June 14, 2019 Edition
Binding Interest Arbitration
The failure of State leaders to permanently extend the 2% cap on binding interest arbitration awards in December of 2017 has inequitably altered the collective bargaining process in favor of labor and at the expense of property taxpayers. With this in mind, NJAC and our partners plan to hold strategy sessions and develop best practices for local governing bodies on how to effectively navigate the unlevel playing field. Some initial recommendations include:
- Make sure to utilize general counsel and an experienced labor attorney to negotiate directly with a collective bargaining unit.
- Be prepared with a comprehensive financial analysis that includes a complete and accurate picture as an arbitrator must consider a local governing body’s ability to pay.
- Be prepared with data and all relevant information to address false claims and statements made by a collective bargaining unit.
- Stay strong on health benefit concessions, particularly with retirees and rolling back Chapter 78 requirements.
In addition, NJAC will continue to urge State leaders to permanently extend the 2% cap on binding interest arbitration awards as police and fire unions have been aggressively leveraging its expiration to win contracts in excess of 50% of the 2% spending cap imposed on local governing bodies for nearly a decade. As has been well documented, the 2% cap on binding interest arbitration awards allowed local governments to live within their limited means and kept public safety employee salaries and wages under control, simply because parties were closer to reaching an agreement from the onset of negotiations. Moreover, the 2% cap on binding interest arbitration awards established clear parameters for negotiating reasonable successor contracts that preserved the collective bargaining process and took into consideration the separate and permanent 2% spending cap. The equation is clear, failure to renew and permanently extend the 2% cap on binding interest arbitration awards is unsustainable without increasing property taxes or eliminating essential services.
Separate, but related, counties and municipalities are facing litigation concerning health benefits for certain retirees under Chapter 78. In summary, N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1 provides that a retiree must contribute to the cost of health benefits coverage as determined by N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28c, which for example, provides that for family coverage “an employee who earns $110,000 or more shall pay 35 percent of the cost of coverage.” However, N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1b.(3) provides for an exemption from the retiree health benefit contribution payment levels as follows: “(3) Employees described in paragraph (2) of this subsection who have 20 or more years of creditable service in one or more State or locally-administered retirement systems on the effective date of P.L.2011, c.78 shall not be subject to the provisions of this subsection.”
Chapter 78 took effect on June 28, 2011; and, NJAC has long understood this section of law to mean that a retiree must have accrued 20 years of creditable pension service before June 28, 2011 to qualify for the exemption. Despite a clear reading of the statutory law, several lawsuits allege that retirees are only obligated to pay no more than 1.5 percent of the monthly retirement allowance for health benefits as an exemption under N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21b.(3), which was intended to take effect on either June 28, 2011 or after the expiration of an applicable collective binding negotiations agreement in force on that effective date. In other words, these complaints contend that if an employee is subject to the health benefit contributions under N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1 and is covered under a binding negotiations agreement on the date that Chapter 78 took effect, then the Chapter 78 health benefit contribution requirements would not take effect until the expiration of the collective binding negotiations agreement. In this case, the retiree was covered under such an agreement from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2014. In summary, county administrators, county counsels, labor attorneys, the New Jersey State League of Municipalities (NJLM), the New Jersey School Boards Association (NJSBA), and the Division of Local Government Services (DLGS) concur that a retiree must attain 20 years of creditable pension service before June 28, 2011 to qualify for the exemption under N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1b(3).
Code Blue Alerts
On June 6th, NJAC testified before the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee in opposition to Senate, No. 3422, (Singer R-30/Kean R-21), which would require counties to declare a Code Blue alert when the National Weather Service (NWS) predicts the temperature to be 32 degrees Fahrenheit or lower.
Although NJAC commends senators Singer and Kean for their efforts to provide comfort for at-risk individuals during severe weather events, this legislation does not contain a funding mechanism or State appropriation to offset the costs associated with extending the 2017 law that counties, municipalities, social service agencies, and non-profit organizations have struggled to implement. As you may recall, in that year, Governor Christie signed into law legislation that requires county governing bodies, through their offices of emergency management or other appropriate offices, agencies or departments, to establish plans for issuing Code Blue alerts to municipalities, social service agencies, and non-profit organizations that provide services to at-risk individuals and are located within the county’s borders. In summary, the new law requires emergency management coordinators to declare a Code Blue alert after evaluating weather forecasts and advisories produced by the National Weather Service that predict the following weather conditions in the county within 24 to 48 hours: temperatures will reach 25 degrees Fahrenheit or lower without precipitation; or 32 degrees Fahrenheit or lower with precipitation; or, the National Weather Service wind chill temperature will be 0 degrees Fahrenheit or less for a period of 2 hours or more.
Under the leadership of Senator Troy Singleton (D-7) and Assemblywoman Pintor Marin (D-29), Governor Phil Murphy recently signed into law A-4177, which now authorizes county governments to increase the homelessness housing fund surcharge from $3.00 to $5.00 and to use the $2.00 increase to support emergency shelter for homeless services provided during a Code Blue alert. NJAC supported this important and timely initiative as one of our top legislative priorities as it should help freeholder boards provide adequate shelter for homeless individuals during inclement weather without affecting existing programs that support permanent housing and self-sufficiency. Although certainly well intended, S-3422 would establish an even greater financial burden to the 2017 law that would make issuing a Code Blue alert more costly and difficult to implement, manage, and sustain. In fact, setting the parameters for issuing a Code Blue alert at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or lower would double the amount of Code Blue nights and would lead to increased costs as noted above, depleted staff and resources, and fatigued volunteers. S-3422 is on Second Reading in the Senate, but a companion version does not currently exist in the General Assembly.
Defibrillators
On June 3rd, the Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee second referenced to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee Senate, No. 2424 (Andrzejczak D-1), which would require local recreation departments and youth serving organizations to have automated external defibrillators (AED) at youth athletic events.
In summary, this legislation would require county and municipal recreation departments and youth serving organizations that organize, sponsor, or are otherwise affiliated with youth athletic events and of which are played on county, municipal, school, or other publicly-owned fields, to provide an onsite AED at all youth athletic events and practices. As such, the measure would mandate the purchase, maintenance, and secure storage of defibrillators by local governing bodies and non-profit organizations across the State that host youth athletic events on facilities owned and operated by counties, municipalities, and school districts at an estimated initial investment of approximately $40.0 million with additional monies needed annually for equipment maintenance, upgrade, and security.
Although NJAC commends Senator Andrzejczak for his efforts to improve the potential life-saving precautions taken at youth sporting events and practices, NJAC opposes the measure in its current form as it does not contain the necessary appropriation to address its broad scope and impact. Unfortunately, the measure in its current form would force local governing bodies and non-profit organizations to either increase registration fees, which could prove cost prohibitive for families struggling to make ends meet from participating in certain activities and events or result in the reduction or elimination of recreation services and programs. As noted above, S-2424 is currently in the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee awaiting consideration, but a companion version does not exist in the General.
Subcontracting Agreements
On May 24th, the General Assembly passed by a vote of 76-6 Assembly, No. 3395 (McGuckin R-10/Dancer R-12), which would prohibit public school districts and institutions of higher education from using subcontracting agreements that may affect employees in a collective bargaining unit under certain circumstances.
NJAC opposes this legislation and is primarily concerned with its long-term ramifications as the measure would effectively prohibit the use of subcontracting agreements used by public school districts and institutions of higher education. Although the bill may not directly impact county governing bodies, it would essentially prevent the use of subcontracting agreements by county special services school districts and county colleges. County governments provide substantial funding for county colleges and transportation services for county special services school districts.
As has been well documented, local governments across the State save valuable property taxpayer dollars, without impacting the level of service provided, by using subcontracting or privatization agreements for the delivery of food services, custodial services, transportation services, and much more. As counties, municipalities, and school districts continue struggling to make ends meet under a restrictive 2% cap on spending, the use of such agreements must remain a viable option for the delivery of services in a cost effective and efficient manner. A-3395 is currently in the Senate Education Committee awaiting consideration.
County Board of Elections
On May 30th, both houses passed and sent to the Governor Assembly, No. 5162 (Speight D-29/Reynolds-Jackson D-15) (Beach D-6), which would permit county boards of chosen freeholders to increase the membership of the county board of elections from four to six members.
In summary, this legislation would allow county board of chosen freeholders, by a majority vote of its full membership, to increase the membership of a county board of elections from four members to six members. The bill would require that three members of the county board of elections be members of the political party which at the last preceding general election, held for the election of all of the members of the General Assembly, cast the largest number of votes in this State for members of the General Assembly, and the remaining three members of the county board of elections would be members of the political party which at such election cast the next largest number of votes in the State for members of the General Assembly. The bill would also provide that within 10 days following the effective date of this bill, a one-time, mid-year appointment to increase membership of county board of elections before the 2019 primary or general election. Thereafter, persons would be nominated and appointed in accordance with the current timeframe specified under law. It’s unclear if Governor Murphy will sign the bill into law.
Please note that NJAC opposed the measure as introduced as it would have mandated an increase in the membership of county boards of elections in violation of the State’s prohibition against unfunded mandates on school districts, municipalities, and counties. The New Jersey Constitution prohibits State government from requiring units of local government to implement additional or expanded activities without providing funding for those activities pursuant Article VIII, Section II, Paragraph 5 and N.J.S.A. 52:13H-1(1)(b). Additionally, the New Jersey Council on Local Mandates is responsible for resolving disputes on whether a law, rule or regulation adopted after 1996 constitutes an unfunded mandate, which NJAC’s submitted would have imposed on county governments by this legislation as set forth below.
Although the Governor of the State of New Jersey is responsible for appointing members to county boards of elections with the advice and consent off the Senate, county governments are responsible for paying for their salaries, wages, and other expenses under N.J.S.A. 19:45-4. Additionally, N.J.S.A. 19:45-7 requires that the “compensation of the members of the several county boards shall be no less than the minimum salary and no more than the maximum salary…” ranging from $3,200.00 – $10,500.00 in counties with populations less than 120,000 and from $8,700.00 – $17,600.00 in counties with populations over 550,000. As such, NJAC respectfully submitted that the legislation as introduced would have imposed an unfunded State mandate on county governments as the measure would have required freeholder boards to pay for the salaries, wages, and other expenses of new board of election members without providing any requisite State funding other than the property tax.
911 Fee Misappropriation
The good news is that senators Singleton (D-7) and Oroho (R-24) recently introduced Senate, No. 3730, which would add the costs associated with the regionalization of the State’s 911 system, including the expansion of existing regional public safety answering points, to what is to be funded by the monies appropriated from the “911 System and Emergency Response Trust Fund Account.”
Although NJAC supports this legislation as it would create a funding mechanism that would incentivize the regionalization of 911 services, the bad news is that the State will once again misappropriate an estimated 89.0% of the $120.0 million in surcharges it expects to collect as 911 System and Emergency Response Fees as a .90 cent surcharge on all telephone lines. As has been well documented, the State of New Jersey is the worst offender of diverting 911 fees in the nation and has collected an estimated $1.4 billion since 2006 with only 11% of Fund monies being spent on eligible expenses for the 3 State operated 911 centers. Moreover, the State has failed to provide any funding to local 911 centers operated by counties and municipalities; and, has instead diverted the balance of Fund dollars to cover general operating expenses in the Department of Law and Public Safety. As a direct result of the State’s decade long practice, and the similar diversion of 911 funds by several other states, the FCC recently adopted rules that now prohibits New Jersey, and its local governing bodies, from applying for up to $115.0 million in grant program funding to upgrade 911 centers with Next Generation 911 (NG911) capabilities.
Not only does the misappropriation of vital 911 system funding jeopardize the public safety of residents across the State, it also amounts to double taxation as counties and municipalities have been forced to rely on the collection of local property taxpayer dollars to improve, operate, and maintain local 911 centers. Moreover, counties and municipalities are also being penalized by the federal government for the State’s misuse of critical 911 funds. For these reasons, NJAC will continue urging State leaders to restore critical Fund dollars and comply with federal guidelines for grant funding and best practices. NJAC also recommends constitutionally dedicating any existing or new 911 fees or surcharges imposed by the Legislature and collected by the State to county and municipal 911 centers; and, adopting the best practices outlined in the “New Jersey 911 Consolidation Study” published in 2006, which in part, calls for reducing the number of local 911 centers to streamline operations and save taxpayer dollars.
Raft of Bills Advance to Ease Way for State Health Insurance Exchange by Lilo H. Stainton, June 10, 2019
New Jersey lawmakers have advanced a dozen bills to create the infrastructure for a state-based health insurance marketplace. The bills are part of a Democratic-led effort to better control the cost and quality of these policies and protect against attacks at the federal level by the Trump administration. But, while supporting the legislation in concept, insurance and business representatives have raised questions about some of the details, including language that would enable New Jersey to hike the tax on certain insurance plans to 5 percent — from the current 3.5 percent — which critics said would add to consumer costs. Some Republican lawmakers also have flagged this as a concern.
Versions of the bills were approved by the Senate Commerce Committee last Monday and the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee Thursday, some along party lines. They would empower the state Department of Banking and Insurance to establish its own system to craft, market and sell federally subsidized health plans to lower-income workers who do not get insurance through work and earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Currently in New Jersey, these “individual market” plans are sold through the federal health insurance exchange website, healthcare.gov. “With the federal government in turmoil, I’m glad the state Legislature is doing everything we can to ensure that the people who benefit from the Affordable Care Act will continue to be protected,” said Senator Joseph Vitale Jr., the health committee chair and a lead sponsor of several of the measures. “We cannot leave the health and safety of New Jerseyans up to the whims of the Oval Office.” “This legislation, particularly the state-based exchange for health benefits plans, will go a long way in ensuring our state can offer affordable healthcare to all of our residents,” Vitale (D-Middlesex) said.
The proposals were endorsed by healthcare advocates, including hospitals, clinical professionals and NJ For Health Care — a coalition of community, labor and social justice groups that have long pushed for expanded insurance coverage through the ACA and other mechanisms. However, several people who testified Monday said they favored a state-based exchange but worried establishing this system might cost consumers more than it would to continue to use the federal governments. “One of our goals is to make sure this is run efficiently and outperforms the federal exchange. That’s the reason to do this,” Ward Sanders, head of the New Jersey Association of Health Plans, testified Monday. “To tax insurance to make insurance cheaper doesn’t really work.”
Lawmakers amended the Senate version of the bill related to the fee on exchange plans, which is estimated would raise $55 million a year to support its operation, to cap this tax at 5 percent. But Sanders said that still would allow the state to impose a burden far beyond the 3.5 percent now charged to support the federal system. (The federal fee is slated to go down to 3 percent next year. In March, Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, announced his intention to take control of the exchange — a transition he said would enable the state to create higher-quality plans, better protect against cost increases, and control how plans were marketed and sold. Under Republican President Donald Trump, the federal government has drastically reduced funding for outreach and marketing of these policies and cut in half the amount of time people have to enroll each fall.
Democratic lawmakers introduced drafts of enabling legislation in late May, which would allow DOBI to collect a tax — that now goes to the federal government — to fund the creation of a website and sales platform for plans tailored to individuals; the system covered nearly 290,000 people at the end of 2018, according to state statistics. (More than two-thirds of these consumers obtain federal subsidies to help offset the costs; others benefit from the lower prices and comprehensive benefits built into these products but purchase them directly from insurance companies without any subsidy.) The proposals also call for DOBI to integrate the small-business insurance market into this same system, although there are few details of how this would happen. Small-business policies covered nearly 330,000 people in companies with fewer than 50 employees, at the end of last year, in New Jersey with plans sold through the state and the exchange.
Sanders, with AHP, is concerned that if small-business plans are rolled into the same exchange as plans for individuals they could be subject to the same tax of up to 5 percent, adding significantly to the costs of these products. And business representatives are concerned what that would mean for employers already struggling to provide coverage for their workers. “We support an exchange, but we are concerned about the costs that go along with that,” said New Jersey Business & Industry Association vice president Tony Bawidamann. “Healthcare is one of the top issues for (our members) — one of the top costs,” he said. As of 2018, some 28 states — including New Jersey — made use of the federal system for the sale of individual and small-business health insurance plans and 12 jurisdictions, with Washington, D.C., operated these markets themselves. Nevada is now in the process of shifting from a federal to state system, scheduled to start this fall; lawmakers there anticipate it can be run for a fee of 1.5 percent on the plans sold, saving the state half of the $12 million the federal government now spends on the operation, according to Healthinsurance.org, an industry publication. New Mexico is planning a similar shift in 2021 and Oregon is also considering taking control of its system.
While healthcare advocates in New Jersey have long pushed for a state-run exchange, dating back to 2012 at least, former Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, declined to embrace the process and left it in the hands of the federal government. But, as the Trump administration ratcheted back support for the exchange — and attacked other elements of the ACA, or Obamacare — Democrats in the Garden State have vowed to protect the once-controversial, now highly popular program. (Federal lawmakers, including several from New Jersey, are also seeking to expand these protections. “The ACA was monumental legislation and expanded coverage for thousands of New Jerseyans,” said Sen. Nellie Pou (D-Passaic), a lead sponsor of several of the bills and chair of the commerce committee. “Everyone deserves the right to affordable healthcare and codifying this federal law into state law will help give New Jerseyans more options and greater coverage for years to come, regardless of who is in charge of the Oval Office.”
Most of the attention in the hearings was focused on the legislation to create the exchange and impose the controversial fee (S-49/A-5499), sponsored by Pou, Vitale, and Sen. Nia Gill (D-Essex), and Assembly members Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), John McKeon (D-Union) and Nancy Pinkin (D-Middlesex). Other bills approved last week would ensure key ACA protections are also enshrined in New Jersey law if the state creates its own exchange; many of these received bipartisan support. Among other things, these other proposals would enable adult children to remain on their parents’ plans until age 27; ensure breastfeeding, contraceptives and other essential benefits are covered; and guarantee patients with pre-existing conditions could obtain insurance. Most of these elements are already codified in Garden State statute in some form. While some of the bills will go straight to the floor for a full vote in the Assembly and Senate, many were referred to the appropriations committees in both houses for further review.
Governor and Lawmakers Diverge over Medical Marijuana Expansion by Carly Sitrin, June 6, 2019
Gov. Phil Murphy this week made good on his promise to rapidly expand the medical marijuana program in New Jersey, but his unilateral move may put the Legislature’s own expansion plan in jeopardy. As part of the governor’s expansion, the state Department of Health announced on Monday it is seeking new applicants to operate up to 108 additional Alternative Treatment Centers in the Garden State for cultivating, manufacturing and dispensing medical marijuana. This represents a major increase. Currently, there are six ATCs in operation; another six permits have been granted but those facilities are not yet up and running.
Meanwhile, state lawmakers are attempting to move their own bill that would expand the program — and it contains elements that Murphy’s plan does not. The bill (S-10) would remove medical marijuana from the Department of Health’s jurisdiction and give it to a new five-member Cannabis Regulatory Commission in the Department of Treasury. It would also cap cultivator licenses at 23: Murphy’s request for applications (known as an RFA) calls for 24. “Patients cannot continue to wait for access to life-changing medical treatment, and this week’s announcement is an important step toward ensuring sustainable and affordable access,” Murphy’s spokesperson Alyana Alfaro said in a statement. “The Department of Health is overseeing the expansion of the Medicinal Marijuana Program to ensure that it is done responsibly and in a way that puts the needs of patients first. There was no agreement on the bill as currently written.”
The governor and his administration have said expanding the program was urgent as the demand in the state for medical marijuana has skyrocketed. Indeed, since Murphy took office, the number of patients in New Jersey’s medical marijuana program has swelled, from less than 17,000 to more than 47,500 as of June 3, 2019.v“We are at a point where patients just cannot wait any longer for easily accessible, affordable therapy. This request for applications allows for specialization of businesses to increase medical product in our state,” said New Jersey Health Commissioner Dr. Shereef Elnahal in a statement.
Three types of licenses will be available under the new expansion — for growing, manufacturing and selling. This is the first time the state is issuing separate permits for these categories as the six ATCs already in operation — and the additional six license holders selected last year — were required to be vertically integrated, meaning they must all grow, process and sell marijuana on their own. The Department now will seek to issue up to 24 cultivation licenses (or endorsements, as the department terms them), up to 30 manufacturing licenses and up to 54 dispensary licenses. These ATCs would be throughout the state, with up to 38 in the northern region of the state (in Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Warren counties), up to 38 in the central region (Hunterdon, Middlesex, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset and Union counties), and up to 32 in the southern region (Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem counties).
According to the DOH, these regional specifications are based on an assessment it conducted of patient need. Applications will be accepted from both for-profit and nonprofit groups now that the current law’s mandatory threshold for two nonprofit alternative treatment centers in each region has been met. To avoid conflict with national law, because cannabis is still federally categorized as a Schedule I drug, applicants from a nonprofit entity will not be required to be recognized as a 501(c)3 organization by the Internal Revenue Service.
Permits (or licenses) would be granted according to a scoring system which takes into account factors like ties to the local community (20 points), ability to provide appropriate research data (10 points), experience in cultivating, manufacturing, or dispensing marijuana (100 points) and a workforce and job creation plan that would involve women, minorities and military veterans (100 points). There will also be a $20,000 application fee separated in two payments to the state Treasurer, one $18,000 payment and one $2,000 payment. For unsuccessful applicants, the $18,000 will be returned, but the Department of Health gets to keep the $2,000 fee. This new request for applications was not wholly unexpected. Murphy campaigned on adult-use cannabis legalization and once that plan stalled in the Legislature, he turned his attention to medical expansion.
The state Senate passed its expansion bill just last week, and the Assembly approved its measure two weeks prior. Because the Senate added a requirement for labor peace agreements that has sent the bill back to the Assembly before it can go to the governor for his signature. Initially, the medical expansion bill was to be packaged with legalization language and expungement reform, allowing those convicted of low-level cannabis crimes to clear their records. At the time, Murphy deferred to lawmakers to pass their bills but noted if they couldn’t get it done, he would step in. “I’m prepared to hold off for a short amount of time, and I would say the month of May would be the edge of that,” Murphy said in March.
When the Legislature failed to secure the votes to pass all three bills, Murphy went ahead in early May with his own new rules that would extend the program’s reach, widen the list of qualifying conditions, reduce patient costs, and allow doctors to participate without being named publicly. And when the Senate sent its bill back to the Assembly again last week, Murphy pulled the trigger on further medical expansion, earning the ire of Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester). “Once again, the governor is ignoring the hard work of the Legislature and the agreement between the Senate, the Assembly and the administration on this issue,” Sweeney (D-Gloucester), said in a statement. “The legislation that is in the process of being approved by both houses is a direct reflection of that agreement — and now the governor wants to preempt what is a thoughtful plan to expand medical marijuana in an effective and responsible way.” The Legislature’s plan differs slightly from Murphy’s as it would install a Cannabis Regulatory Commission to oversee the industry and set rules and regulations for how permits would be granted, and businesses run. The proposal for a commission was copied directly from the adult-use bill and had been an ongoing point of contention between Sweeney and Murphy, as both wanted power to appoint members to it.
In addition, the lawmakers’ bills would cap cultivator licenses at 23 whereas Murphy’s plan would grant 24. All of this could mean Murphy is squaring up to conditionally veto the bill once it makes it to his desk. Another option on the table could be amending the request for applications to align with the Legislature’s cap but that still would not address the conflict over the commission. The medical expansion bill — with the Senate’s small labor agreement changes — will be put to a vote in the Assembly again on June 10.
Upcoming NJAC Events and the Annual Celebration of County Government
Don’t miss NJAC’s next Board of Directors meeting set for 9:30 a.m. on June 28th in Committee Room 6 of the State House Annex in Trenton. And, we look forward to seeing you at NJAC’s Annual Night at the Ballpark on July 18th to watch the Hartford Yard Goats take on the Trenton Thunder at Arm & Hammer Park in Trenton. This event is free for county officials, but space is limited, so please visit our website at www.njac.org for additional details.
State House Trivia: Did you know that the top 10 most hazardous summer injuries are caused by: 10) weedwhackers 9) charcoal barbecue grills 8) camping equipment 7) Red Rider BB Guns 6) amusement park rides 5) lawn mowers 4) trampolines 3) skateboards 2) diving boards, and 1) insect bites and stings, so bee careful out there.
“A perfect summer day is when the sun is shining, the breeze is blowing, the birds are singing, and the lawn mower is broken.” – James Dent