Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Why Greenville’s Park Board is Needed Now More than Ever (by Kate Kerg)

Last night, City Council approved a committee report which included a recommendation that legislation be drafted to put an initiative on the May ballot to eliminate the Greenville City Park Board. The Greenville City Park Board was created by a vote of the people in the early part of this century. By statute, this three-member volunteer board (they don’t get paid a dime), is responsible for the protection and management of the city’s park properties. The funding and property for the parks was originally privately donated, but over the decades has moved to being primarily funded through taxpayer dollars.

For over a year, City Council and the City Administration have been planning to bring the city parks “under city control.” This has been on most of the council member and administrator priority lists which have hung in the city building. The reason, they say, is to save over $100,000 in personnel expenses and possibly more in time by merging the park and street maintenance departments and equipment. They stated at a January 15, 2010, meeting that this would be done largely by eliminating a “level of management” which refers to the park superintendent and possibly the recreation director positions.

As a member of the Greenville City Park Board, I have agreed with them that we can merge the functions of the park maintenance and street departments and save the taxpayers dollars. In fact, over the last year, the park board reduced their budget by over $100,000.... We cut actual maintenance expenses by over 20% without eliminating any key programs! To my knowledge, no other department in city government did this, despite the warnings of loss of revenues.

There is value in combining the departments so that the park board and superintendent can focus solely on future development of this precious asset in our community. By farming out the maintenance, the park board and superintendent can then focus on outside funding, outreach, further development of the facilities such as the swimming pool, Harmon Field, and north park, and collaborate with other groups in our community to improve these services. This ultimately will attract people into the city more frequently which only helps the local economy.

If saving city expenditures is the goal, this can be done under the current structure. It can easily be done through the budget process, simply by city council giving the park board less money. While I feel this is not wise, the park board has shown they can deal with any cards they are dealt. And, according to the city law director, nothing currently prohibits the park board from working with other departments in city government to provide the necessary services needed to maintain the parks.

The city council president stated that he feels the measure passed by the citizens of Greenville creating the park board over 90 years ago has “outlived its usefulness.” He said it is time for a change. I philosophically disagree with this statement. In my opinion, we need more representation by the citizens in government, not less, especially at the local level. Further, by having a park board, there is an extra layer of both accountability and protection from those in the future who may not agree that our parks are “the jewel of the community,” to quote the mayor.

Council members have stated that if the initiative to terminate the park board passes, they will move to have an ordinance in place to create a park advisory board. While this seems rooted in good intentions, I would argue that without being bound by the Ohio Revised Code, this board will eventually become inactive and ineffective, just as the city recreation commission became defunct.

Throughout the last year, many of the discussions regarding the park were done outside of publicized public meetings, either in administrative meetings or, I believe, in executive sessions. They did not include the park board or the public until park board members insisted that there be public discussion on this topic. While these discussions may not have been illegal, administration and council certainly did not work to include either the park board or the public in its decision to move toward changing the government of the parks. This has alarmed me greatly as a resident of Greenville.

The park board is a stunning example of American liberty. The early architects of our country and state understood that most matters should be governed by many citizens at the local level. They allowed statutory cities to vote in park boards for an added layer of local control. This is fundamental to our freedom as a city, state, and nation.

Our parks are a loving testament of the generations before us (namely Fred Coppock) who had great vision and were so willing to share it with our community. It is a legacy that I always want to be protected. I feel strongly that the park board is needed now more than ever.

I truly hope that members of City Council, the mayor, the public safety director, the law director, and the city auditor will re-think their position on asking the citizens to terminate the park board. This three-member volunteer park board is truly an asset to the community, not an outdated nuisance. Moreover, if this initiative is on the ballot, I hope the citizens of Greenville will vote against any measure to remove the park board’s authority not just for this generation, but for those to come.

Kate Kerg is a member of the Greenville City Park board. She can be reached at katekerg@buchyfoods.com.

53 comments:

  1. Kate I love it! Thanks for bringing this to my attention, because like most I had no idea about this. And as always well put! Its about time the citizens of this country start standing up instead of letting our rights and liberties be taken by our government. And we need to start at the local level.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have seen this coming and am greatly saddened by the proposition to remove those positions which impact our community so positively. If anyone has had a child in any sports program, they know the value of the park employees, especially Jeff Pequignot and Tracey Martin. Both dedicate much time and energy to provide an inexpensive, positive outlet for hundreds of children in our community. I fear that changing this area will greatly impact (in a negative way) the services which this community enjoys and expects.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This should not be allowed to happen. Greenville has so many "litle things" going for it - and this is one of them. I hope it's not lost.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I shudder at the thought of the City taking over the parks, They seem to be able to mess up everything they touch, sort of the "Midas touch" in reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am a member of the Greenville Park Board after serving 10 years on the Greenville Recreation Board. I want to mention that the current Park board is divided on this issue and do not agree in the direction that the City wants to take with the Park. However, if you would like to hear the objectives of the above article, I would love to hear from you. I can be reached by email at kkbeam@woh.rr.com or I am listed in the phone book.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the discussions have been going on for over the past year, why not bring this to light earlier? Why is this now all of a sudden a big deal and being wrote about? I understand the concern, but why is it only a concern now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow I think this looks like somebody is blowing some nice smoke up somebodys rear. I have tried to figure out what exactly our park supt has done for many year. My understanding is he is way more than overpaid than many other department heads, come on folks, I think the combination of both the parks and street department would be a great asset. So much more would be done in the park than has taken place as of the last several year. Oh wait, the lagoons were just redone, have the powers to be tell you exactly who the people where that took care of all that and made it happen (honestly). I think many things will be brought to light that many may not realize, and not because they have been behind closed doors, give me a break.
    I think the city and the majority on the park board are in agreement that there is way to much bureuacratic purse strings.
    Oh heres another one, how bout a brand new backhoe that sits in a park building while other departments in the city have break downs of exactly the same type equipment.
    Stay Tuned all, Im sure you will all find out the truth and your decision will not be swayed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To the first 4 posts on this subject, why dont then we just put on the ballot another issue, a parks & recreation levy, all of us rich greenvillians could surely support a new school, a much needed park supt, oh wait we got a new courthouse in the works too dont we, wow, Im impressed at all the enthusiam. Ok, now all of you should wake up because its all just a pipe dream.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The merger and cost savings can take place now. It doesn't require the park board to be removed. I am in favor of the two departments merging under the current structure. Since the council voted to put this issue on the ballot on Tuesday, I thought it was important to write about it since it is an issue of public concern that many may not know about.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I watched last nights council meeting have since spoke with a few involved people and I my understanding is that they would combine services and the rec director would still be intact, and the park supt would moved to the street dept (not as a park supt) as an employee. So I think with those type of suggestions, this would be a win win type of situation and still retain services, programs and all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What exactly has everyone received from our money from a park supt, where is the 5 year vision that I think someone called a wish list for new items in the parks, etc. What funds have been brought in to the park in the last several years. I would think we would have gotten much more bang for our buck with one individual responsible for that.
    Also the people should do there research and realize that this isnt something new with the combination of services. Piqua recently combined and many others for the exact same reason as we are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If it saves money do it as long as they put the money they save towards the new school.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Heres a thought on how to save money.Cut 3 city council positions and put that money towards financing the new school.That would save a lot more than $100,000.Im not sure what it would save Im just being sarcastic.I bet it would save a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I want to thank everyone who has read this article and appreciate you considering its merits.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The city taking over the park-sorry I think its a big mistake. The next thing you know we will be told another tax increase is coming. By the way what has happened to those double sets of swings that was a great workout for the adults in the park. They just disappeared and I am curious where they went and why.Let's open the roundhouse back up,that could make the park some money. There are people who need a job and would love to work there for pay of course. I used to attend the Sunday bandshell programs and that roundhouse was always busy-why is it kept closed?

    ReplyDelete
  16. anonymous jan 21 5:35
    your going to see tax increases no matter what is done, remember your in america, whats your is the governments. And do you not realize the moneys that are saved by combining services?
    That roundhouse deal I am sure closed down because of money issues, thats the issue when you have to pay someone it pretty much offsets the profit you make on that 2 cent tootie roll. Not real rocket science to figure that out.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Guest #1, do you even know what your talking about, give an example of the city "messing up everything they touch"!! Personally, I think they do a great job on our streets. I also think the 2 departments should combine, it's not a news flash that our current park superintendent is way overpaid and does not do to much for the pay he makes. We all know that his father in law got him in when was mayor, not saying he isn't qualified but what does he do???

    ReplyDelete
  18. What does any of this money that can be saved by the city have to do with a new school? It is a completely different subject. Our superintedent is being defiant to us taxpayers and that is not right, matter of fact, shame on her!

    ReplyDelete
  19. To dukeblackohio
    cutting three city council positions. Each council member for the city of greenville makes $4,400.00 a year. Multiply this by 3 equals $13,200. Your 100,000 minus 13,200 comes to $86,800 difference in you being sarcastic. People like you need to get a grip and start researching before spouting off. Its no wonder so many people do not have a clue of what goes on around this community.
    The $100,000 savings that is being talked about is two positions on the park, park superentindent & rec director $60,000+ & $40,000+ respectively.

    ReplyDelete
  20. to gary maybe your the one that needs to get a grip Do you not relize a freaking joke when you see it or read it.No wonder no new business, want to come to greenville every body is so up tite it is un real.I no what city council makes and I no how to do the math.So play your research card some where else I have better things to do than set in front of this computer and research something like that .LIke trying to find a JOB witch there is none to be had.So get off my back about a stupid joke that I wrote on this web site.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh yeah Gary your saying that the park super makes more than a city council member?I no something is wrong with this town.P.s.I will be moving soon so dont evan mention it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wow, good thing you are moving, obvious you dont have a clue, by the way the park super actually makes more than the mayor or the city auditor. And everyone wonders why they are trying to save money by getting rid of the position.
    Better get packin

    ReplyDelete
  23. Maybe thats why they dont do a good job.They dont get paid enough to do a good job.Oh yeah im packing and will be gone before long but that still dont save you because I can still get on this site no matter wear I move LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The position of Park Superentindent was truly a gift that was given to his son-in-law by a former mayor. I do believe the parks could continue to be under the direction of the park board but the personel can be handled through the street and utility department. I believe the park is down to a skeleton crew of only 2 or 3 men. The park superentindent is making almost as much as all the men working for him. I know there was several volunteers working in the park last summer but volunteers are not something you can count on and how would they be insured if they had and accident, i.e. workers comp and etc.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The Park Superentindent is paid a lot more that other Greenville Dept. Supervisors. Look it up - their salaries are public record. Combinding the Park and Street Dept. makes a lot of sense. The Park Board will still be intact. Are you aware that the St. Dept Supervisor agreed to take on these additional resposibilities without any additional pay in an effort to keep all the current park employees.

    And to the person who made the comment about the lagoons..........I'm pretty sure that was done with donated money from individuals. And, btw, the Street Dept. did some of the work.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If Iam not mistaken and Iam sure someone will let me know didn't that certain mayor leave us all a little gift when he left? DEBT I just started on this web site. I cant believe some of the stuff going on. I cant believe they make $100,000 they should have taken a cut a long time ago. When Fraley was here they were cutting this and that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Darn strait our former (Christian Mayor) saw what was coming and he got the heck outta here leaving a mess for the current mayor. Sure hope everyone that voted for him is happy!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. I am very very thankful that we have a new park board member who isn't afraid to ask questions, what an asset Kathy Beam will be and, she's proving just that!

    ReplyDelete
  29. If the City takes over the Parks, will it be like the Federal Government trying to create the health reform? Too much government already. If, they need to turn the Parks over, why not to the Darke County Park System.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Darke County Parks is its own entity and has nothing to do with the greenville park system. I would ask all of you that have replied - what would you do? What do you want to see in our parks? What type of recreation programs should be given? Everyone seems to have the answers but doesn't want to help with solutions!

    ReplyDelete
  31. The citizens of this community I think want to see so much more that doesnt actually take major money in many cases. How bout one, this has driven me nuts for quit some time. I drive into the park, as you come to the stop sign and look left, a wonderful looking waterfall that looks like enough water coming out of it that I could pee with.
    How bout the band shell area, couldnt it be a little more friendly to our elder citizens, ramps, more concrete pathways, etc.
    How about doing something with north park, I think its been left well stagnet for sometime. It doesnt even currently have a sign at the entrance for god sakes. How bout maybe some general maintenance period would put a light on things. And dont give me this crap about, well they cut there budget and employees, dont they have hammers and nails?
    I think many have seen this, we need to see some progress with the little things, its not always about the big ones, those are icing on the cake. As I said before It doesnt doesnt take a rocket scientist to just get your job done. By the way who oversees all these employees and make sure these things get taken care of? The park supt?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Actually the money that is being paid to those in charge, I reaaly think its there responsiblity to know what kind of things I want and need and what needs to be taken care of, and what programs, etc., it makes it was too easy for all of us to give a list, did anyone poll the citizens, ask, etc until now?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think going under the city would be the best for the park. Kate, you neglected to state that the way you cut the budget $100,000 last year was by eliminating 3 full time positions.

    We do not need a Recreation Director when there are very few programs. The RD can't stay busy enough as it is and fills his time by doing the park maintenance work.

    You also neglected the mention the hugh salaries of the two positions you are wishing to salvage.

    ReplyDelete
  34. How about the office only being open 11-1 pm? That's really nice. How about the fact that people come up to the office to sign up for programs, to reserve shelters, or take care of other office business and the "public office" is closed?

    Ya, you really care about the people. I could go on, and on.....

    ReplyDelete
  35. 11-1? what a joke, dont we have salaried employees to take care of this. Sounds like many issues need to be addressed that obviously havent been taken care of. What happens with rec programming because of this? Im sure this has upset some, do they just get a recording or something.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Sounds like to this point the park board hasnt had much control over much. Looks like a combination and an advisory board as Mrs.Kergs article states would make for some accountability to get some things straightened out.
    Why would an advisory board be so wrong? are there underlying issues here thats not being discussed? whats up?

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Guest #1, do you even know what your talking about, give an example of the city "messing up everything they touch"!! Personally, I think they do a great job on our streets."

    Start with the fire dept. stuff that has been going on for a few years, they lost the tswp. and they have had nothing but bad press since.
    As for the streets? are you talking about plowing the snow?
    I see every time it snows pretty well the main streets with several plows on them and none on the side streets.
    And on Broadway they plow all the snow right up onto the sidewalks, so the shopkeepers can shovel it back onto the streets, I always wondered why they didn't try to find a different solution, trying to navigate the sometimes huge piles makes it quite a challenge to get from a parking spot to the walk.
    And the street Super got his job because his Dad was mayor.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Joy Marchal did a great job as Park Board President. She wanted a Master Plan for P & R. She loved and still loves the Park. The current PB President made the comment once about closing North Park. Yes, that was shortly after they closed South Park. That doesn't sound like a plan for the future for Parks and Recreation to me.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree with Guest#1. The city needs to worry about the departments they already have. Guess#1 commented on the city fire department. I believe they have the largest budget for the city. There is no way they are busy enough (going on fire calls or whatever call) to support having a full time department. The city website has the GFD having 667 calls in 07. Tipp city a vounteer fire department had 408 in 07. I used the year of 07 cause that was what i could find on tipp city wbsite. There is a differences of 259 calls, but there is a big differences in the cost of a full time department and a volunteer department or even an part time department. My suggestion is the city get a grip on the departments they already have. Such as maybe cutting them down, to save tax payers money.

    ReplyDelete
  40. GREENVILLE is a Statutory city! Police, fire, water, streets, sewer that comes first... I value those departments to keep me safe! I ALSO value our parks! However in our form of government we have to look at the over all picture...If you live here, deal with it - you all use the above services.. i see that everyone on here wants to complain but no one wants to step up to the plate and offer solutions... typical!

    ReplyDelete
  41. How come every year at fair time they pave the streets by the fair grounds and no other?I have noticed water street is terrable along with a couple of others.I just want to no why the south side of town is paved every year and no other street is?Washington was paved last year right before fair time and that was it.Oh yeah talking about plowing snow.The last snow we had I seen 4 yes I said 4 plow trucks bumper to bumper on the same street and it wasnt a side street.Were is the logic in that?

    ReplyDelete
  42. The way it sounds to me the City of Greenville comes to the plate with a purposal that would save $100,000 a year and people dont like it. George wants to complain about the FD but if his house catches on fire he should would like it when the FD shows up in 6 minutes instead of 15. Kate Kergs I believe works for Buchys, I wonder if they give hundreds of thousands of dolloars a year to a board to run one of their departments?? That would not be good buisness, I dont think. My question is why all the sudden is the park board wanting to do all this saving. Kate wants to put the work on the Street Dept. so they have to deal with all the head aches. There are three positions one the park board, I believe, and she the only one against it. So it can't be that BAD!?!?!?!? Sounds like someone is power hungery to me!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous January 24, 2010 1:11 AM, Do you understand what you read. I did offer a solution. Downsize the fire department to at least part time/ volunteer. That would save a hugh amount of money. By no way will it make Greenville any less safer.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sad to see all this fighting, bickering & anger over the city trying to do the right thing by saving money & combining departments & this certainly isn't something new. This issue was reported in the Advocate & Early Bird sometime ago & simply has yet to be acted on. I strongly urge the city to move forward on this & emliminate further waste. Salaried as well as hourly employees could & should handle additional responsibilities & a few have experienced their willingness to do just that for no additional pay, i.e. our great street supervisor! In addition, the city mayor's office could & should handle scheduling of park programs with citizens, doing sign up through that office therefore eliminating the need for the park office as well as the 2 currently over paid management personnel. I would personally like to see the elimination of the safety director saving another $60,000 plus but doubt that will happen but wishful thinking! Life's to short, so why not come & work together & stop this hostility, fighting & help make OUR community better for ourselves & one another! Some of the previous posts sure don't make us look so well on behalf of our city or citizens!I think we can do better if we try, what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Nice reply Anon-Jan. 24th, 5:30 pm. I would agree it would be nice to work together. I do have to disagree with you however on your comment to eliminate the Safety Director. With our inexperienced, and rarely in the office Mayor, he's the only competent body in that office.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The wages of city employees are public record, request to see them if you like. The Parks and Recreation Superintendent’s salary is in the same pay range as all the other city department heads. However there a two differences. The Parks and Recreation Superintendent position is the only position description among department heads which requires a college degree. This degree must be in the field of parks and recreation or related area. Also the Parks and Recreation Superintendent is the only department head position that is exempt. This means this position does not receive overtime pay no matter how many hours worked in a workweek. All other department heads are non exempt positions and are paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Overtime is paid at 1.5 times the employee’s hourly rate. Therefore to compare what the annual wages are for any city department head one needs to look at total W2 earnings not just the base salary. In the end the Parks and Recreation Superintendent position is paid less than other department head due to the overtime earnings that other department heads receive. For example, when you see the Street Superintendent repairing a water main break or plowing snow after 3 PM week days or on the weekends overtime is being paid. When you see the Parks and Recreation Superintendent working with the youth at Recreation Programs in the evenings or weekends, overtime is not getting paid. The current Parks and Recreation Superintendent was not given the position by the then father in law mayor. The Park Board hires any and all Parks and Recreation employees. The Park Board hired the current Parks and Recreation Superintendent because he had a college degree in Parks and Recreation Administration and had experience in administration, management, finances, and personnel from his previous position at Greenville Technology, Inc. Another plus was the current Parks and Recreation Superintendent was currently residing and working in Greenville, thus having hometown connections and pride. The then mayor intentionally did not get involved in the hiring process in any manner due to the fact a relative was an applicant. Ask any then Park Board member (Joy Marchal, Biff Anderson, and Mike Muhlenkamp) why they hire the current Parks and Recreation Superintendent and they will tell you the same. The comment regarding the Street Department performing work on the lagoons is correct. However their manpower and use of equipment cost was charged back to the Parks and Recreation Department as required by the city’s inter-departmental billing procedures. Another note of significance is the Recreation Director’s earnings are much less than any union worker on the parks or street maintenance crew. Therefore neither the Parks and Recreation Superintendent or the Recreation Director are as high paid as what most think. There was a state performance audit conducted by the city a few years ago. This audit compared many areas including wages with other similar sized and peer cities to Greenville. This audit showed that the wages of the Parks and Recreation Superintendent and Recreation Director were comparable to the peer cities. Also the Parks and Recreation Superintendent and Recreation Director had their wages frozen for cost savings purposes by the Park Board for the past 2 years and again in 2010 while other city department heads have received 3.9% wage increases annually. The current Park Board continues to implement cost savings measures. However City Council and City Administration continues to cut the Parks and Recreation budget while increasing spending in other departments again in 2010 with the finding of now unexpected funds. One can now decide if the Park Board is needed. It seems they are and will continue to be responsible with their funding, personnel, and operations

    ReplyDelete
  47. Tomorrow night, Jan 26th at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, we will be holding the monthly Park Board meeting. We as a board value all opinions. Please join us. As I have been reading the comments, many of you are passionate about this issue.

    Thank you
    Dale Musser

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous at 6:23. Please call me at my home, it's in the book, and I will keep our conversation confidential. Everything you said is correct and well written.

    Thank you
    Dale Musser

    ReplyDelete
  49. Great street superintendent? Not so fast. He cannot manage his full time and seasonal workers and keep them occupied and busy. Maybe they work 4 hours out of the 8 hour day they are on the clock. Now we want to give him 3 or 4 park employees to supervise. Sounds like more workers can now slack off at the street dept. What savings is there in having more workers slacking off? It is not Kate Kerg or the Park Board seeking this move and so called savings. It is City Administration and City Council. Read the article stupid! Park budget is getting cut by City Council. $50,000 they want to cut from the park fund. Use this for a parks master plan. That is about how much it would cost. How can the Park Board accomplish a master plan or anything else with annual budget cuts by City Council? Park Board and employees are doing an excellent job with what they are given. Not a good idea to move parks to street.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The focus of this Park Board elimination and merger topic seems to have everything to do with the pay the Parks and Recreation Superintendent is receiving. I know the Parks and Recreation Superintendent. He does have a Bachelor of Science degree from The Ohio State University in Parks and Recreation Administration. This job was not a gift to him from anyone. He was hired by the Park Board after numerous extensive interviews conducted by Joy Marchal, Park Board President at the time. He left a very good job with very good pay after 16 years of service at an excellent local company, Greenville Technology, Inc. His contributions at GTI were valued highly. I know his decision to leave GTI was not easy. He left GTI to serve the citizens of Greenville in his field of study, especially the opportunity to positively impact youth through sports programs. I know he has great pride in Greenville and considers it an honor and privilege to be in a position to give back to his community and pay forward in his hometown. If this merger is about saving the City his salary amount, why not look at other options that can save the City $60,000? Cannot other City departments handle a slight cut so that the Parks and Recreation Department is not taking all the hits year after year? Now with the City’s “improved cash position” of $892,000, is saving $60,000 all that important since City Council and City Administration desire to spend this entire new found surplus during 2010 anyway? What about the other city department heads? Are the citizens getting their taxpayer dollars worth out of all of them? Maybe yes, maybe no. City Council and City Administration needs to look at the big picture instead of attacking one department (each year it is budget time) as if they are the reason for the City’s financial woes.

    ReplyDelete
  51. How does Anonymous Jan 25th know so much personal information about the Superintendent?

    A person can hold a college degree and still not do the job properly. Happens all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "George wants to complain about the FD but if his house catches on fire he should would like it when the FD shows up in 6 minutes instead of 15." No it really doesn't matter to me. I have insurance that would take care of my belongings and house. Don't get me wrong, I would hate to have a fire and hope it will never happen. As far as the point of being in the burning house and a volunteer department taking longer to get to your house. It didn't help the people that were 2 minutes away from a full time department.

    ReplyDelete

Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */