.

Rochester Sends Alternate Budget to OPC

They call for a compromise and also agree to review interlocal agreement that governs OPC.

The continued to voice their opposition Monday night to the 2012 budget and approved an alternate budget for the OPC board to review.

Councilmembers also said they weren't interested in pursuing a lawsuit against the OPC. They voted to form a subcommittee to review the interlocal agreement that governs the organization.

Alternate budget

Since the OPC budget was submitted to all three governing communities in the fall, the , while Rochester Hills and Oakland Township voted in favor of it. Much of the discussion Monday night revolved around whether the municipal parties should be reviewing line items like pay increases or just look look at the budget's bottom line.

“The agreement is silent ... there is no restriction as to the level of detail for the budget approval,” Rochester City Attorney Jeffrey Kragt said. “It doesn’t say that this body and Rochester Hills and Oakland Township can only look at the bottom line.”

Councilmember Kim Russell abstained from the vote Monday night (OPC executive director Marye Miller is Russell's mom) while all others voted in favor. Mayor Pro Tem Jeffrey Cuthbertson was absent. The revisions will now be sent on to the OPC board for consideration. The council requested the OPC put the topic on its next meeting’s agenda for a vote. The board meets at 4 p.m. Feb. 2. If the OPC board decides to make the changes to its budget, they would then need to re-submit the new budgets to Oakland Township and Rochester Hills for approval.

The alternate plan that was proposed by councilmember Steve Sage and approved includes:

  • Provision for a one-time, 1 percent bonus.
  • Deference of step increases in pay.
  • Reduction in a payment in lieu of health care benefits from $8,400 to $3,000.
  • Continuation of a previously agreed upon pension plan with a matching option.

“I think both sides need to compromise, I think this is a pretty good compromise,” Mayor Stuart Bikson said. “Again, nobody is happy. I’m not happy, I assume the OPC board won’t be happy, but I think people need to show leadership and vote and move on with this.”

The Rochester City Council has cited a 17.5 percent pay increase for Miller as one reason for objecting the budget. Miller attended the meeting and addressed the board, explaining that the raise is 1 percent and that people are being misled.

“I am getting 1 percent … 17 percent is a down and outright lie,” Miller said. “I got last year 6 percent for benefits, I was supposed to be getting them in 2012, the same I got in 2011 and we got the other benefits in 2011 that we’re getting in 2012.”

Bikson responded to Miller’s explanation, clarifying the 17 percent figure.

“I think the 17 percent comes from 6 percent 401K, the $8,400 payment in lieu, and the 1 percent pay increase — that comes out to what I understand is 17 percent," Bikson said.

"Those are the facts.”

Interlocal agreement

The council also voted in favor of forming a subcommittee to look into ways to improve the current interlocal system and Kragt addressed options the governing bodies have for reworking the interlocal agreement.

Many members agreed that the language of the agreement needed to be reviewed to avoid similar conflicts in the future when not all parties can agree. Kragt suggested requiring the OPC board to host a special meeting immediately following one of the municipalities' rejection of its budget.

“I think if this agreement were opened up it would be a good opportunity to put clarifying language in there,” Kragt said.

No lawsuit pending

At a , Kragt noted that if the OPC opened in January without the approved budget then they would be in violation of state law. After an OPC representative rose at the meeting, warning of the ramifications for taxpayers if the cities were to go to court for the matter, councilmembers assured the audience it is not in their interest to participate in a lawsuit.

“I don’t think the city of Rochester has any intention of filing a lawsuit,” Bikson said.

Councilmember David Zemens agreed.

“We’re all big boys and girls; we can work it out,” Zemens said.

Ben Giovanelli, CPA March 09, 2012 at 06:54 PM
"Always listen to the customer." - Sam Walton Daryl, you're fighting a losing battle so best to just move on. It is impossible to talk honestly about this issue and have dialog with respect and understanding. People are just too stubborn to listen and consider that others may actually have a good point, and work to find common ground. Your point is spot on and one that needs to be vetted. Sadly the old saying seems apropos here: "denial is not just a river in Egypt."
Terry March 09, 2012 at 09:15 PM
I thought I would contribute the Patch's longest running blog in its short history. This issue has been spun so many ways, it would make your head hurt. How about a couple of basic's 1. The OPC is a great institution. Everyone agrees with that, including The Rochester City Council. 2. Comparing it to Lifetime Fitness is a bit unfair. The mission of the OPC is much broader than a private Health Club. I am member of Lifetime and an over 50 taxpayer who supports the OPC and I wouldnt compare the two, 3. Being a great instituion shouldnt give the OPC a bye when it comes to financial management. The increaes for the Director were ridiculous and damaging to the reputation of the organization. 4. The OPC Governing Board is a joke political organization. Mary Miller delivers the votes for Mayor Barnett and in return he stacks it with a majority of supporters who give her whatever she wants. No other explanation makes sense. 5. The City of Rochester had full right to question the budget 6. The OPC Board will simply ignore them. They really dont care if they are operating outisde the interlocal agreement. The sad part is that it is a great organization who will pay a price for this later. Many voters are just looking for a reason not to pay for something and this is an easy one.
Patricia March 10, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Mtg at OPC this week & I finally got it-no transparency, no packets-no public input, no comments or meaningful discussion. People don't know what is going on at the OPC, they only know what the Director tells them is going on at the OPC. I filed an FOI weeks ago-got a letter back & was told only Marye Miller can approve the information I want. I had to wait till she came back from a13 day trip to S. Africa--which by the way, had it's own guides. Funny, my FOI is about travel, if Board Members have gone & gotten deeper discounts or for free, were they paid for services involving trips, if the Director has taken theses trips for free or members of her family with deeper discounts than the seniors, & why are there administrative costs, when the travel agencies do the same work included in the package & how is that money accounted for? I hope the Director did not go on these trips as a "tour guide", because it says, afternoons and evenings are on your own & this last trip to S. Africa had guides for the sight seeing ..so, funny, while I have a thousand questions on allocation and accountability on these trips, the Director is a thousand miles away on an OPC trip to S. Africa. So, my FOI is delayed. Who would have thought, that what other companies do less expensive, the OPC is doing and charging fees on top of that. Getting into the Travel Guide booking over seas vacation -that is such a long shot from what the OPC was intended for with tax dollars.
Daryl Patrishkoff March 10, 2012 at 02:57 AM
Terry, Never once did I imply that the OPC is not a great institution and something we should be proud of. What I am saying is they are not competitive, asking for huge raises, pensions, health care and building an unsustainable monster we will not be able to afford which only increases their cost. They are charging over market pricing for similar service. Where is the outrage that they are overcharging our seniors? They are offering a health club membership service and the comparison to Lifetime is fair. Why do they get to overcharge for this service with less hours being open? Just because they do other services does not give them the right to overcharge our seniors for the health club service. The OPC needs to be competitive and self sustaining for the services they provide, if people want to take their personal money they can make a donation. Since Scot seems to be proud to spend his money for the OPC he should open up his personal checkbook and write them a check, not mine. Having the taxpayers continue to increase their portion of funding and with the budget increases to pay employees uncompetitive wages and benefits should not be accepted. The Rochester City Council is the only one taking a stand and being attacked for doing so. I believe Rochester Hills and Oakland Twp should be ashamed of themselves; they are not being good stewards of our money. Ben had the greatest quote, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt".
Terry March 10, 2012 at 03:53 AM
Daryl and Pat: I happen to agree with both of you. The OPC is poorly managed (financially) and has NO real oversight. The Governing Board is a joke, which is why the Rochester City Council had to intervene. The problem is that nobody really cares. Voters are too busy spending three hours a day on Facebook and voting on Americal Idol (not a bad show). Voters only care when it hits them directly......taxes In Rochester Hills, where the Mayor are council are equally poor financial managers, the reality of new tax millages gets closer every week. Lets see how excited voters get later this year when a couple on new millages are discussed.
Scot Beaton March 10, 2012 at 05:48 AM
Daryl, that opening I used is a lift from the first page of the OPC budget... have you read their budget? I was only re-reminding the taxpayer what they pay for. 'Comparing it to Lifetime Fitness is a bit unfair. The mission of the OPC is much broader than a private Health Club.' Terry I would agree, Daryl's comparison is a little out there. just for fun the facts: Will use Ben Giovanelli math for comparison... thanks Ben OPC Director total comp (W2): $78,676 1% increase: $787  Pension contribution: $4,600 does not get till retirement* Payment in lieu of benefits: $8,400 the directors choice* Total $79,463 base salary Lifetime Fitness Center director base salary... http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Life-Time-Fitness-Salaries-E21088.htm Manager:  $75,333 average base salary MI  LFC, Bahram Akradi, chairman, CEO base salary $750,000 note: I have read through both benefit packages, LFC seems to be the better deal... Terry... don't understand your words 'The OPC is poorly managed (financially) and has NO real oversight.' The 2012 OPC budget is $100,000 under last year’s budget, and the OPC has more than $1.3 million in its current fund balance. The projected 2012 budget will ad $200,000-$300,000 to that fund balance. OPC is a $4 million budget and by the end of 2012 will have over $1.6 in million in its fund balance. OPC is not raising your taxes, and the millage has never been raised. *Ben thanks for you math, and I would agree those numbers seem high.
Daryl Patrishkoff March 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Scot, You have not answered the question, Where is the outrage that the OPC is overcharging our seniors for this service? You are taking your normal marketing spin, brining in other subjects that have no relevance to the subject and avoiding the questions that are asked. I want our seniors to have a great facility, we need to manage it correctly and give them value. If we cannot, then we need to change course. You have somehow brought race, sexual orientation, discrimination, the LFC CEO's salary comparison to the OPC Directors and many other non-relevant issues to confuse. All of these have no bearing on serving the public with subsidies and not holding them to be a better value. However, every time you know you cannot win the argument you change the subject to a flash point that implies unbelievable accusations. Back to the subject I proposed. Why is the OPC not competitive in pricing? Why is there no outrage that we are overcharging the seniors for this service? I am looking at it from a consumer’s perspective and I do not see the value in joining the OPC over Lifetime. I do not care as a consumer what the OPC budget is, all I want is a fair price, welcome to the world of free enterprise. Because the OPC is not competitive they are not serving the community members who pay for the subsidies and taking advantage of our seniors with high over market pricing. Is this a good thing?
Terry March 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Scott: Your argument comparing OPC and Lifetime salaries is ridiculous. I almost assumed you were being satirical. Lifetime is a private for- profit business. What they pay their employees is their business and up to their investors/owners. OPC is a taxpayer backed public entity. What they pay their employees is the business of taxpayers. Your comment on the budget sounds like the OPC Directors daughters (Rochester City Councilwoman). As long as the total is OK, why question it? Well Scott, I live in the private sector and we look at budgeting line by line. You are trying to spin this the same way they are. The bottom line is that the Director's total compensation for 2012 (call it whatever you want) was up 17 %. Do you, of all people (who constantly questions Mayor Barnett's spending) really believe that voters would support that? The OPC has a handpicked "rubber stamp" Board chosen by Mayor Barnett to payback the OPC Director for political support. Do you really believe they provide oversight? As someone who reads your comments regularly, you are very inconsistent on your OPC comments compared to those on the City of Rochester Hills and their City Council. Just an observation.
Patricia March 10, 2012 at 01:20 PM
OPC is a "private club" of sorts--based on age and where you live---the kicker is everybody pays for it across the board. And, even though it is tax funded and donations are raised, it is managed like a "private club"--thats the problem. Somewhere, they blurred the lines. The OPC has some on of the finest indoor tracks, courts, pool, whirlpools, and fitness ...load that up with the in-house travel agency and and you will start to see that the lines are blurred. I certainly support the day care program, the meals on wheels, and some of the others, but really, it has turned into a very private club at taxpayers expense and due to its status can reap the benefits of a charitable donation for the 29% of those seniors who use it. And then of course, the seniors still pay additional fees for the programs and use of the facility. Some can not afford the fees. They are too high. So, it has the makings of a "private business" structure. and is priced accordingly, but is not as competitive. One more reason the OPC should be brought into line as the private sector with benefits and compensation. The Director has taken this route over the years and there has been no attempt for transparency or improving communication to the taxpayers. It is closed-just like an "expensive private club" only this one uses tax dollars and never has to worry about going broke. Just get another millage renewed or increased. No worries, taxpayers never go away, they just pay more.
Patricia March 10, 2012 at 03:33 PM
The OPC site is a calander of events for the immediate only. Archives are not there, minutes, agendas or packets-in additon,using many of the links brings up blank pages.Use the contact and it goes into a big black hole.For the amount of funding poured into the OPC the web is set up to be one sided-just look at the portion the Directore devoted to her biased budget commentaries under the guise of "questions". Everyone should be asking that if a few years ago, the software and hardware could have been upgraded for no cost by Microsoft-who most graciously offered this to the OPC, why wasn't it accepted? This is a good question for Marye Miller and Jack Dalton that stopped that little process dead in its tracks. Part of my FOI also requested information if members of the Director's family were directly or indirectly employed by the OPC in or under service and in what capacity & was that job posted so the public would be aware & be afforded the same equal opportunity to apply for it. These are interesting questions. The fact that a person passed away several years earlier does not negate the responsiblity of the Director to not deal with archaic or failing hardware/software and updates or updating.The fact taxpayers now have to pay for this when it could have been pretty much free is poor leadership and management. Ask Jack Dalton and Marye Miller, you can't get a reasonable answer. Like I said, taxpayers and their money never go away.
Scot Beaton March 10, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Daryl, 'Scot, You have not answered the question, Where is the outrage that the OPC is overcharging our seniors for this service?' your quote... Daryl, not feeling the outrage form our seniors in the community, prove your comments, and at least read the first page of their budget. 'the LFC CEO's salary comparison to the OPC Directors' your quote... put that one in for fun...Terry saw through it. LOL "However, every time you know you cannot win the argument you change the subject" your quote... Daryl the subject is OPC, also I win all arguments with you, you make it to easy. Remember the 'Patch' is not all about you it's all about the residents who read it. Daryl, find the funding... a political science class at Oakland University is a good suggestion, that is who Rochester Hills uses, and do a customer satisfaction survey; of seniors in the area and seniors that use OPC when your done you'll find out your comments as usual are off base.
Scot Beaton March 10, 2012 at 06:48 PM
Terry, 'Your argument comparing OPC and Lifetime salaries is ridiculous.' your quote... Daryl brought this up not me, I just felt fun to jump into his ridiculous argument.  We do need to agree we get our selves into a catch 22 when we don't like the answer then we can't compare... when we do we compare; private and public sector. 'Your comment on the budget sounds like the OPC Directors daughters (Rochester City Councilwoman).' your quote... She and I have read the OPC budget... those are just the facts... to fault an organization with that kind of fund balance to me does not make sense. If there are line items in the budget that you have concern with bring them up to the governing board. 'you are very inconsistent on your OPC comments compared to those on the City of Rochester Hills and their City Council.' your quote... yes and no Terry, OPC and City of Rochester need to solve this an move on. OPC timing was all wrong... were just now coming out of the great recession, and I would agree with Ben this was to much to ask for in one year.
Scot Beaton March 10, 2012 at 06:49 PM
Patricia, 'No worries, taxpayers never go away, they just pay more.' your quote... Patricia taxpayers do go away, my point this only cost me personally $32.94 every year to help out the 'Greatest Generation' my parents...and I'm happy to pay. OPC is not raising your taxes, and the millage has never been raised. Speaking of exclusive clubs...DDA's. Can't get more exclusive than that... they get to siphon off tax dollars and spend the money on them selves.
Scot Beaton March 10, 2012 at 06:50 PM
Daryl, Terry, and Patricia, thanks for you comments have a great weekend. P.S. speaking of seniors my dad turns 88 today... and has written a great book on WWII. http://www.amazon.com/They-Also-Serve-Ian-Beaton/dp/0738823910 Going to call and wish him a happy birthday, my parents live in AZ.
Daryl Patrishkoff March 10, 2012 at 07:53 PM
Scot, We visited the OPC and Lifetime to see which one my wife and I wanted to join. We approached it as a consumer purchasing a service and assessing value. When we toured the 2 facilities we were impressed with both of them, they were a bit different, but both would meet our needs. When we reviewed the hours there was a major difference, Lifetime is open 24/7 except closed on Christmas, the OPC has limited hours, and our interest was less. Then we reviewed the pricing of the package we were interested in. Both facilities offer different packages for people’s needs and expectations. My wife and I are interested in using the pool, exercise equipment, open classes and the option to pay for personal classes if we desired. We were expecting the OPC to be less cost since they are subsidized by taxpayer dollars, we were surprised when we learned they were much more in cost and less hours available for use. You can spin this anyway you want, however the facts do not lie. Just because the seniors are happy in the surveys does not mean they are not being overcharged for this service. We will never fill out a survey at the OPC, because we are not going to join, why would we pay more for less of a service? So our dissatisfaction will never hit their radar. The OPC is taking advantage of the seniors who do not know how uncompetitive their pricing is. Where is your outrage that they are taking advantage of them? Answer the question.
Patricia March 10, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Daryl, You are correct on the cost. And on the survey(s) --29% of the seniors use only some of the services- and not consistently. It's is a low percentage considering the budget-many have told me it is too expensive or "too fancy" -and not what they want-It is their opinion. Then less than 29% respond or comment. The surveys are pretty general & positive comments are greatly encouraged by a few staff members and the Director--lobbying efforts of a different kind. Valentines Day was just one example of how all the great comments and surveys come about, the OPC had "ghost writers" to put your thoughts in their words..... The hours are not good for us seniors that work full time--I use to like to use the track and equipment, but I was rushing from work-the hours are really geared for those that are retired full time--not us full time working seniors.
Sam March 11, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Daryl and Pat, I know you ego would like to think your tax money supports OPC, but sorry. OPC is completely user funded for thei services. The tax money only pays t\for transportation, meals on wheels and some of the building up keep. Daryl, If you and your wife compared Lifetime and OPC, and you thought Lifetime was a better deal, all you have to do is join Lifetime and be happy, that's your choice and no one would question that. We choose OPC because we are happy with what OPC offer us, and how dare you telling us what to chose or to imply OPC is mis-managed.
Sam March 11, 2012 at 04:04 PM
PAt, I see as usual you are full of demands and questions. I have ideas too. Why don't you stop being a back set driver and leave the OPC management to Marye Miller and her straff? Why rochester council never addresses any of the concerns of those who speak at the meetings (except for when someone makes comments in favor of the council of course)? Why don't you and Daryl (and maybe a few others) stop moaning and complaining that you pay $32.00 a year so that the homebound seniors can have transportation and hot meal? A bunch selfish and egotistical people who are always concerned about themselves. If you don't like the fees and hours at OPC, then join whatever facility that suits your needs. End of story.
Patricia March 11, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Well Sam, still angry I see--it's about more than money -its about allocation, core mission, fairness, equality, transparency. You never address the issues. Just name call--again, read one of my solutions...hire back the people the Director let go because OPC didn't have the money to afford them...that would be the reasonable thing to do. Looks like 1. you don't address the issues, 2. you listen to gossip, 3. you name call and don't offer any solutions and 4. you continue to bully and want to suppress Amendment rights--So, you are in favor of giving the Director a whopping increase-good for you---I am not. And this has nothing to do with cutting services. I didn't let go of drivers, the Director did.
Patricia March 11, 2012 at 07:46 PM
Sam, no one, and I repeat no one told you or anyone else to make a "choice". Choice of services is up to an individual. The fact was pointed out that many of us seniors can't use the facility due to hours of operations and in some cases the cost is more that what is offered by other entities right in our own community. That's a fact. Like it or not. Is the OPC mis-managed? Your words. I questioned decision making and leadership. Mis-management is a whole other animal. Obviously, from your anger, you don't want anyone in the "public sector" questioning the OPC about anything-- I come from the old school of thought, the more I hear that, the more I question. You know, where there is smoke, there is fire. As a taxpayer I have the right. The reason things get out of control, or over budget is because no one looks at the stuff line by line. Thats a right Sam. Do you look at your expenses item by item? I do. It's how mistakes don't' happen. It's being responsible. Imagine a car repair bill, $900.00. You took the car in, bottom line, $900.00-you pay it, you look at the items and guess what, you didn't ask for line #3, and most importantly, you didn't need it..you still gonna pay $900.00 or are you going to ask questions? Sam, the OPC needs transparency-and a lot better communication at the very least. Plus, reasonable fees and most important benefits that aren't greater than the working 42 year old who is helping pay the bills at OPC-
Terry March 11, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Sam: If you accept ANY public funding, you are accountable to the taxpayers. If the OPC survived on funding from services and private grants, they could do and pay watever they want. They dont.... In my mind it is the OPC Governing Board who are incompetent. I can't blame the Director for asking for more money , Thats the American way... For them to approve spending 17% more dollars for the Director (doesn't matter what you call it) shows they are competely out of touch with taxpayers. I happen to think the OPC is a great organization and a jewel of our community. I also think taxpayers will look for a reason not to support something they dont use. They have hurt the OPC and it's future support by their actions. I am a fan and i am skeptical about approving future requests. I suspect I am not alone.
Ben Giovanelli, CPA March 12, 2012 at 01:23 AM
This thread = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDthMGtZKa4
Sam March 14, 2012 at 01:39 AM
Pat, I get more truth out a spam email than I get out your posts. Same BS, different day. you keep demanding answers from your twisted lies. You are not getting any just like you don't answer anyone's questions, Just me me me as usual. By the way I don't know what you are talking about Marye Miller letting drivers go. Wake up and come to the real world. Don't put words in my mouth Pat. i never said OPC is or was mis-managed. That's just one of the lies you and rochester council is trying to make the tax payers believe. What about the hours of operation at RARA or the Library. I want those hours changed, I want their budget analyzed, I want the $11000 raise for the RARA director taken away.....and many more....Get the picture? You and rochester council are picking OPC apart becuase of hidden agenda and personal gain and mad and upset because no one is listening to your crap. You keep making up reasons why rochester has to have more representation on the OPC board, but the truth is that rochester is not entitled to more representation because they have less contribution and smaller residency, and therefore get less representation. That's the fact, regardless of what lame excuses you and the rochester city makes and it has nothing to do with Marye Miller or the Rochester Hills Mayor. It has to do with how the political system is set up, and you would have known that if you had finished high school.
Patricia March 14, 2012 at 02:06 AM
Sam- "if you had finished high school"--your words.....IF I HAD FINISHED HIGH SCHOOL..... Well Sam, surprise..I did finish and graduated from Rochester HIgh School at the age of 17- with well above average grades, and I mean well above. So, now that we put that to rest, I guess from the rest of your post, I would know then, uh? Because I did graduate from high school, right?
Sam March 17, 2012 at 02:32 AM
Pat, unfortunately for you it doesn't mean that you'd know. Judging by your posts here, you don't, which doesn't say much for Rochester H.S.. Or perhaps you do know, but you think others don't and would believe the rhetoric that you post here.
Patricia March 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Give it up already Sam. Everything you have tried to slam me with has not worked because facts and truth come out. And your latest post, trying to rectify your post before that one is absurd. RHS is a fine school. Your posts have been about nothing more than name calling -no solutions no compromise. It appears you are trying to divert the attention from the OPC problem(s) at hand. Doesn't work. So throw in another post about me, name call some more and have a good day-you are not worth my time--and from what I have heard perhaps I need to be more cautious in my where about's where you are concerned.
Sam March 18, 2012 at 03:08 AM
Pat, you are the one writing obsurd posts here. Stop your nonsense posts, trying to pass crap as legitimate political concern is insult to me and everyone else, including the smart RHS graduates. I'm not tarnishing RHS, you are. I bet they all know better to think your political demands are wrong. As long as you write garbage here, I'll be here to correct you. You, Rochester Hills Wannabe Council member Laurie Puscas and rochester council's demands and foot stumping has no basis and we know it. It is obvious that you, rochester council and Laurie Puscas have personal and political gains for doing this.......
Kristin Bull (Editor) March 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM
For anyone following this thread and the OPC issue: The OPC Board recently voted 8-0 to lower the payment in lieu of healthcare benefits from $8,400 a year to $5,500 a year, retroactive to Jan. 1. It will save about $8,700 a year.
c daldin March 20, 2012 at 01:37 PM
The change was mandated by a new state law. They only did it because they had to do it in order to be in compliance with the law. It was not in response to any request by the RCC. Thanks so much for updating this thread.
Patricia March 20, 2012 at 01:38 PM
The only reason this came about was information from the State--I and others had mentioned and blogged about this openly at meetings for quite some time. This is a step in the right direction-but it is still higher than what a premium can be purchased for-- but again It is a start towards a compromise. The wheels at OPC are slow to turn.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something