Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Just a Reminder of 2012 Property Taxes in Downtown Edison!

It's that time of year again and everyone in Downtown Edison & the County are working on their budgets for Calendar Year 2013 and the next stab at your property taxes.

Remember, your property tax bill includes Municipal taxes, County taxes and the School tax. The property tax rate is per hundred of assessed value on your tax bill. So, if you live in that mythical average home assessed at $176,700 - then your 2012 total property taxes were $8,356.14 ($176,700/100 x $4.729). If you didn't, then take your home's assessed value and divide it by 100 and multiply that times $4.729.

If you want to see the breakdown of that $4.729 by Taxing Entity for 2012 - use tax rates in the table below or go here:

Anyhoo, keep your eyes and ears open for the 2013 Budgets soon to be coming to a neighborhood near you!

Monday, January 28, 2013

Duh..Top 10 Reasons

why Edison’s all-Dem Council wants to move School Elections to November:

10. Because Rob ‘March on Trenton’ Karabinchak couldn’t keep track of a few pennies on the Muni-side of Your tax bill – so that eminently qualified him to go after the Big $ on the School-side of Your tax bill.

9. Because you like the idea of consolidating the School Tax under the Local Dem Party Umbrella for greater efficiency of distribution.

8. Because you like trading off your right to vote on the largest portion of Your Edison Tax Bill just so you can vote for some more Dem Party Candidates in November.

7. Because you miss the good old days when one-hand washed the other and both hands picked your pocket.

6. Because it was unfair to take away that fast-tract promotion to Lieutenant.

5. Because the Council wants to eliminate those darn Failed School Budgets from coming before them anymore and doing nothing - in spite of the wishes of the Residents.

4. Because there’s something to be said for ‘Homegrown’ as long as the Council decides what that is.

3. Because the Council has a better track record than the Board of Ed in hiring the ‘Best & Brightest’ talent available.

2. Because you really want 80-Cents of every $ of the School Budget to go for Salaries & Bene’s again - since it’s all about the Kids.

1. Because it’s all about who gets to decide how that Big Fat Pot of Money over there on Mythomania Lane gets $pent.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Edison Council wants the Best & Brightest for the Town!?!

As long as it's them!

Hmm..such sincerity brings a tear to my eye!

Edison Council making move on Board of Mythomania

Uh..Oh - looks like the all Democratic Council in Downtown Edison isn't too happy with the goings-on over there on Mythomania Lane. According to Rob 'March on Trenton' Karabinchak at the January 24th Council meeting - he wants to take up moving the BoE Elections from April to November at the next Council meeting! Yikes!!

Looks like they want a shot at taking over the Board of Education tambien!

Maybe you recall, back in January, 2012 , the Governor signed a law, which established procedures for moving the date of a school district's annual school election from April to the General Election in November. Some 468 school districts made the change last year and Edison was part of a handful that chose to stay with the Annual April Elections.

Quickly, thought for the change being that you get some school budget savings and increased voter participation. Further, the new levy cap greatly diminishes the need for a budget vote and those who move to November no longer have to submit their budgets for voter approval as long as they stay within the 2% tax levy cap.

This law permits a board of education, a municipal governing body or voters (by way of petition) to move the April annual board election to the date of the November general election. Under this law, the board and governing body each have independent authority to pass the resolution to move the April election to November. It is not required that both the board and governing body agree on the change of election date. A resolution to change the date from either government office is controlling.

Simply stated, the Council doesn't need the Board of Education's approval and can act unilaterally.

Now, this is something you most assuredly want to pay attention to. In this one-party town, you really, really, really don't want to see this happen here in Downtown Edison.

Too much control for too few!

It's Official - EDO 1 0 Residents

Well, just watched the January 24th Council Meeting and wouldn't you know it - we can't have a full-time mayor, at least according to the Faulkner act. So, being duty bound as they are, the council had to amend 2-2.1 of the township code to take out the reference to full-time. Seems former Mayor Jun 'RforMe' Choi had it put in and no one told the council at that time that it was illegal when they voted for it. They didn't get good advice. Unlucky for Diehl!

Unlucky for us too - now we're back to having the next mayor of Downtown Edison picked by some 156 Democratic committee people. Surprise..surprise! Bet you didn't see that coming!

Here's how the vote went:
What was amusing about this vote wasn't the vote (we all knew how that was going to go) but the discussion that took place. With respect to the council, only Diehl, Lombardi & Prasad had any council comments and they all hung their vote on the fact they're just removing the illegal portion of the ordinance.

Well, that's not true, Karabinchak did speak out against comments from a resident but Karabinchak's comments were so far out that they deserve their own section below.

Now, Diehl said that by law, the mayor's job can't be full or part-time and they're just correcting that bit of ordinance that was illegal. He also said being mayor isn't really a career (someone should of asked him how long he's be there) with only one or two terms and there's no stability in it to expect it to be full-time. He also believes that next part-time mayor will put 40 hours on the clock all the time.

Prasad hung his hat on the illegality too and explained a tad bit of how Choi wanted a raise and gave some numbers and to make the job full-time - but did raise the issue of compensation and no matter if full-time or part-time, he knows everyone will give their best effort.

Lombardi indicated that he did some research and was only redacting that portion that was illegal.

Now, what can you say about Karabinchak? Rob 'March on Trenton' Karabinchak. His ramblings so bend the concept of reality and credibility that even some of the residents were calling him out.

'Whether part-time or full-time, he's 24/7 and most important part of any position is management style, vision and strategy - those are the more important skills. He means no disrespect but full-time, part-time is just words.' Continuing on, 'he believes anyone with the flexibility at their full-time job, like him, will have the time to come running back and forth to the Municipal Complex. Part-time, full-time is not the issue for him - 24/7 is!' What a guy!

But here's the best part, when someone in the audience asked him how many hours he put in a week on his full-time job - he said 100 hours! Then, the logical next question that was asked - then how many hours could you put in as part-time mayor - he said another 100 hours! How could you not laugh at that and certainly residents in the audience did!

But here's the interesting part - no one on the council wanted to answer the simple question, asked many times by those in the audience - why don't you just put it up as a ballot question and let the people decide? It wasn't until the question kept being asked that the township attorney said that he'd have to do some research but didn't think you could under the Faulkner act.

Ok, let's say that's correct-a-mundo and you can't put it up as a ballot question. Couldn't they at least do a poll and get the residents position on whether they preferred a full-time or part-time mayor? They poll everything else here in Downtown Edison.

Reason why I say that is I counted 8 residents going to the microphone with half of them laying out valid arguments why we need a full-time mayor and the other half arguing the other way.

You know who argued the other way? Let's see, we had a Dem Freeholder, and I won't say it was Charlie "I Abstain" Tomaro - so I won't. There was a Dem Committee person, and a member of the Council's Finance Committee and not sure but the fourth, someone who looks like he may want to fill one of those empty council seats when everyone move up the chess board.

Now, there you go - a 4-4 tie and under these circumstances, a tie has to go to the residents! If I'd of known this was going to go on, I would of went to the meeting and it would of been 5-4 for the residents and a lot of fun discussing these issues with the council members.

Anyhoo, legal issue aside, these were some of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard on the merits of part-time/full-time mayor - especially from those making them on the council. Let's hope that they can come up with something better to argue their case to the residents for part-time at election time. They certainly left enough holes in their position.

Unfortunately, what you've gotten at that meeting is what we've always gotten here in Downtown Edison - the perils of one-party government coming alive and a process that closes out the residents and limits the opportunities to be mayor to those in the pecking order of the local Democratic Party. Does it really matter what reason they come up with to do what they did? If it wasn't the legal issue, it would of been something else. Do you really think they weren't going to let their people run for mayor? It's all about the control of the town by a select few at the expense of all of us.

But hey, that was fun to watch.

Not for nothing, but at that meeting Karabinchak also stated that he wanted the Council to look at moving the BoE elections to November at the next Council meeting. Hope someone is paying attention to that over there on Mythomania Lane.

PS - just a thought - Karabinchak should take a lesson from Lankey - don't say anything. Every time Karabinchak opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it and scores points for the other side.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Some important dates over on Mythomania Lane

Well, just noticed that there's a Caucus Meeting tonight over on Mythomania Lane. From the agenda here you can see what they want to tell you about the meeting. These things really don't tell you very much and they're not even signed anymore. Guess you have to be there or watch the tape of it to see what's behind all those one-liners in the agenda.

A few things that stick out. As usual, there's no summary of any finance resolutions up for a vote on Monday. Then, there's the mid-year goals review - whatever that means. If it's the Board's Goals for the School Year 2012-13, you can see what they are and my take on them in the September 24th post. Also, there's some kind of resolution they're going to discuss in closed session.

Some important dates to keep in mind concerning the Board of Mythomania:

02/25/13 - Petition filing deadline for April Annual School Election (before 4:00 PM)
03/06/13 - Drawing for Ballot Positions for School Board Candidates
04/16/13 - Annual School Board Elections

Also, keep in mind that it's time again for them to ask for another big bucket of money to support their Out-of-Control $pending - aka, the School Budget for 2013-14, which will shortly be coming your way. By this time, it's likely that the board members have a draft (or will shortly) of it and we're not likely to see the preliminary budget until the end of February for a Final public hearing on the School Budget for 2013-14 set sometime at the end of March.

And, let's not forget any closed door sessions going on for a new Bond Referendum. You want to keep an ear out for that since it's not likely they spent $20,000 for a Demographic study just for the heck of it.

Anyhoo, you might want to pay attention to what's going on over there on Mythomania Lane these days - it's a tad bit of a busy time of the year for them.  

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

What's that Smell coming from the Council Chambers?!?

It's not coming from their right to legislate - it must be from their willingness to disrespect the many for the benefit of the few - yet hide behind us doing it to boot! What can you say about someone willing to do something like that?
Anyhoo, watch the vote this week and see who steps up and who doesn't. See who explains their vote too.

But hey, at least we're comforted in the knowledge that politics in Downtown Edison remains the same - it's all about winning - not the truth!

Sunday, January 20, 2013

We're doing it for You! - gotta like that Council!

Just read the piece - 'Edison Leaders bid for higher offices' in the Star Ledger here. It's amazing how easily the hypocrisy spreads over there. Don't understand why the council members feel the need to hide behind us to further their political career path.

Hey, if you want to move up in the pecking order of the Dem Party, then say that's what you want to do and go ahead and do it - but don't say you're doing for all the rest of us in Downtown Edison with your silly, yet self-serving quotes in the article above.

Here's what I mean about these quotes;

If this is 'aimed at allowing all the others of the 100,000 residents who are interested in running' to run, then why would 'you have a lot of a domino effect' like 'chess pieces moving around the board?'

Doesn't that mean all those others of the 100,000 need not apply?

Geez, if the council members want to change the law so they can run for mayor, then just step up and admit it and stop with all this silliness that you're doing it for the rest of us Not in line on the chess board!

Enough already with this silly hypocrisy. Nobody's buying it and it's a tad bit disrespectful to the 100,000.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

EHS - $5M Infamous 5-Year Lease Purchase Agreement!?!

Well, my friends over there on Mythomania Lane approved this lease purchase agreement for the additional classrooms and labs back in the November 19, 2012 Action Meeting. It’s taken this long for me to get the documents you would need to see to understand the cost, financing and tax impact of this latest circumvention of the voter on capital additions. That’s why these type thingies are infamous and not famous – because they allow the board to incur debt for capital additions without voter approval. Anyhoo, still haven’t gotten everything – but let’s see what we can piece together so far.

Now, I went to that meeting and in the typical Board of Mythomania style, the $5 million was listed on the agenda – but they said nothing about it, provided no details as to cost and financing and just opened it up to the public for comments. Maybe it’s me, but how could you comment if you didn’t know any details about the project, the cost, the financing or anything else other than it was $5 million? 

A Board of Mythomania paradox wrapped in a enigma – they can’t show you anything until after they vote and after they vote, it’s too late to say anything anyway. But, in all fairness, they did have some of their consultants there to make a presentation on the financing but the board chose to let them give their presentation after asking for public comments rather than before. That was a nice touch.

Kind of déjà vu all over again - it’s like when Super Dr. Richard ‘Build the Trust’ O’Malley’s first contract was up for a vote by the board and they asked for public comments – but didn’t hand out the contract or tell you what was in it before they asked for your comments! But I digress about the lack of transparency with this board, so let’s move on.

So, I asked a few questions, (like I did with O’Malley’s contract when the board asked for comments) like how did you come up with $5 million, are there any state grants, what’s it gonna cost a year and what’s the tax impact for residents – you know, silly questions you’d might want to know before they put us $5 million in debt.

Here’s what was said. The $5 million consists of 20,000 square feet at a cost of $250.00 per square foot. (which includes both building construction costs and other allowable costs). The debt service (payment of principal and interest) will be approximately $1.5 million or so a year but those principal payments won’t kick in until after the first two years (until after the JPS lease purchase is paid off). The tax impact for the average home will average $11 over the 5 years of this agreement. Of course, they approved the project and off to the races we go.

Soooo..I ask for the architect’s floor plans, schematics, report to the board, any correspondence between the architect and the board and their cost per square foot calculations for the project as well as the financial consultants report.

First thing I get is a report with cost per square foot estimates but not from the architect but the construction manager and not in the typical NJ DOE cost estimate format which breaks down building construction costs by building system and provides for other allowable costs as a percentage of building construction costs. His format is greek to me so I asked if he could put it in the NJ DOE format, as well provide some simple answers to help me understand his report. 

Never heard back from him. 

After following up a couple of times with him and then expressing my concern with his lack of response to the board president and business administrator, I did get a copy of an email he sent to the business administrator indicating he had sent me an email with answers a week after I had emailed him with the questions – but, wouldn’t you know it, his email response to me couldn’t find its way to my inbox for some reason and all his answers did, that he gave the business administrator, was to raise more questions. It’s now become a game of ‘Who’s on first’ between the architect and the construction manager – and it doesn’t look like I’m gonna get any answers that helps me make sense of these cost estimates – hence, I can’t make any sense of them.

Be that as it may, here’s the Summary of Construction Costs Estimates in the construction manager’s report:

Here’s what it looks like when you simply divide his numbers by the square feet in his report:

Well, there you go - that the $5 million is now made up of 16,000 square feet at a cost of $310.87 per square foot – a slight change from the 20,000 square feet at $250.00 per square foot they told us before they voted at the board meeting. But hey, it’s not a problem; it’s the same $5 million, right? The architect’s fee and the construction manager’s fee are 6% and 4% of the building construction costs, respectively. That’s a total of $445,815.

Moving on, the financing for this 5-year lease purchase; according to their numbers, the $5,000,000 has an interest cost over the 5 years of $803,200 or 16.4% for a total of $5,803,200. They’re using a coupon rate of 4% with most of the principal payments being deferred for the first two years.

Here’s what their numbers are:

And finally, according to their numbers, the fiscal year tax impact of this $5,803,200 over the 5-Years - an average of some $11.97 on a home assessed at $150,000. Of course, this assumes the 4% rate and ratables that rise to $7,114 million or some $58 million over last year’s $7,056 million. 

Ratables are more likely to drop $58 million over last year’s $7,056 million – not increase. 

Further, what they’re not telling you is that $11.97 includes an offset for the payoff of the JPS bonds and are netted against the EHS bonds – effect being that the monies used in the budget for the JPS bonds is not coming back to the taxpayer once paid-off but netted against the true cost of the EHS bonds to show a lower cost. 

So, even using their own numbers, the cost of the EHS project on the taxpayer is twice what they’re telling you. That's Not Nice!

Here’s the numbers:

And, by the way, remember that we’re in the Land of Mythomania and there’s no such thing as a fiscal year tax impact for these bonds – the tax rate in downtown Edison is calculated on a calendar year not a fiscal year. Remember that infamous $80 budget back in 2011-12 that showed up on your tax bill as $242? 

Well, it’s déjà vu all over again!!

Finally, it’s hard to take any of these estimated numbers seriously and you really have to wonder if the board really looked at this stuff before they voted. You know what this looks like to me? Seems like the estimates they used for JPS a few years back – with one difference. There was grant money then but not now. So, the taxpayers get stuck with paying more money this time around.

Here, take a look:
Geez, unlucky for us taxpayers that we didn't get a chance to vote on this stuff!

Monday, January 14, 2013

Demographic Study - Board of Mythomania

Just a follow up to the Demographic Study Board President Gene Maeroff referred to in his December 20, 2012 From the Desk of.. - which you can see here. As I indicated, after reading 'my-take' Maeroff's view of the Board of Mythomania, sure was curious to know what we spent the money on, what they asked to be done, who did they ask, who actually bid, who responded, what did the report say and how much did it cost - you know, silly things they never tell you about but should.

Given that their crystal ball was broken and they felt the need to have someone else tell us we're short of space, by how much and where - was this really necessary to spend money on this kind of thing? Think not! 

Clearly, they must think that this gives them ammunition for the next Bloated Bond Referendum a-go-go over there on Mythomania Lane. Oh wait..they do! The vendor actually says in the proposal that "We pledge our resources and state-of-the-art technologies to preparation of an easily understood and graphically rich report which will stand the scrutiny of 'pre-referendum'."

Now, don't get me wrong, I looked at the report and it's quite detailed and has a lot of information in it that all residents of the township should read. I would encourage everyone to go through their report. It has an executive summary, covers a background of all schools in the township, the demographics, housing, their methodology, enrollment projections, capacities by school and has an appendix of enrollment projection worksheets (though what I saw was just an index of the worksheets - didn't see any of the actual worksheets).

So, here's what I saw. There were no specs, no bids and no contract - just a proposal from the selected vendor. The proposal (see below) lays out what was requested by the board - and you should read that and see where the board was coming from with this study. For the basic and requested additional services, the fee was $20,900, of which I saw documentation for some $16,000 of that amount being paid so far.

Here's the proposal:

Here's the cover of the report and the table of contents:

Anyone who wants the report, just drop me a note. You're welcome to it. It's well worth a read, whether they use it to support the next Bond Referendum or not.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Full-time, Part-time - just hissy-fit time!?!

True to the on-going, yet tad bit embarrassing, dysfunctional internal Dem Party struggle for power and control in Downtown Edison, up pops newly anointed Council President Bob ‘See No Conflict’ Diehl with the latest and greatest, yet humorously self-serving, power grab. 

This time it’s to change the mayoral position from full-time to a part-time. Seems the Council is concerned that it’s way too much of a restriction on the mayoral candidate pool! So, he wants to now change the law and he says that it will be done by unanimous vote at the next council meeting come January 24, 2013. Hey, I’ll bet it will!

Really? It’s too much of a restriction on the candidate pool? This from a guy who knows full well how the candidate process works in the Local Dem Party and how the pecking order works! Simple truth is no one on the Council can run for mayor under the existing law and that puts a kink in the pecking order of this one-party town. 

Do you really think that if they change this position back to part-time, you can just walk into the local Dem Party headquarters and you’ll be picked to run for mayor? Good luck with that ‘open pool of candidates’ if you think this opens up the process for you.

It’s just silly - they’re all in a hissy-fit because no one on the Council can run for mayor and all that campaign money the EDO has won’t help them very much if you eliminate their position from the pecking order section of the recycle bin.

Now, come on, this is funny. They're going to change the law so any or all of us can run for mayor! Isn't that nice of them? Are you laughing yet?

“It probably does seem self-serving.." so says Bob 'See No Conflict' Diehl. Uh.. you think? In lieu of term limits, this law is the best way to keep anyone on the Council from running and perpetuating the one-party stronghold in Downtown Edison. Hmm..looks like it’s already working – Bob ‘See No Conflict’ Diehl says he’s not running and Rob ‘March on Trenton’ Karabinchak says he's 'Marching on  Trenton' and making a run for the state assembly.

Anyhoo, it's all blah..blah politics, going back to Jun 'RforMe' Choi, and it's all stacked against the residents. This is a one-party town that controls who gets to run and wins. You don’t get to pick anyone – all you get to do is vote (or not-it doesn’t matter) for their choice. 

Wouldn't it be better if the residents decided how they want the town to run and not the EDO?

By reverting back to part-time and 'opening the pool' all you would be doing is making sure the Dems keep their stranglehold control with their hand-chosen few. Don't let them.

So, I would suggest to you that without the Dem Party money and those waiting for anointment in the Local Dem Party, you'd actually give others the chance to run and win. What’s wrong with that if you really want to open up the process? Does everyone capable of being mayor have to be a Dem Party soldier and work his or her way up the pecking order before he or she can run and have a shot at winning?

Don’t be fooled – this is all about the Dems picking the next mayor – not you!

And seriously, anointing Rob 'March on Trenton' Karabinchak to the assembly? Is this the best the Dem Party could come up with in all of the 18th district? Here's a guy that shouldn't even be on the council much less elevated up the pecking order.

But there's good and bad news in that anointment. 

Good news - we get rid of him & his anomaly with the truth, he'll be less of a burden on the taxpayers being 1 of 80 and we won't have to put up with his charming personality.

Bad news - you gotta feel for all the other towns in the 18th district - for they know not what they get!

Finally, and not for nothing, just think how much better off this town would be if those people holding the power spent more time working with each other rather than feverishly conniving ways to stick it to each other! It’s embarrassing!

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Top 10 Reasons

why you got to like newly anointed Council President Bob 'See No Conflict' Diehl's move to make the Mayor's position part time:

10. Because it's only a law and he can change it to the Council Members benefit.

9. Because Karabinchak keeps telling him that he didn't spend $100k against an opponent who only spent $3k for a single council seat for a single year - for nothing!

8. Because he's counting on you thinking that the people get to decide who runs for Mayor and not the EDO.

7. Because he's still mad at Ricigliano jumping the gun the last time around and squashing his bid to run.

6. Because he likes things that benefit the few at the expense of the many.

5. Because he wants to bring his buddy Massaro back as Chief of Staff and he can then run Edison from his office in South Plainfield.

4. Because he likes being against things that he's supported before - gives him a dash of you never know what he's going to do.

3. Because he's been on so many sides of the fence that he makes Rob 'March on Trenton' Karabinchak look like a bastion of conviction.

2. Because no one told him that this bit of hypocrisy would out-stink Charlie 'I Abstain' Tomaro's switch to supporting Wards just so he could help defeat Jun 'Rforme' Choi.

1. Because if he really wanted the people to decide who should be able to run for Mayor, he should of made it a ballot question back in 2009 and not waited to this silly season to whine about it.

Friday, January 4, 2013

From the Desk of...Really - otra vez?!?

Just saw the latest addition of Board of Mythomania President Gene Maeroff's - From the Desk of Gene Maeroff! Seriously now, we've gone from the 'Musings of DiMuzio' to the now the 'Take-offs of Maeroff.'

I took a look at his December 20, 2012 take on all things Space Shortage wise. You can read it here if you like.

Now, not for nothing but I take it his crystal ball wasn't working too clearly so the board decided to hire a company to do a demographic study of our school system. Isn't that nice? Money well-spent, I'm sure. Seems like he's got a whole bunch of data from the report as well as some mention of the state's facility efficiency standards (FES) to help him sell his future bond referendum plans to the captive audience.

Hey, wouldn't you like to know what we spent that money on - things like what did they ask to be done, how many companies they did ask to quote on the project, who actually bid on the project and how much did this thing actually cost? I know I would so I asked - and as soon as they let me know, I'll pass it along to you. But I digress, so let's move on.

But wait, it gets better. Seems 'it will be up to the board of education to propose steps for dealing with the space shortage.' Geez, that's a tad bit scary. Maybe it's me, but it might be a good idea to get the residents involved. Anyhoo, Maeroff's potential solutions - redistrict, building additions, 1 or more new schools or do nothing! Really - who writes this kind of stuff - do nothing!?! About the only thing this is good for is to scare the captive audience into submission.

Here's a big DUH for this latest take on things in Downtown Edison!

Who doesn't know that there's been a space shortage in the school district for years. How many ambushed, bloated and ill-conceived bond referendums have we gone through over the past few years - including one that they did twice in a row without changing anything, hoping for a Yes vote from the residents the second time around? You know what they call that kind of treatment of the residents. Here, take a look:
There's a reason why the residents keep rejecting these bond referendums and this board needs to acknowledge the reason and do things a tad bit differently this go round.

The problem isn't the residents - it's the board's inability to produce a well-thought-out and meaningful plan that's up front with the residents and put forth in the most cost efficient way possible. Telling the residents that 'doing nothing' is an option if you don't agree with them - is self-serving scare tactics on Maeroff's part.

Do yourself a favor - do not accept anything on any bond referendum put forth by this board without checking it out yourself. With this kind of early self-serving rhetoric from Maeroff, looks like they're going down the same old path to try and get  another one over on you.

But hey, what do I know? Maybe Super Dr. Richard "Build the Trust" O'Malley earned that extra $350 in bonus money that the board gave him by finishing the other half of his long range plan with a timeline for the facilities!