy limit? The answers are instructive to Amesbury.
In 2001, the Town of Upton approved an underride for $143,477. Why? Previously, the Town had approved an override worth more then that for the construction of new school facilities. (In fact, Upton had resorted to overrides more than once before this to pay for capital and school costs that outran the allowed levy limit.) The school project came in costing less than expected. The underride was enacted to withdraw that unexpected savings from the overall tax base and return the base to a lower level.
This underride, then, was a reasonable action for the responsible management of Town finances. It was tied to specific circumstances that allowed the community to judge that it had clear excess capacity tied to a previous override and that removing that capacity would not affect services. This is in contrast to Amesbury's proposed underride, which has not been connected to clear consequences by its supporters.
In 2001, the Town of Upton approved an underride for $143,477. Why? Previously, the Town had approved an override worth more then that for the construction of new school facilities. (In fact, Upton had resorted to overrides more than once before this to pay for capital and school costs that outran the allowed levy limit.) The school project came in costing less than expected. The underride was enacted to withdraw that unexpected savings from the overall tax base and return the base to a lower level.
This underride, then, was a reasonable action for the responsible management of Town finances. It was tied to specific circumstances that allowed the community to judge that it had clear excess capacity tied to a previous override and that removing that capacity would not affect services. This is in contrast to Amesbury's proposed underride, which has not been connected to clear consequences by its supporters.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Still 'No Confidence' in the Council Majority
From yesterday's Daily News, concerning Councilor Pinierio:
If the budget is "lean as could be", why did the majority of the Council support a ballot question that would gut up to $1 million from Amesbury's budget next year? Even Councilor McClure, who proposed the underride, has stated that an underride would "cripple our schools and hurt our community." This suggests that the supporters of the underride are willing to sacrifice our community's assets, regardless of the consequences.
District 2 Municipal Councilor Mario Pinierio called The Daily News last week to further respond to criticism that the Municipal Council didn't make significant cuts to the budget submitted by the mayor last spring.
During a recent council meeting, Pinierio noted that "the mayor cut the budget $2.2 million; there was no other place to cut." Most of the increases were special education costs in the school budget and increased heating costs for the schools, he said.
"If we had cut any more, we'd be laying off people. We did the best that we could with what we had in front of us," Pinierio said. "The mayor cut ($2 million) for him to take the credit; that way the council could not cut anything because it was as lean as it could be."
If the budget is "lean as could be", why did the majority of the Council support a ballot question that would gut up to $1 million from Amesbury's budget next year? Even Councilor McClure, who proposed the underride, has stated that an underride would "cripple our schools and hurt our community." This suggests that the supporters of the underride are willing to sacrifice our community's assets, regardless of the consequences.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Comparison of Underrides
Further examination of towns that opted for an underride makes for interesting comparisons to the one our town is now considering. Those towns that did pass underrides in excess of 1,000,000, Lancaster and Plymouth, were in very different situations than Amesbury is currently. In 2003, the year Lancaster passed its $1,000,000 underride for FY 2005 by 1 vote, the town had $293 in excess capacity. Between 2003 and 2004, their levy limit increased by almost 47%, from $6.66 million to $9.53 million, with an excess capacity of $1.2 million. Plymouth had almost $2.3 million in excess capacity when they passed their $2 million underride in 1995, for FY 1996. In 1997, the year following the underride took affect, Plymouth’s excess capacity was almost $4.2 million!
Unlike the underride proposed for Amesbury, it appears that the underrides in Lancaster and Plymouth were in response to foreseen increases in excess capacity. In neither Plymouth nor Lancaster did the town vote an underride which would completely eliminate their excess capacity, as could be the case in Amesbury when the underride takes effect in FY 2009. Barring significant new growth, Amesbury would only be able to increase money raised through property taxes by 2.5% if the underride passes. To understand the potential impact, if the underride went into effect for FY 2008, new revenues from property taxes would have been limited to approximately $720,000. When compared to the school’s special education costs increase of $1.1 million in FY 2008, it is clear that the complete elimination of excess capacity can easily lead to dramatic cuts in municipal services.
All sources are from the DOR online databank,
Unlike the underride proposed for Amesbury, it appears that the underrides in Lancaster and Plymouth were in response to foreseen increases in excess capacity. In neither Plymouth nor Lancaster did the town vote an underride which would completely eliminate their excess capacity, as could be the case in Amesbury when the underride takes effect in FY 2009. Barring significant new growth, Amesbury would only be able to increase money raised through property taxes by 2.5% if the underride passes. To understand the potential impact, if the underride went into effect for FY 2008, new revenues from property taxes would have been limited to approximately $720,000. When compared to the school’s special education costs increase of $1.1 million in FY 2008, it is clear that the complete elimination of excess capacity can easily lead to dramatic cuts in municipal services.
All sources are from the DOR online databank,
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Boston Globe Reports on the Underride
Globe picks up the underride story. Donna McClure rejected the idea that the loss of $1 million in revenues would have major impacts in an approximately $52 million city budget, dismissing such assertions as "scare tactics." To read more click here.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Cable Show on Underride: Monday October 8th, 6:30 p.m. on Channel 12
At-large Candidate Allen Neale and District 6 Candidate Jonathan Sherwood will be appearing on the "All About Amesbury" cable access show on Monday October 8th, 6:30 p.m. to discuss the Underride ballot measure. The show is on Amesbury Comcast cable channel 12.
Residents who do not have cable will be able to access the video on the internet. The video will be posted by Wednesday, October 10th at this website: http://www.allaboutamesbury.net.
Residents who do not have cable will be able to access the video on the internet. The video will be posted by Wednesday, October 10th at this website: http://www.allaboutamesbury.net.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Underride Short-Circuits Positive Gains
The underride cannot be discussed seriously without including the very real financial constraints facing some members of our community. Anything with the hint of offering tax relief is going to sound attractive to someone who has difficulty paying the bills. It is my assertion, and I believe the numbers will support this, that not only does the underride provide no tax relief (Donna McClure conceded this point at a recent Municipal Council meeting), it could negate the real tax relief that would be gained through smart growth and professional management of town services.
Underride Removes Ability to Handle Unexpected Costs
One of the big benefits of having some wiggle room left between our budget and our levy limit under Proposition 2 1/2 is being able to handle unexpected but unavoidable new costs from year to year.
Special education costs are a good example of what we would lose with the under-ride. In the last 2 years, school budget increases have been driven by the demands of special needs education. Between the 2007 and 2008 budget, there was a 73% increase in this single cost, equaling $1.1 million. This represents two-thirds of the total increase in the overall school budget from last year to this year (and over 2% of Amesbury's entire budget!).
We have no control over special educations costs, between government mandates and who is attending our schools year to year. If we experienced an increase like this next year, we would already be behind the 8 ball, before we even look at anything else in the budget!
Special education costs are a good example of what we would lose with the under-ride. In the last 2 years, school budget increases have been driven by the demands of special needs education. Between the 2007 and 2008 budget, there was a 73% increase in this single cost, equaling $1.1 million. This represents two-thirds of the total increase in the overall school budget from last year to this year (and over 2% of Amesbury's entire budget!).
We have no control over special educations costs, between government mandates and who is attending our schools year to year. If we experienced an increase like this next year, we would already be behind the 8 ball, before we even look at anything else in the budget!
Amesbury's Underride would be one of the largest in the State of Massachusetts History
Only two other towns have had underrides which exceeded $1,000,000. This measure is not only rare, but it is drastic.
These figure are from the DOR website
| SHELBURNE | 1993 | (65,225) |
| AYER | 1995 | (250,000) |
| PLYMOUTH | 1996 | (2,000,000) |
| ORLEANS | 1998 | (324,000) |
| WILLIAMSBURG | 1998 | (51,580) |
| HOLLAND | 1999 | (200,000) |
| UPTON | 2001 | (143,477) |
| WILLIAMSBURG | 2002 | (35,407) |
| DENNIS | 2004 | (176,401) |
| GILL | 2005 | (10,833) |
| LANCASTER | 2005 | (1,032,724) |
| GROVELAND | 2006 | (376,968) |
| SANDWICH | 2006 | (479,336) |
These figure are from the DOR website
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Council Overturns the Mayor's Veto; Question on Nov. 6 Ballot
At a specially called Municipal Council meeting this evening, the Council voted to overturn the Mayor's veto yesterday of the Under-ride ballot measure by a 6-2 vote. Inevitably, there was some controversy and parliamentary maneuvering about it.
Councilor At-Large Donna McClure opened the meeting by proposing a motion to instruct the Clerk to place the $1 million Under-ride measure on the ballot. Her motion was not to over-ride the Mayor's veto but rather to not acknowledge it as valid in the first place. Significantly, her motion also included instructions to the Council President to take necessary steps to insure that the Under-ride be placed on the ballot and that the President be given the resources necessary to do this (lawyers?).
A discussion followed as to whether or not the Mayor had the authority to veto the over-ride or not, according to the Charter. Councilor McClure's motion clearly took the position that it was not valid. If the Council had voted to approve McClure's motion, then a crisis would have been set up. The Mayor had already received an opinion from the Town legal counsel that the veto was valid; Mayor Kezer would have instructed the Clerk to ignore this new measure and the question would have been left off the ballot (the Council not having overturned the veto).
This motion would have set up a clear confrontation--that probably could only be resolved in Court--between the Mayor and the Council. Looking to avoid this, District 4 Councilor Bob Lavoie proposed a 2nd option. He suggested that the Council re-approve the original motion to place the Under-ride on the ballot, knowing that the question would get on ballot the 'easy way' (as he put it) or the hard way (likely in court). After discussion, this motion (and not Councilor McClure's) carried the evening 6-2, with Councilor's Connolly-King and Benson voting No.
The whole question of whether or not the Mayor had the right to veto the ballot measure was not resolved, at least, it was not resolved on the part of the Council. In the end, the main point is that the 2/3 needed to overturn a veto was there, the veto was overturned and the Under-ride is on the ballot on November 6th!
Councilor At-Large Donna McClure opened the meeting by proposing a motion to instruct the Clerk to place the $1 million Under-ride measure on the ballot. Her motion was not to over-ride the Mayor's veto but rather to not acknowledge it as valid in the first place. Significantly, her motion also included instructions to the Council President to take necessary steps to insure that the Under-ride be placed on the ballot and that the President be given the resources necessary to do this (lawyers?).
A discussion followed as to whether or not the Mayor had the authority to veto the over-ride or not, according to the Charter. Councilor McClure's motion clearly took the position that it was not valid. If the Council had voted to approve McClure's motion, then a crisis would have been set up. The Mayor had already received an opinion from the Town legal counsel that the veto was valid; Mayor Kezer would have instructed the Clerk to ignore this new measure and the question would have been left off the ballot (the Council not having overturned the veto).
This motion would have set up a clear confrontation--that probably could only be resolved in Court--between the Mayor and the Council. Looking to avoid this, District 4 Councilor Bob Lavoie proposed a 2nd option. He suggested that the Council re-approve the original motion to place the Under-ride on the ballot, knowing that the question would get on ballot the 'easy way' (as he put it) or the hard way (likely in court). After discussion, this motion (and not Councilor McClure's) carried the evening 6-2, with Councilor's Connolly-King and Benson voting No.
The whole question of whether or not the Mayor had the right to veto the ballot measure was not resolved, at least, it was not resolved on the part of the Council. In the end, the main point is that the 2/3 needed to overturn a veto was there, the veto was overturned and the Under-ride is on the ballot on November 6th!
Monday, October 1, 2007
Mayor Vetoes Underride
In accordance with Section 2-8 of the Charter of the Town of
the 1st of October 2007, vetoing and returning to you the Council's measure 2007-076,
which would place a $1,000,000 underride on the ballot of the November 6, 2007
election.
I am vetoing this measure of the Municipal Council because should it pass, it would
undermine the fiscal stability of the town and be detrimental to our ability to deliver
essential municipal services. I am also vetoing this measure to make clear and
unambiguous my position on this matter. Let there be no doubt in the minds of the voters
of Amesbury that I am opposed to this underride.
I have heard the argument that vetoing this would be "thwarting the voice of the people".
That is a false argument. This is not an act driven by general citizens of Amesbury. This
is an act chosen by the council majority with Councilor Tom Iaccobucci as the author,
Councilors Michelle Thone and Donna McClure as the sponsors. It disturbs me that the
Council members advocating to let the voters decide this monumental decision already
have the power to implement the stated goal of their underride through the budget
process but have chosen not to because they know the dire consequences of such actions
and want to transfer that responsibility off of themselves. They also know that they would
have to specifically identify what services to eliminate in order to reduce the budget and
would have to answer directly to the citizens impacted by those decisions.
By issuing this veto today, I have given the Council the opportunity to override my veto
and put this matter to a vote on the November 6 ballot. I am fully aware that the council
majority has consistently voted as a bloc and has the votes to put this matter on a ballot,
either November 6 or as a special election. Given that situation, I see no need to spend
more taxpayer money for a special election.
Knowing this measure will be on the ballot, I have the full confidence and trust in the
voters of Amesbury that they will make the right decision for our future and defeat this
ballot question being pursued by the council majority. The voters of Amesbury have put
their trust in me to lead this community and to make prudent and mature financial
decisions for the long term fiscal stability of the town. I believe that voters will agree
with me that the best course for controlling taxes and delivering excellent municipal
services is through professional management and solid decision-making on a day-to-day
basis, not through a draconian style cut that dismantles our ability to deliver essential
municipal services.
Again, I expect the council majority will override my veto and put this measure on the
ballot. However, I also believe that the voters are ready to put an end to the agenda and
tactics of this council majority, and move Amesbury forward to a positive and strong
future by rejecting this measure at the polls.
Therefore, I hereby VETO 2007-076, a measure to place a $1,000,000 underride on the
November 6, 2007 ballot.
Thatcher W. Kezer III
Mayor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
