Author: North Coast BBQ

I have attempted to raise questions on this matter using the explanations given by City officials, City Budget numbers, and an option for water infrastructure funding using Transient Lodging Tax revenue to create a billing and water infrastructure funding solution that prioritizes the interests of full time residents including seniors on fixed incomes and families.

I always put my name on what I write and accept responsibility for my communications with Manzanita citizens. It would be naïve to believe that this unsigned mailing was done without the knowledge and support of the City.

The actual experience with monthly billing as posted on the 10/25 BBQ and Tillamook County Pioneer entitled Do Billing Cycles Matter? at tinyurl.com/4fp5es4j should cause voters to again question both what City officials and their anonymous supporters are telling us.

As the example in this post confirms, monthly billing combined with a tiered rate structure for exceeding your 2,000 base allotment can indeed result in a higher annual water bill. Quarterly billing at least provides the opportunity for customers to avoid monthly tier charges resulting in lower annual water costs. If you want to preserve this opportunity, you will need to vote NO and return us to quarterly billing.

Remember the concern that then Councilor Jena Edginton voiced when the Council was discussing this matter in May 2023. “I don’t want to increase the rates for full time residents, one to two people living in their home”. What Councilor Edginton wanted to avoid has become a reality for many and no anonymous mailings urging voters to ignore what we have been told by City officials is going to change the impact on the cost of water for full time residents.

Randy Kugler

Barbara’s quick search of Judicial Watch found 2 sources that consider information from Judicial Watch unreliable–Media Bias/Fact Check and Wikipedia.

Media Bias/Fact Check found the California illegal votes story FALSE and gave Judicial Watch an overall rating of Questionable Source with a LOW rating of factual information.

Wikipedia says “In August 2017, Judicial Watch falsely alleged that 11 California counties had more registered voters than their estimated populations of citizens eligible to vote.”
“Judicial Watch counted “inactive voters” in its tally, which is a list of people that California maintains of people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable.”

Details below.

From Media Bias Fact Check
mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/
Judicial Watch – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section of that source. See all Questionable sources.
• Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and an abysmal fact-check record.
________________________________________
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Conspiracy, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Failed Fact Checks
Did a legal settlement between Judicial Watch and California election officials prove that one million illegal votes were cast in the 2018 elections in California? – FALSE

DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing ‘Vanloads’ of ‘Illegal Aliens’ Away from Border –
FALSE
Has Nancy Pelosi spent $100,000 on food, booze, and “partying” during her air travel? – FALSE
Judicial Watch says ISIS operating a camp in Mexico–near El Paso – FALSE
‘Islamic Refugee’ with Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County – FALSE
Did the IRS ‘Fast Track’ Tax-Exempt Status for ‘After School Satan’ Clubs? – FALSE
“More than 100,000 DACA applicants have been arrested—Murder, Rape, DUI.” – MOSTLY FALSE
Donald Trump was allowed to destroy classified documents – MOSTLY FALSE

From Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

Judicial Watch (JW) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit[1] American conservative activist group[2] that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate claimed misconduct by government officials. Founded in 1994, Judicial Watch has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton’s role in them. It was founded by attorney Larry Klayman, and has been led by Tom Fitton since 2003.
The organization has filed lawsuits against government climate scientists. Judicial Watch has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims that have been picked up by right-wing news outlets and promoted by conservative figures. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly cited false claims by Judicial Watch about voter fraud. Various courts have dismissed the vast majority of its lawsuits.[3]

False voter fraud claims
In August 2017, Judicial Watch falsely alleged that 11 California counties had more registered voters than their estimated populations of citizens eligible to vote; the claims were picked up by outlets such as Breitbart News and Russian propaganda network RT (Russia Today).[50] Judicial Watch counted “inactive voters” in its tally, which is a list of people that California maintains of people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable; California keeps such a list as a fail-safe in case eligible voters have been erroneously categorized as “inactive”.[50] California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said Judicial Watch’s claims were “baseless”, and “bad math and dubious methodology”.[50][51] When the Los Angeles Times asked Judicial Watch to share its analysis of voter registration in California, Judicial Watch declined.[51] Judicial Watch’s voter fraud claims came in the wake of President Donald Trump’s false claims of extensive voter fraud in California during the 2016 presidential election.[51] Trump has subsequently repeatedly promoted Judicial Watch’s false claims about voter fraud.[52]
On February 3, 2020, the day of the Iowa caucuses in the Democratic presidential primary, JW president Tom Fitton suggested that voter fraud was afoot in Iowa by falsely claiming that “eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to register.” The false assertion went viral on social media.[53][54] Iowa’s Secretary of State, Paul Pate, a member of the Republican Party, debunked Fitton’s claim by linking to official voter registration data.[55][56]
Fitton has made alarmist claims about voter fraud, saying “We have all heard about voter fraud and the attempts by liberal media organs like the New York Times and Ivory Tower academics to dismiss it as a nonexistent problem. But is it real, widespread, and substantial to the point that it can decide elections.”[57]
Retrieved December 25, 2017.
“More voters than eligible adults? Group makes dubious claim about California”. McClatchy DC Bureau. Retrieved December 25, 2017.

Myers, John (August 8, 2017). “They sued for Clinton’s emails. Now they want information on California voters”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 25, 2017.

“Trump once again misleads with bogus claims of voter fraud”. The Washington Post. 2020.

Birnbaum, Emily (February 3, 2020). “Iowa Secretary of State Disputes Viral Misinformation about Voter Registration.” The Hill. Retrieved March 17, 2020.

Romm, Tony, and Isaac Stanley-Becker (February 3, 2020). “Conservatives Spread False Claims on Twitter about Electoral Fraud as Iowans Prepare to Caucus.” The Washington Post. Retrieved March 20, 2020.

Barbara McLaughlin
Nehalem

Clayworth, Jason. “The misinformation campaign: Iowa SOS blasts Judicial Watch for insinuating voter fraud”. Des Moines Register. Retrieved February 3, 2020.

“Conservatives push false claims of voter fraud on Twitter as Iowans prepare to caucus”. The Washington Post. 2020.

“Soon-To-Be-Released Book by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton Warns of Massive Voter Fraud Danger in Current Presidential Election”. Retrieved December 25, 2017.

To find out, we did our own WATER RATE STUDY for our household, for the initial twelve-month period with the new rate structure, focusing on Monthly vs. Quarterly.
In October 2023, four changes (creating a formula) affecting water rates occurred simultaneously:
1. Base rate increased from $39.50 to $47.56.
2. Allotment was reduced from 12 units or 12,000 gallons per quarter to 2 units or 2,000 gallons per month.
3. Tiered rate structure was implemented.
4. Meters were read “monthly” and customers were billed monthly for water service.
(Two different changes but used together in the formula).

After the initial three months (a “quarter” period from 9/21/23 to 12/26/2023) with the new “monthly” reading and billing schedule, it became evident that a simple change from quarterly to monthly would variably result in higher fees.
We have read City literature making the argument that billing cycles would not affect our total annual water bill. This would only be true for households never exceeding 2 units or 2,000 gallons per month.
Billing cycles can and do affect rates unpredictably depending on other factors built into the rate structure. In fact, as a direct result of “monthly” reading and billing, our household was assessed additional fees totaling $47.50, for the same amount of water use (28 units) for the same period of time (a duration of “twelve months” from 9/21/23 to 9/25/24).
Please see our “12-Month” Comparison demonstrating that this subtle change clearly increased the amount of our household’s total annual water bill.
Raising rates is necessary. All of us can agree. The increase in the base rate of $8.06 per month, the reduced allotment to 2 units or 2,000 gallons per month, and the tiered rate structure are (singly) all fairly straight forward.
However, changing the reading and billing schedule from quarterly to monthly subtly influences the outcome with the new water rate formula. There are two variables (allotments and tiered rates) which contribute to playing a role in determining different costs or outcomes based on reading and billing cycles, i.e., monthly vs. quarterly.
We recently read another argument the City was making for paying monthly – “it is a smaller amount.”
Quarterly billing doesn’t prevent anyone from making a payment monthly if they prefer to have a “smaller” amount. It does prevent us from having the flexibility to use more water one month (for example: during a heat wave) and possibly skimping for the other two months to meet the quarterly
allotment of 6 units or 6,000 gallons.
This is not a campaign. We are not trying to influence anyone’s vote. We respect our City Leaders and all of our Concerned Citizens. We recently shared our perspective with a few of our friends who expressed that this was a different point of view, one many hadn’t thought of.

They all encouraged us to share our thoughts with the community. In an attempt at creating better understanding of how this new formula works, we encourage everyone to do their own “12-Month” comparison.

Manzanita Citizens

November 5th is election day and right here in Oregon:
A majority Democratic State, undocumented persons are on the voting roles. Also, a new Judicial Watch lawsuit challenges voter lists in the Beaver state. Last year, a similar suit in Los Angeles forced that county to strip more than a million voters off their rolls. Oregon didn’t even bother to look for illegal voters. This Summer, it found more than 15 hundred foreigners registered to vote. Oregon gave driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and then signed ’em up. In its lawsuit, Judicial Watch documents that 35 of Oregon’s 36 counties have more registered voters than people. !!!!! Oregon has the highest known inactive registration rate of any state in the nation.
That means lots of loose ballots are just floating around without owners. You can imagine how that gets abused in a Democrat Party fiefdom like Oregon, where even bold election lawbreaking goes unpunished. Tom Fitton puts it this way: “Dirty voter rolls can mean dirty elections.

In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory. In February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since the year before, under the terms of a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit Judicial Watch filed in 2017. (Legal pressure from Judicial Watch ultimately led to the removal of up to four million ineligible voters from voter rolls in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, and elsewhere.)
See: www.judicialwatch.org/oregon-clean-up-voter-rolls/

Also the final official Oregon count will be on Dec. 2. A whole month from November 5th.

In my opinion, we will never have an honest vote count in Oregon, unless we go back to the old way and go to our precinct, show our ID, and vote! Elderly and handicapped can get permission to vote by mail.

If Americans do not have a secure way to vote, We will no longer be a free country.

Heidi Stacks (pka Heidi Siglin) has lived here for almost 50 years, serving seven of those on Council. She is very well networked with other public servants in nearby cities, and has served us with extraordinary dedication and wisdom. She’s a respectful team player who listens to every view and can be counted on to do whatever is best for the town she loves.

Mary Leverette is newer to Wheeler, but has already proven herself as a devoted, consistent, constructive volunteer. She has regularly attended Council meetings for several years. She knows our issues quite well.

I’ve worked closely with both candidates on Wheeler’s Emergency Preparedness Committee and with Emergency Volunteer Corps of Nehalem Bay. They both display great creativity, commitment, and integrity. They are both hard workers who do what they say they will.

These two public servants bring the combination of experience and fresh vision that Wheeler needs. Please join me in electing both to Wheeler City Council!

Once upon a time, I took for granted that Oregon law protected reproductive freedom. When Roe was overturned in June of 2022, giving states the ability to restrict abortion, I certainly worried. But not about Oregon.

In March of 2024, the fairy dust fell from my eyes. That’s when Cyrus Javadi co-sponsored Oregon Senate Bill 1536, along with his other Republican colleagues.

You’re likely unfamiliar with SB1536 because it quickly failed. And for now, that’s an enormous relief. But it’s worth noting exactly what Representative Javadi co-sponsored, even if it’s difficult to pin him down on what he actually believes.

SB1536 is designed to restrict access to abortion after a 15-week gestational period with exceptions due to an urgent health need, rape or incest.

(If you’re following the plight of women in anti-abortion states, you will know that “exceptions” allowing for pregnancy termination are at best dubious and at worst, lethal).

SB1536 also states that all abortions involving a health care provider must be reported to the Oregon Health Authority. In other words, should you be able to get an abortion after 15 weeks, your health care decision is on the record.

(It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand how such information might be used since it’s already happening: the punitive treatment of women seeking or having abortions).

At the recent Oct 9th Candidates Forum sponsored by the Tillamook branch of the American Association of University Women, Representative Javadi was asked if he supported a woman’s right to make her own reproductive healthcare decisions. He spoke with great compassion about young girls betrayed by the men they trusted; expressed horror that women in 12 states were facing criminal charges related to their pregnancies; and assured his audience that abortion was still legal in Oregon.

He also neglected to say that he co-sponsored SB 1536.

In a Facebook conversation that same evening, a constituent from Manzanita asked Representative Javadi a similar question. She wrote, “What’s your position on women’s reproductive rights?”

He answered that Oregon has a lot of work to do concerning women’s reproductive rights. “Too often,” he wrote, “the conversation focuses solely on access to abortion, without addressing why a woman may feel like she can’t have the child”.

Perplexed, his constituent pushed harder for clarification, writing that the bill he co-sponsored would indicate he did not support a woman’s right to choose. His response: “I did sponsor a bill limiting abortion. I didn’t realize that your definition of women’s reproductive rights is so narrowly defined”.

Cyrus Javadi defines women’s reproductive freedom as the right to have a child. What transparently evasive nonsense from such a very clever man.

The other day, I received an email from Representative Javadi responding to a piece I’d written in support of Andy Davis’s resoundingly clear support for reproductive freedom. I appreciated his comments, his corrections and his consistent championing of the needs of pregnant women before and after they give birth.

But let’s be clear. Cyrus Javadi only supports SOME pregnant women’s rights to make their own medical decisions. Planned Parenthood agrees, and lists him by name on its 2024 Abortion Ban Watch List.

If you’re looking for a State Representative who trusts ALL women, vote for Andy Davis. He is serious about reproductive rights and knows precisely how to define them.

October 21, 2024
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

OCT 22

On October 14, Trump told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that he thought enemies within the United States were more dangerous than foreign adversaries and that he thought the military should stop those “radical left lunatics” on Election Day. Since then, he has been talking a lot about “the enemy from within,” specifically naming Representative Adam Schiff and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats from California, as “bad people.” Schiff was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee that broke the 2019 story of Trump’s attempt to extort Volodymyr Zelensky that led to Trump’s first impeachment.

Trump’s references to the “enemy from within” have become so frequent that former White House press secretary turned political analyst Jen Psaki has called them his closing argument for the 2024 election, and she warned that his construction of those who oppose him as “enemies” might sweep in virtually anyone he feels is a threat.

In a searing article today, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer of The Cycleexplored exactly what that means in a piece titled “What (Really) Happens If Trump Wins?” Bitecofer outlined Adolf Hitler’s January 30, 1933, oath of office, in which he promised Germans he would uphold the constitution, and the three months he took to dismantle that constitution.
By March, she notes, the concentration camp Dachau was open. Its first prisoners were not Jews, but rather Hitler’s prominent political opponents. By April, Jews had been purged from the civil service, and opposition political parties were illegal. By May, labor unions were banned and students were burning banned books. Within the year, public criticism of Hitler and the Nazis was illegal, and denouncing violators paid well for those who did it.

Bitecofer writes that Trump has promised mass deportations “that he cannot deliver unless he violates both the Constitution and federal law.” To enable that policy, Trump will need to dismantle the merit-based civil service and put into office those loyal to him rather than the Constitution. And then he will purge his political opponents, for once those who would stand against him are purged, Trump can act as he wishes against immigrants, for example, and others.

Ninety years ago, as American reporter Dorothy Thompson ate breakfast at her hotel in Berlin on August 25, 1934, a young man from Hitler’s secret police, the Gestapo, “politely handed me a letter and requested a signed receipt.” She thought nothing of it, she said, “But what a surprise was in store for me!” The letter informed her that, “in light of your numerous anti-German publications,” she was being expelled from Germany.

She was the first American journalist expelled from Nazi Germany, and that expulsion was no small thing. Thompson had moved to London in 1920 to become a foreign correspondent and began to spend time in Berlin. In 1924 she moved to the city to head the Central European Bureau for the New York Evening Post and the Philadelphia Public Ledger. From there, she reported on the rise of Adolf Hitler. She left her Berlin post in 1928 to marry novelist Sinclair Lewis, and the two settled in Vermont.

When the couple traveled to Sweden in 1930 for Lewis to accept the Nobel Prize in Literature, Thompson visited Germany, where she saw the growing strength of the fascists and the apparent inability of the Nazi’s opponents to come together to stand against them. She continued to visit the country in the following years, reporting on the rise of fascism there, and elsewhere.

In 1931, Thompson interviewed Hitler and declared that, rather than “the future dictator of Germany” she had expected to meet, he was a man of “startling insignificance.” She asked him if he would “abolish the constitution of the German Republic.” He answered: “I will get into power legally” and, once in power, abolish the parliament and the constitution and “found an authority-state, from the lowest cell to the highest instance; everywhere there will be responsibility and authority above, discipline and obedience below.” She did not believe he could succeed: “Imagine a would-be dictator setting out to persuade a sovereign people to vote away their rights,” she wrote in apparent astonishment.

Thompson was back in Berlin in summer 1934 as a representative of the Saturday Evening Post when she received the news that she had 24 hours to leave the country. The other foreign correspondents in Berlin saw her off at the railway station with “great sheaves of American Beauty roses.”
Safely in Paris, Thompson mused that in her first years in Germany she had gotten to know many of the officials of the German republic, and that when she had left to marry Lewis, they offered “many expressions of friendship and gratitude.” But times had changed. “I thought of them sadly as my train pulled out,” she said, “carrying me away from Berlin. Some of those officials still are in the service of the German Government, some of them are émigrés and some of them are dead.”

Thompson came home to a nation where many of the same dark impulses were simmering, her fame after her expulsion from Germany following her. She lectured against fascism across the country in 1935, then began a radio program that reached tens of millions of listeners. Hired in 1936 to write a regular column three days a week for the New York Herald Tribune, she became a leading voice in print, too, warning that what was happening in Germany could also happen in America.
In an echo of Lewis’s bestselling 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, she wrote in a 1937 column: “No people ever recognize their dictator in advance…. He always represents himself as the instrument for expressing the Incorporated National Will. When Americans think of dictators they always think of some foreign model. If anyone turned up here in a fur hat, boots and a grim look he would be recognized and shunned…. But when our dictator turns up, you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.”

In less than two years, the circulation of her column had grown to reach between seven and eight million people. In 1939 a reporter wrote: “She is read, believed and quoted by millions of women who used to get their political opinions from their husbands, who got them from [political commentator] Walter Lippmann.” The reporter likened Thompson to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, saying they were the two “most influential women in the U.S.”

When 22,000 American Nazis held a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden in honor of President George Washington’s birthday on February 20, 1939, Thompson sat in the front row of the press box, where she laughed loudly during the speeches and yelled “Bunk!” at the stage, illustrating that she would not be muzzled by Nazis. After being escorted out, she returned to her seat, where stormtroopers surrounded her. She later told a reporter: “I was amazed to see a duplicate of what I saw seven years ago in Germany. Tonight I listened to words taken out of the mouth of Adolf Hitler.”

Two years later, In 1941, Thompson returned to the issue she had raised when she mused about those government officials who had gone from thanking her to expelling her. In a piece for Harper’s Magazine titled “Who Goes Nazi?” she wrote: “It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi,” she wrote. “By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.”

Examining a number of types of Americans, she wrote that the line between democracy and fascism was not wealth, or education, or race, or age, or nationality. “Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi,” she wrote. They were secure enough to be good natured and open to new ideas, and they believed so completely in the promise of American democracy that they would defend it with their lives, even if they seemed too easygoing to join a struggle. “But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis,” she wrote. “Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi.”
In Paris following her expulsion from Berlin, Thompson told a reporter for the Associated Press that the reason she had been attacked was the same reason that Hitler’s power was growing. “Chancellor Hitler is no longer a man, he is a religion,” she said.
Suggesting her expulsion was because of her old article disparaging Hitler, in her own article about her expulsion she noted: “My offense was to think that Hitler is just an ordinary man, after all. That is a crime against the reigning cult in Germany, which says Mr. Hitler is a Messiah sent by God to save the German people…. To question this mystic mission is so heinous that, if you are a German, you can be sent to jail. I, fortunately, am an American, so I merely was sent to Paris. Worse things can happen….”

I received a pre-addressed and stamped postcard in the U.S. mail this week, requesting I choose to respond to various pre-selected sentences about Manzanita’s water allocations and send the postcard to a Manzanita resident.

The Manzanita resident, a Mr. Kugler, who has exhibited a bizarre ongoing obsession with Manzanita water issues, continues to advance ill-advised, poorly-informed and malicious attacks directed at our City Council, our Mayor and our City Manager. These attacks also continue to exhibit either astounding ignorance about Oregon municipal budgetary rules and procedures, or deliberate obfuscation of these rules and procedures.

It is unclear why Manzanita residents would funnel any of their views through an individual with a demonstrated long-standing animus towards our city, its elected/appointed leaders and city staff (he is currently a party to a lawsuit against Manzanita as well). Between this lawsuit and the referendum, he has cost the City (and all of us) over $30,000 in legal fees just since July.

To better understand our city budget, it is probably best to go straight to those who know most about it: our Budget Committee representatives, our City Council/Mayor and/or our City Manager. Specific meetings of the Budget Committee that cover all aspects of planning and recommendations for each fiscal year can be located at:

ci.manzanita.or.us/budget-committee/ The January to May meetings cover most issues, with a final meeting with City Council where they vote to approve the new fiscal year budget, usually in May/June.

The above information is important to examine and to understand, since the Budget Committee and our City Council are responsible by State Law to assure that Manzanita’s budget is accurate, balanced and fiscally stable. They can’t just present opinions as facts and get away with it or they’ll get in trouble with the State of Oregon.

The Budget Committee examines, questions, analyzes and then forwards its recommendations for annual budgetary approval by the city council every year, by Oregon law. Each year, this includes all aspects of Manzanita’s budget, including issues related to its Water Fund as well as indirect cost allocations.

For many years, the Budget Committee has been bombarded with complaints from resident Kugler that there are parts of the indirect cost allocation methodology, and/or the Manzanita Water Fund that are wrong. Each year, the Budget Committee makes sure that this is not true. And each year, they are correct. And each year, resident Kugler is proven incorrect.

Please communicate with trustworthy, knowledgeable friends, and then double-check your information with our city government.
Happy sleuthing!
Mark Kuestner
Manzanita resident