Have a question? Contact Us
Show List View

Attachment:  11-749-1367525125.pdf
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 30-Apr-2013
Last Updated By: Tracey Toscano
Last Updated: 30-Apr-2013
Publish Date: 30-Apr-2013


The Cafritz Oversight and Monitoring Committee will meet on May 2 in the Media Room at the University Park Elementary School at 7:30 PM

The Cafritz Oversight and Monitoring Committee will meet to discuss critical issues related to the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision and the Detailed Site Plan with the Cafritz Development Team.

The meeting is open to the public.

Agenda attached.

No Comments | Add Comment

Attachment:  11-542-1357965186.doc
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 11-Jan-2013
Publish Date: 11-Jan-2013



No Comments | Add Comment

Attachment:  11-542-1357964760.pdf
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 11-Jan-2013
Publish Date: 11-Jan-2013



No Comments | Add Comment

Cafritz Soil Sampling Activities
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 25-Jul-2012
Publish Date: 25-Jul-2012

The Cafritz Team Informed Riverdale Park and University Park on July 24 that They Would Begin Taking Soil Samples as soon as the End of the Week. Riverdale Park and University Park Do Not Consider this a Violation of their Covenants or the District Council Conditions

On the 24th of July, the Cafritz team advised the Town that, beginning as early as the end of the week, they will begin soil borings on the Calvert Tract property. They anticipate that a small bulldozer may be needed and used to clear some brush. Both Riverdale Park and University Park will monitor this activity in order to ensure that they do not violate the intent or letter of our covenants with them or the conditions set forth in the District Council's order of July 18, which prevent disturbance of the land on the property until a number of conditions are met, and initial grading and building permits are issued. These conditions do not prevent engineering surveys or the taking of soil samples as long as they do not involve the destruction of trees or the reshaping of the land.

As new information becomes available in regard to the various stages of this development, the Town will continue to post here. If you observe activities on the site that you believe might constitute a violation of either the covenants or the District Council conditions, please do not hesitate to inform us.

No Comments | Add Comment

Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 7-Jul-2012
Last Updated By: Len Carey
Last Updated: 7-Jul-2012
Publish Date: 7-Jul-2012


The Cafritz rezonging application has been placed on the Prince George's County District Council Agenda for July 9. The posted agenda indicates that there will be an agenda briefing at 1 PM; the Maryland Book Exchange case will be first on the agenda, with a proposed starting time of 1:30. This case could last for up to 2 hours or more. The Cafritz rezoning application and another property are scheduled to be taken up thereafter.

No Comments | Add Comment

Attachment:  11-542-1328286373.pdf
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 3-Feb-2012
Publish Date: 3-Feb-2012

Draft of the Route 1 Corridor Market Study, released on January 27.

The attached study was commissioned by College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale Park, University Park, the University of Maryland and the Prince George's Economic Development Corporation. Please keep in mind that this is a DRAFT and has yet to undergo a final edit. However, it appears to be an excellent and complete study of the Route 1 market area. The data is drawn from reputable sources.

If you find errors or items that need to be corrected, please note them here as a comment and we will pass them on to the Project Director, Stuart Eisenberg, the Executive Director of the Hyattsville CDC and to the authors of the study, Bolan Smart.

No Comments | Add Comment

Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 22-Oct-2011
Last Updated By: Len Carey
Last Updated: 22-Oct-2011
Publish Date: 22-Oct-2011

Overview of Cafritz Postings

The purpose of this posting is to provide a brief overview of the most recent postings on the Cafritz property development plans. In general, there are four types of postings:

1. A Draft Town Position Paper. This is in draft form and is open for comment by Town residents and discussion by the Town Council. After it has been reviewed and formally accepted by vote of Town Council, a cover letter will be developed and submitted to the Park and Planning Board as part of the Town's testimony before the Board. It is our understanding that the first public hearing before the MNCPPC Planning Board is scheduled for December 15. Generally, the Board votes on the same day as the project is heard; however, it is not unusual for them to carry a project over and make a final decision at a later date.

2. Background papers developed by Town staff, consultants and elected officials represent a second category of documents. At this time, only two of these have been released: A first item on the transit oriented character of the proposed development on the Cafritz property and a second item on the potential traffic impacts of the site.

3. A third category of documents are the summaries of Public and Council discussions of the Cafritz property. At present, these consist of the summaries from the July 18 public presentation and hearing, and from the September 19th Town Council discussion.

4. A fourth and final set of documents consist of various presentations and submittals made by the Cafritz team, as well as other official documents that are pertinent to the process. These documents make up the majority of the documents posted.

All the documents are open for comment. We only ask that you maintain a civil approach. If you identify spelling, grammar, or syntax errors, please convey them directly to the authors. We will be glad to fix any such errors. If you bring facts to bear that are new to the discussion, please cite your sources so that others may verify the data, or further understand the context. We are in the process of compiling a bibliography of materials to be submitted in support of our position and will gladly include items brought to our attention by our readers.

Finally, it is worth keeping in mind that the development of the Cafritz site will impact the Town for decades to come. The stance that we take should be a shared one and should look to the future as much as the present. Change is inevitable, but that does not mean that we cannot guide and shape it.

Keep an eye on this site. We will continue to post to it and will from time to time post updates on specific items.


Mayor John Rogard Tabori

No Comments | Add Comment

Attachment:  11-542-1316132588.pdf
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 15-Sep-2011
Publish Date: 15-Sep-2011

Draft Letter to Cafritz from Riverdale Park

Attached you will find a copy of the letter that the Riverdale Park Mayor and Council has drafted and is considering submitting to the Cafritz development team. University Park's Town Council will consider the items and concerns raised in the letter on Monday, September 19 along with other issues and concerns specific to UP. Riverdale Park will take the letter up on September 22.

No Comments | Add Comment

Riverdale Park MUTC
Attachment:  11-542-1315601685.pdf
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 9-Sep-2011
Publish Date: 9-Sep-2011

The Riverdale Park Mixed Use Town Center Plan (2002)

Attached is a complete copy of the Riverdale Park Mixed Use Town Center Plan (MUTC), published in 2002. If the Cafritz property is joined to it, the guidelines in it will to a lesser or greater degree govern the development of the site.

No Comments | Add Comment

The Pedestrian Fabric
Attachment:  11-542-1314046531.doc
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 22-Aug-2011
Last Updated By: Len Carey
Last Updated: 22-Aug-2011
Publish Date: 22-Aug-2011

Comments on the Debate on Pedestrian, Bicycle and Vehicular Travel Distances between the Cafritz Property and the Metro and MARC stations in College Park and Riverdale Park.

Attached please find a discussion of the distances between the Cafritz property and the Metro and MARC stations in College Park and Riverdale Park. Keep in mind that the recommended distance between a mass transit rail station and the commercial area that it serves should not exceed 1/2 mile to achieve to greatest impact on individual usage of mass transit. Also keep in mind that while as the crow flies measures are useful as a starting point, care should be taken to account for the actual distance that a person will have to walk. Obstacles may increase the travel/walking distance and discourage pedestrian "commuting." The frequency of transit service is also an important variable. Currently, the Green Line provides fairly frequent all day service. At present, the MARC line only provides limited AM and PM peak hour service, although discussions are under way to increase the frequency of service.

View Comments (4) | Add Comment

Cafritz Discussion Site
Category: Cafritz Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 17-Aug-2011
Publish Date: 17-Aug-2011

The Cafritz Discussion Site is UP!

As promised, the Cafritz discussion site is UP. You may post comments, questions, and/or responses. Please keep it civil -- we will remove uncivil comments -- and factual. If you have questions about the site, i.e., how to post documents, etc., please ask me offline.


John Rogard Tabori

View Comment (1) | Add Comment

American Community Survey Data on Education and Income
Attachment:  11-542-1300117298.xls
Category: Mayor's Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 14-Mar-2011
Last Updated By: Len Carey
Last Updated: 14-Mar-2011
Publish Date: 14-Mar-2011

American Community Survey Data on Education and Income for College Park, Hyattsville, Riverdale Park, and University Park.

Attached is an EXCEL file (97-2003 format)containing select education and income data from the American Community Surveys from 2005-2009 released on December 14, 2010. The tables have been reformatted to make them easier to read. For the full tables and methodological notes see the American Community Survey at www.census.gov/acs/http://www/.

No Comments | Add Comment

Prince George's State Delegation Bills on Ethics and Planning Reform
Category: Mayor's Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 26-Feb-2011
Last Updated By: Len Carey
Last Updated: 26-Feb-2011
Publish Date: 26-Feb-2011

Prince George's County State Delegation Proposed Bills on Ethics Reform and the Planning Board

Below you will find a link to the proposed ethics reform bills submitted by the Prince George's State Delegation. These bills are intended to reduce the risk of corrupt dealings by the County Council, and to a lesser extent the Office of the County Executive, when reviewing and/or voting on the award of County Government contracts, or property developments before the County Council when sitting in their capacity as the District Council. These bills have the potential for profoundly influencing the manner in which citizens may impact land development in their neighborhood, as well as in the County in general. For those of you who are interested, I will post a series of comments over the next few days, and will welcome comments on those posts. Because of potential developments at Prince George's Plaza, the Cafritz Property and other places in our immediate vacinity, these bills are of vital importance to our community. Please give thought to how we might improve them or support them as appropriate.

The bills and related documents may be found on the documents/development page of this website [ www.upmd.org/?documents&wc=category_id&wv=130 ].

No Comments | Add Comment

Park and Planning Meeting on New Legislation
Category: Mayor's Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 27-May-2009
Publish Date: 27-May-2009

IMPORTANT MNCPPC Meeting on May 28

Community Meeting on Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations

Location: M-NCPPC Parks and Recreation, Administration Building, 1st floor auditorium, 6600 Kenilworth Avenue, Riverdale, MD 20737

Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009
Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (Doors open at 6:00 p.m.)

Location: M-NCPPC Parks and Recreation,
Administration Building, 1st Floor Auditorium,
6600 Kenilworth Avenue,
Riverdale, MD 20737
Event Description: Do you have concerns or would you like to learn more about the county's current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations? Join the Prince George's County Planning Department as we examine the following issues:

General Plan policy recommendations and implementation issues associated with current regulations
Best implementation practices from across the country

Contact: To RSVP or get more information, contact the Prince George's County Planning Department at 301-952-4584. Or visit Comprehensive Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.

View Comment (1) | Add Comment

Letter from the State Retirement and Pension System
Attachment:  11-542-1241486688.pdf
Category: Mayor's Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 4-May-2009
Publish Date: 4-May-2009

Letter of May 4, 2009 from the Executive Director of the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System attesting to the soundness of the Fund

Please see the attached letter from the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System. It should allay at least some fears as to the soundness of the pension fund.

View Comments (6) | Add Comment

Financial Viability of the Pension Plan
Attachment:  11-542-1241302788.pdf
Category: Mayor's Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 2-May-2009
Last Updated By: Len Carey
Last Updated: 2-May-2009
Publish Date: 2-May-2009

The Security of the Maryland Retirement and Pension System (SRPS) and some Potential Risks

[See the attached file for better formatting of footnotes and other items]

A number of individuals have asked questions about, or suggested that the Maryland Retirement and Pension System (SRPS) is underfunded, and as a consequence the Town risks incurring significant future costs if it enters the plan, thereby putting pressure on the Town to raise taxes. Others have gone further and indicated that because the SRPS is allegedly underfunded, the future benefits of the employees who enter the system will be put at risk. The purpose of this post is to review these claims and concerns.
Prior to discussing each of the above points, it is useful to introduce some background information and clarify a few points about the Maryland Retirement and Pension System. First, while the SRPS' Annual Report and website present as if the system was a unitary one, it is not. The pension plan that the Town is considering joining is the Employees Combined Plan for Maryland Municipal Corporations (ECPMMC), which is reported on separately.1 Second, a great deal of confusion exists as to what is meant by the term "underfunded." Public plans differ from private plans in that because of how they are structured, the level of underfunding that they can tolerate without creating unacceptable risks is greater than for private pension plans. Two estimating procedures for determining the lower limit of liability without undue risk have been created, the first of which establishes the lower limit at around 80%2; the second allows for greater variation and relies on the rate of return to determine the lower limit, generally yields more conservative results, and is somewhat easier to calculate.3 Although the second method is more volatile than the former method because it is dependent on a single input indicator, it will be used here because it is easier to compute and understand.

As of July 1, 2008, the Employees Combined System had an actuarial value of approximately 2.9 billion dollars and actuarial accrued liabilities of 3.3 billion dollars, for a funded percent of 88.5 percent.4 Using the formula developed by Gene Mumy (1/(1+i)2, where i = the annualized growth rate of the pension fund), it is possible to assess the liability level necessary to sustain stable contribution levels, an important public policy objective. At the assumed growth rate of 7.75% per annum, the minimal funded liability is 86.1%.5 At an assumed growth rate of 5% per annum, the minimal funded liability should be 90.7%.6 The historical evidence suggests that the Maryland Retirement and Pension Plan fund has an annualized rate of return of around 5.95%, which translates to an 89.1% funding level.7 From this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the fund is well run and safe.

Of course, this does not answer the concern that the significant downturn in the market since July 1, 2008, has increased the likelihood that the annual contribution rate assessed to the Town would increase. As of March 31, 2009, the Maryland Retirement and Pension System Fund had lost 28.35% of its value since July 1, 2008.8 Assuming that the market does not recover this loss, and that it becomes necessary to recover it through an increase in the annual contribution rate, what would this increase be? At an assumed annual growth rate of 7.75%, discounted at 3.5%, the increase would be 4.45%, which works out to be an annual average increase in tax liability to each property in University Park of $57.25.9 Because of the cushion that was built into the original long-term budgetary savings that would be realized from joining the plan at the 70% level of back service funding, it is unlikely that these cost increases would have a significant impact on the budget or property tax rates for at least 15 years.

A comparative perspective is useful here. Currently, our 401(k) and our life insurance plan add a 7.27% burden to our annual wage bill. If we were to add a long-term disability insurance plan to the Town benefit package to match what would be received through the state pension plan, the burden rate would go up an additional 0.86 percent with a three year fixed certainty of no rate increase; thereafter the cost could increase based on group claims. This would result in our burden costs going up immediately this year to 8.13%, or 0.55% over the pension plan. Further, if the Town were to increase its contribution rate to the 401(k), as some have suggested, to match surrounding jurisdictions and the national average, this would also result in an immediate increase of between 1-3 percent in annualized liability. Assuming only a 1 percent increase in our 401(k) contribution and the purchase of long-term disability insurance, our immediate increase in liability would jump to 9.13%. In addition, the salary freeze would be lifted, increasing the wage bill by 3% for a total increase of 4.86% of pension related costs in the FY2010 budget. If the state pension plan contribution rate is increased from 7.58% (the FY 2010 rate) by the amount of 4.45% that is projected above to 12.03% in FY 2011 that remains less than what the Town would pay immediately and which may increase or need to be increased in the future, particularly if additional improvements are made in the 401(k) plan.

The analysis presented here suggests that the risks of joining the Maryland plan are relatively low. Applying a widely accepted procedure to analyze liability suggests that the fund is safe and appropriately funded, particularly if appropriate counter-measures are adopted to recover the losses of the past year. When a future cost risk analysis is conducted assuming a worst case scenario that the market does not allow for a recovery of funds, future contribution levels rise above the historical norm, but do not require a rise in our taxes in the immediate future and can be absorbed within our budget.

1 Fiona Liston and Margaret Tempkin (December 2008), "State Retirement & Pension System of Maryland (as of July 1, 2008): Actuarial Valuation for Maryland Municipal Corporations, including the Correctional Officers' Retirement System and the Law Enforcement Officers' Pension System," Cheiron Corporation: McLean, VA.
2 Stephen D'Arcy, James Dulebohn, and Pyungsuk Oh (1999), "Optimal Funding of State Employee Pension Systems," Journal of Risk and Insurance 66(3): 345-380.
3 Gene L. Mumy (1978), "The Economics of Local Government Pensions and Pension |Funding," The Journal of Political Economy 86(3):517-527.
4 Liston & Tempkin, op. cit., 10
5 Mumy, op. cit, 521; the 7.75% growth rate or "valuation interest rate" is drawn from Liston & Tempkin, op. cit, Appendix B-1 and is the standard adopted by the Maryland SRPS as of July 1, 2008.
6 The 5% annualized growth rate is the estimated long-term growth of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) based on the daily closing values from October 1, 1928 to March 1, 2009. This value should not be construed as the value used by the Maryland SRPS.
7 D'Arcy, et al, op. cit., 364.
8 www.sra.state.md.us/investments/Quarterly_Update-31Mar09.pdf Accessed May 1, 2009.
9 This calculation represents a different outcome than originally carried out, which resulted in a contribution increase ranging in size between 0.90 and 1.39%. The new calculations are based on information received from the SRPS on Friday, May 1, 2009 as to the methods that would be used to calculate the new rates in light of the market losses suffered by the SRPS Fund.

View Comments (3) | Add Comment

Pension Plan Technical Paper
Attachment:  11-542-1238258683.doc
Category: Mayor's Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 28-Mar-2009
Last Updated By: Len Carey
Last Updated: 28-Mar-2009
Publish Date: 28-Mar-2009

Pension Plan Technical Notes

In the attached document, residents may find a series of technical notes and backup information that show why I arrived at the 70% back service obligation funding level, which I proposed to Council and the Town on March 23. The document presented here is in a WORD 2003 format.

If you have questions, please submit them here and I will attempt to answer them Sunday night.

View Comments (11) | Add Comment

Pension Plan FAQ
Category: Mayor's Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 15-Mar-2009
Publish Date: 15-Mar-2009

The Pension Plan Proposal: The Mayor's Perspective

Proposed Pension Plan
Questions & Answers

Since January of 2008 the Town Council has been exploring the possibility of Town employees participating in the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS), a defined-benefit plan for state, local and municipal employees throughout Maryland. A number of questions have been posed to me concerning this plan, and its impact on our budget and taxes. Below are a number of those questions and my answers.

Will my taxes go up?
No, taxes will not rise for 5 years based on the Town’s current projections (see upmd.org). Please keep in mind that the Town does not assess properties, they simply establish a town tax rate. In order to insure that your taxes do not go up, Mayor and Council will have to adjust the rate on an annual basis.

Why should we join?
The plan would help in attracting, hiring and retaining employees and police officers in addition to cost-savings through reduced turnover and the need for retraining. Many of our neighboring towns are currently in the plan or provide retirement plans superior to University Park’s.

Hyattsville, with a median household income of $51,625 (2000 Census), participates in the SRPS and offers a 401(k). Recently Berwyn Heights, with a median household income of $69,000 in 2000, joined the SRPS. In 2000, University Park’s median household income was $96,349. College Park is a union shop with relatively more generous retirement and disability benefits than ours, and Riverdale Park provides a self-funded pension plan equivalent to SRPS.

What retirement benefits do University Park employees currently receive?
Since 1986, our employees have had a 401(k) plan. The 401(k) is portable. It fully vests after 5 years. Should UP participate in SRPS, the current 401(k) would be discontinued and Town contributions thus far would be discounted against entry into the SRPS. We provide a one-time insurance payment of $50,000 in case of death while employed with the Town. We do not provide disability insurance.

What are the benefits of the proposed Maryland Pension Plan to Town employees?
Many faculty members and public school employees are enrolled in the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System, along with state, local and municipal employees. It is similar to the pension funds available to federal employees. SRPS offers a significantly greater retirement income, disability insurance that would replace their salary at 2/3rds of their current level up to the age of retirement, and significantly better on the job death benefits to their family in the event of such a tragedy than our current system.

What is the cost of the current 401(k) plan to the Town?
Between FY 1986-2006, the Town contributed 3% of salary and matched an additional 1%. The match rose to 2% for the years FY 2007 and 2008. Since FY 2009, the Town contributes a baseline of 4% of each employee's salary and matches an additional 3% of the employee's salary if they contribute an additional 3% of their salary. In this fiscal year, this created a potential obligation of $81,000, although our actual liability will be under $60,000.

What prompted Town Hall to look into the Maryland Pension Plan?
In 2007, I and the department heads initiated a review of the cost drivers of Town services. The high level of turnover within the police force drew immediate attention. Since the police department’s inception in 1964, there have been approximately 90 officers. This means an average turnover of two officers per year, or 25% of the force. Police turnover is very expensive, adding 18% or more to personnel costs each year. Officers’ exit interviews indicated our lack of an adequate pension plan was a primary reason for leaving.

This led to a wider review of our retirement plan, specifically the 401(k). During the review, it was noted that in all but two instances, the 401(k) did not provide an adequate supplement to social security to allow individual's to retire at the recommended proportion of 65% of the average of the their last three years of salary even after social security benefits were included. In addition, it was noted that the 401(k)'s performance had deteriorated significantly over the previous 8 to 10 years. Since the initial review, it has deteriorated even further.

It seemed worthwhile to explore the alternative of a defined benefit pension plan, which would either supplant or complement the 401(k) plan. Based on a balancing of potential benefits, cost, and risk, it was recommended to the Town Council that we fund an actuarial study by the Maryland State Pension Board to determine the cost of joining the Maryland State Pension Plan and pay for back service liabilities at the 100, 50, and 33 percent level. In February of 2008, the Town Council authorized an expenditure of up to $7,500 to conduct this study.

What would the cost of the proposed Maryland Pension Plan be to the Town?
There are two cost elements: (a) the cost of the Town's annual contribution, which would be 7.58% of the total wage bill of the eligible and participating employees in the coming fiscal year; and (b) the cost to finance the back contributions for previous service. The latter would range from approximately $100K to $157K per year for 15 years, depending on the level of back service that was funded. The Town’s 401(k) contributions would be discontinued.

Would the proposed plan make it easier to retire on disability and would that cost the Town?
Yes, the new plan would make it easier to retire on disability. No, it would not involve an additional cost to the Town. In contrast, if we were to buy private disability insurance for our workers and one or two individuals were to retire on disability, a significant increase in the disability insurance cost could result.

Are there costs associated with not joining the pension plan?
Yes, due to three potentially significant factors: (a) wages, (b) health and insurance costs, and (c) retirement costs. If individuals must wait until 67 to retire, the most likely outcome of not joining the plan, the Town will operate from a higher wage level through approximately 2015. UP’s wage schedule applies to 21 individuals; currently 9 are at the top of their scale. Older work forces increase health and insurance costs. Finally, our 401(k) contribution levels will be applied to a higher wage level resulting in a higher absolute cost to us.

In addition, there is an intangible cost in that as our current work force retires, we will find it increasingly difficult to hire replacement workers of the same quality as our current work force. The relative compensation provided to new workers is less than what was offered in the past, or in comparison to the surrounding communities, all of whom offer better retirement and disability benefits.

What savings would be realized by joining the Maryland Pension Plan?
Over time, the Town would realize reduced costs of labor, health and insurance costs, and retirement costs.

Does the Maryland Pension Plan produce a better competitive position in the recruiting and hiring of Town personnel versus the 401(k)?
Yes! All three immediate surrounding jurisdictions offer significantly better retirement packages.

What are the costs of waiting?
A higher entry price at any level of back service funding and a likely increase in the borrowing costs. Each year that we wait to join the program adds 25 years of relatively higher priced back service liability. Interest rates are lower than they have been within decades, and probably will begin to climb again by next spring when we would next be able to enter the program.

View Comments (31) | Add Comment

A Mayor's Welcome
Category: Mayor's Blog
Published By: Len Carey
Posted: 11-Aug-2008
Publish Date: 11-Aug-2008

Welcome to the Mayor's Comment Page

It is a beautiful Monday and I thought I would send this first welcome message out on our enhanced web site. Have a great week.

View Comments (17) | Add Comment