Oregon Measure 102, Removes Restriction that Affordable Housing Projects Funded by Municipal Bonds be Government Owned (2018)
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 16
- Early voting: N/A
- Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: N/A (all-mail elections)
- Voter ID: N/A
- Poll times: N/A
| Oregon Measure 102 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Housing | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
Oregon Measure 102, the Removes Restriction that Affordable Housing Projects Funded by Municipal Bonds be Government Owned Amendment, was on the ballot in Oregon as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1] It was approved.
| A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to allow counties, cities, and towns to—with voter approval and certain restrictions—use bond revenue to fund the construction of affordable housing without necessarily retaining complete ownership of the constructed housing. |
| A "no" vote was a vote in favor of preventing counties, cities, and towns from using bond revenue to fund the construction of affordable housing unless the project is fully owned by a governmental entity. |
Election results
|
Oregon Measure 102 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
1,037,922 | 56.90% | ||
| No | 786,225 | 43.10% | ||
Overview
Measure design
Measure 102 amended the state constitution to allow counties, cities, and towns to—with voter approval and certain restrictions—use bond revenue to fund the construction of affordable housing without necessarily retaining complete ownership of the constructed housing. Measure 102 requires that these affordable housing bonds be approved by local voters and that the total principal of any such bonds does not exceed 0.5 percent of the market value of the property within the jurisdiction of the county, city, or town. Going into the election, the state constitution did not allow revenue from bond issues to be used in a project with private owners or stakeholders. Measure 102 was designed to provide an exception to this prohibition for the construction of affordable housing.[2]
Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program
Measure 102 was advocated for by Portland City Hall. The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, created in 1986, was designed to provide tax credits for developers to create affordable housing units.[3] Going into the election, since the federal program was designed to require private ownership of affordable housing, the city of Portland had to keep its local bond revenue and the federal program's funds separate. Measure 102 authorized Portland and the metro region to use the federal program funds as well as bond revenue from local bond measures in the area.[4]
How did this measure get on the ballot?
Measure 102 was supported by the Portland City Hall to allow the city to use its affordable housing bonds in combination with certain money provided by the federal government. Measure 102 was introduced as House Joint Resolution 201 (HJR 201) on January 22, 2018, at the request of the House Interim Committee on Human Services and Housing. The state House unanimously passed the proposal on February 19, 2018, with six representatives excused. On March 1, 2018, the state Senate approved HJR 201 in a vote of 24-5, with one excused. All 17 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment. Seven of 13 Republicans voted in favor of it, five voted against, and one was excused.
Who supported this measure?
The following four committees were registered to support the measure:[5]
- Affordable Housing for Oregon
- Defend Oregon
- Parent's Education Association PAC
- Team Oregon
Together, they had raised $10.32 million and had spent $10.08 million.
There were no committees registered to oppose the measure.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[6]
| “ |
Amends Constitution: Allows local bonds for financing affordable housing with nongovernmental entities. Requires voter approval, annual audits Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote allows local governments to issue bonds to finance affordable housing with nongovernmental entities. Requires local voters’ approval of bonds, annual audits, public reporting. Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains constitutional prohibition on local governments raising money for/ loaning credit to nongovernmental entities; no exception for bonds to pay for affordable housing.[7] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[6]
| “ |
Summary: Amends Constitution. The constitution currently prohibits most local governments from raising money for, or loaning credit to, or in aid of, any private entity. Measure allows local governments to issue general obligation bonds to finance the cost of constructing affordable housing including when the funds go to a nongovernmental entity. Measure requires that local authorizing bonds be approved by local voters and describe affordable housing to be financed. The jurisdiction authorizing bonds must provide annual audits and public reporting on bond expenditures. Measure limits jurisdiction’s bonded indebtedness for capital costs of affordable housing to one-half of one percent of the value of all property in the jurisdiction.[7] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article XI, Oregon Constitution
Measure 102 amended section 9 of Article XI of the state constitution. The following bolded text was added, and [bracketed and italicized] text was deleted:[2] Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
Sec. 9. (1) No county, city, town or other municipal corporation, by vote of its citizens, or otherwise, shall become a stockholder in any joint company, corporation or association, whatever, or raise money for, or loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation or association. [Provided, that] (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, any municipal corporation designated as a port under any general or special law of the state of Oregon[,] may be empowered by statute to raise money and expend the same in the form of a bonus to aid in establishing water transportation lines between such port and any other domestic or foreign port or ports, and to aid in establishing water transportation lines on the interior rivers of this state, or on the rivers between Washington and Oregon, or on the rivers of Washington and Idaho reached by navigation from Oregon’s rivers[; any]. Any debts of a municipality to raise money created for the aforesaid purpose shall be incurred only on approval of a majority of those voting on the question, and shall not, either singly or in the aggregate, with previous debts and liabilities incurred for that purpose, exceed one [per cent] percent of the assessed valuation of all property in the municipality. (3) The prohibitions and limitations set forth in subsection (1) of this section do not apply to the use by a county, city, town or other municipal corporation of bonded indebtedness that is payable from ad valorem taxes not subject to limitation under section 11 or 11b of this Article to finance capital costs of affordable housing, but only if: (a) The bonded indebtedness is approved by the majority of voters voting on the measure authorizing the bonded indebtedness at an election that meets the requirements of subsection (8) of section 11 of this Article, as modified by section 11k of this Article; (b) The measure authorizing the bonded indebtedness describes “affordable housing” for purposes of the measure; (c) The jurisdiction authorizing the bonded indebtedness provides for annual audits of and public reporting on the expenditure of proceeds of the bonded indebtedness; and (d) The principal amount of the jurisdiction’s bonded indebtedness outstanding for such purpose does not exceed one-half of one percent of the real market value of all property in the jurisdiction.[7] |
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
| Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. |
Support
This amendment was supported by the Portland City Hall to allow the city to use its affordable housing bonds in combination with certain money provided by the federal government.
Supporters
- Defend Oregon[8]
- Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D)[9]
- Oregon state representative and gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler (R)[9]
- Oregon League of Conservation Voters[10]
- Democratic Party of Oregon[11]
- Meals on Wheels People[12]
- American Federation of Teachers (AFT) of Oregon[13]
- Habitat for Humanity of Oregon[14]
- Oregon Food Bank[15]
- League of Women Voters of Oregon[16]
Arguments
- In a letter to the chair of the House Committee On Human Services and Housing—which requested Measure 102—Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and the city commissioners wrote, "Allowing local governments to leverage general obligation bond proceeds, such as the $258.4 million affordable housing bond approved by Portland voters in 2016, will increase the financing available for affordable housing and maximize overall resources."[4]
- The Metro regional government of the Oregon portion of the Portland metropolitan area, which deals with land use and transportation planning[17] "has been concerned about the restriction in the constitution and supported HJR 201 at the recent legislative session," and said that more housing could be created if the amendment passes.[18]
- Habitat for Humanity of Oregon said, "The amendment would lift the current ban on the ability of local governments to work with nonprofits and local businesses to build affordable housing with bonds. This small change means local housing bond dollars can go farther, helping communities address the need for homes that people can afford. Habitat for Humanity is among a growing coalition of organizations, businesses, elected officials and community members who are taking a stand to support affordable housing."[14]
Opposition
Opponents
- The Bike Party, which describes itself as a political organization advocating for "safe bicycling and sustainable communities locally and worldwide."[19]
Arguments
Andrew Otis Haschemeyer of the Bike Party wrote the following:[20]
| “ |
Measure 102 is a Constitutional Deregulation that supports the principles of supply side economics and creates an unprecedented opportunity for corporations to sap community assets they can then turn around and sell. Sold as a way to help the poor, it serves the rich. Proponents of Measure 102 tell us the housing crisis can be solved by giving money to private entities. The solution, they say, to the housing crisis is to create more housing and to subsidize that housing with tax credits. This again, puts money in the hands of “developers” who make a profit in the building and selling of the property and aids the profit margins of local private business who don’t pay a living wage to their workforce. The current housing crisis is a symptom of a larger crisis, created by “free markets,” privatization, and the limitless concentration of wealth. We are on the verge of a painful and necessary correction. However, Measure 102 seeks to forestall that correction by further impoverishing our communities.[7] |
” |
Media editorials
- See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements
Support
- The Corvallis Gazette-Times said: "The measure also would encourage the sort of innovative collaboration that could, over the long run, make a big difference in creating affordable housing options throughout the state. The measure comes with a little bit of risk, but the payoff for Oregon residents struggling to find a place to live could be huge. We recommend a "yes" vote on Measure 102."[21]
- The Oregonian said: "Unlike the other statewide measures on the November ballot, Measure 102 is well-constructed, targeted, noncontroversial and aims to solve a pressing problem: how to stretch tax dollars earmarked for affordable housing to serve as many Oregonians as possible. Voters should endorse this common-sense fix to the constitution and vote 'yes' on Measure 102."[22]
- Willamette Week said: "Just about everybody believes it's a good idea: Lawmakers in both parties voted unanimously to refer the matter to voters, and there's no organized opposition to the measure. We are typically wary of amending the constitution, but in this instance, it's warranted."[23]
- The Herald and News wrote, "We vote “Yes.” Anything that will create more affordable housing and help clear up some red tape to that goal is a good thing. Auditing is important."[24]
Opposition
- The Register-Guard said: "The idea behind Measure 102 is a good one: Oregon should allow cities to pursue public-private partnerships for desperately needed affordable housing. Unfortunately, the Legislature wrote a flawed constitutional amendment to accomplish that end. Oregonians should reject it so that lawmakers can come back with a better version next year. The authors of the Constitution recognized the risks of entangling local government with private industry. If taxpayers are footing the bill, taxpayers should retain ownership of the final product or receive a substantial public good, not just pad private sector profits with public subsidies. The constitutional clause also is a barrier to corruption that prevents public officials from diverting tax dollars to their cronies in the private sector. Those were very real dangers in 1857, and they remain dangers today. If Oregon is to create an exception for affordable housing, it must provide adequate safeguards to ensure it is not abused. Measure 102 failed to include those safeguards."[25]
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $10,317,746.07 |
| Opposition: | $0.00 |
The following four committees were registered to support the measure:[5]
- Affordable Housing for Oregon
- Defend Oregon
- Parent's Education Association PAC
- Team Oregon
Together, they had raised $10.32 million and had spent $10.08 million.
There were no committees registered to oppose the measure.
Support
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top donors
Top donors listed here are the top donors for the committee that was exclusively supporting Measure 102: Affordable Housing for Oregon. Top donors to the other committees are not included in the chart below because they were registered with a position on multiple measures on the ballot, making it impossible to determine on which measure the committee's funds were used.[5]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes for Affordable Housing | $0.00 | $92,869.56 | $92,869.56 |
| Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| Oregon Association of Realtors | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | $15,000.00 |
| Neighborhood Partnerships | $0.00 | $10,013.38 | $10,013.38 |
| Oregon Education Association | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
| American Federation of Teachers-Oregon Issue PAC (5486) | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Polls
Below are results of polls that asked respondents how they would vote on Measure 102. Also displayed are the dates the poll was conducted, the number of respondents, and the poll's margin of error.
| Oregon Measure 102 | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Yes- support | No- oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| DHM Research Poll 10/4/18 - 10/11/18 | 46.0% | 26.0% | 28.0% | +/-4.4 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
| Riley Research Associates poll 9/24/18 - 10/7/18 | 46.0% | 31.0% | 23.0% | +/-5.2 | 356 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 46% | 28.5% | 25.5% | +/-4.8 | 428 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Background
Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program
Measure 102 was advocated for by Portland City Hall. The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, created in 1986, was designed to provide tax credits for developers to create affordable housing units.[26] Going into the election, since the federal program was designed to require private ownership of affordable housing, the city of Portland had to keep its local bond revenue and the federal program's funds separate. This measure authorized Portland and the metro region to use the federal program funds as well as bond revenue from local bond measures in the area.[4] Portland, Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler said, "Allowing local governments to leverage general obligation bond proceeds, such as the $258.4 million affordable housing bond approved by Portland voters in 2016, will increase the financing available for affordable housing and maximize overall resources."
Oregon Constitution
Currently, Section 9 of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution prohibits governments from partnering with private businesses on construction projects funded by general obligation bonds. The provision of the Constitution, adopted in 1859, states, "No county, city, town or other municipal corporation, by vote of its citizens, or otherwise, shall become a stockholder in any joint company, corporation or association, whatever, or raise money for, or loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, corporation or association." This amendment repealed that restriction, allowing bond funds to be spent by splitting the costs between the government and private and nonprofit partners.[27][28]
This section of the constitution was amended in 1917 by Measure 1 of 1917. The Oregon Indebtedness for Ports and Water Transportation Amendment, also known as Measure 1, was on the June 4, 1917 ballot in Oregon as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure authorized municipalities to become indebted, upon a majority vote by constituents, to aid water transportation lines between ports and establish water transportation on the interior rivers of Oregon. The measure mandated that indebtedness shall not exceed one percent of the assessed value of the property within the municipality.[29]
Housing in Portland
In 2015, the Portland City Council declared a housing emergency to combat increasing rent prices and homelessness. The emergency declaration encouraged spending on housing, allowed for flexibility in where city and county officials could open shelters, and fast-tracked building permits for affordable housing projects.
In 2016, Portland voters approved a $258.4 million affordable housing bond, which was projected to finance 1,300 units, but could have been used to fund more if private partners were able to contribute to the project. The city was required to own and maintain the projects constructed using the bond funds.[30][31]
The Metro Council and the 2018 bond measure
The Oregon Metro Council is a regional government in the metropolitan Portland area of Oregon. As of 2018, Metro was only directly-elected regional government body in the United States.[32] The Metro Council serves the Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties of Oregon. The council consists of a president, who is elected regionwide, and six councilors who serve four-year terms and are elected in nonpartisan races.[33]
On June 7, 2018, The Metro Council referred a general obligation bond to Portland-area voters for the November 2018 ballot. The bond of $652.8 million was designed to fund affordable housing projects, including acquisition, construction, and renovation, for around 7,000 to 12,000 people in the Portland area. The Metro Council estimated that the bond would cost homeowners around $5 a month, or 24 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value.[34] To read more about the bond measure, click here. The Portland Tribune reported that the Metro Council said more housing could be created using these bond funds if this constitutional amendment passes.[34] Nick Fish, a Portland commissioner who played a role in the bond campaign, said, "Working-class families are being priced out of every part of the region. We’re seeing a one-strike-and-you’re-out economy, where people are one job loss, one medical emergency, one unforeseen crisis away from being on the street."[35]
Ballot measures in Oregon
From 1996 through 2016, there were 177 ballot measures on the ballot in Oregon. Voters approved 85 and rejected 92. The average number of measures appearing on the ballot during was about eight. The approval rate at the ballot box was 48.02% during the 20 year period from 1996 to 2016. The minimum number of measures that have appeared on a ballot was zero, and the maximum was 32.
| Ballot measures in Oregon, 1996-2017 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total number | Approved | Percent approved | Defeated | Percent defeated | Average | Median | Annual minimum | Annual maximum | |
| 177 | 85 | 48.02% | 92 | 51.98% | 8.05 | 7 | 0 | 32 | |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Oregon Constitution
To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a simple majority vote is required in both the Oregon State Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives.
Measure 102—House Joint Resolution 201 in the legislature—was introduced on January 22, 2018, at the request of the House Interim Committee on Human Services and Housing. The state House unanimously passed the proposal on February 19, 2018, with six representatives excused. On March 1, 2018, the state Senate approved HJR 201 in a vote of 24-5, with one excused. All 17 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment. Seven of 13 Republicans voted in favor of it, five voted against, and one was excused.[1]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Oregon
Poll times
Oregon is an elections-by-mail state. A voter can still vote on Election Day at his or her local municipal clerk's office, however, between 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Pacific Time.[36]
Registration requirements
To register to vote in Oregon, one must be a resident of Oregon, a United States citizen, and at least 16 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old by the day of the election in order to receive a ballot.[37] Prospective voters can register online, in person at a county elections office, or by mailing in a voter registration form. The deadline to register is 21 days before an election.[37]
Automatic registration
Oregon implemented automatic voter registration in 2016. For more information, click here.
Online registration
- See also: Online voter registration
Oregon has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.
Same-day registration
Oregon does not allow same-day voter registration.
Residency requirements
To register to vote in Oregon, you must be a resident of the state.
Verification of citizenship
Oregon does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.
Verifying your registration
The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.
Voter ID requirements
Oregon is a vote-by-mail state. When registering to vote, a voter must provide his or her driver's license or state ID card number.[38]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oregon State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 201," accessed February 20, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Oregon Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 201," accessed February 20, 2018
- ↑ National Housing Law Project, "Low-Income Housing Tax Credits," accessed July 13, 2018
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Willamette Weekly, "City of Portland Wants to Change the Oregon State Constitution to Build Housing," February 10, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Oregon Secretary of State, "Committee Search," accessed November 2, 2018
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Legislative Referral 2018-401 Certified Ballot Title," accessed June 19, 2018
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Defend Oregon Statement of Organization," accessed August 15, 2018
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 The Bulletin, "Brown and Buehler agree on abortion, housing ballot measures," accessed August 15, 2018
- ↑ Oregon League of Conservation Voters, "Endorsements," accessed September 1, 2018
- ↑ Democratic Party of Oregon, "Ballot measure endorsements 2018," accessed October 14, 2018
- ↑ Meals on Wheels People, "MEALS ON WHEELS PEOPLE ENDORSES YES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING," accessed October 14, 2018
- ↑ Oregon AFT, "2018 Ballot Measure Briefing: What this Year’s Measures Could Mean for You and Your Family," accessed October 14, 2018
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Habitat for Humanity Oregon, "Vote YES for Affordable Housing," accessed October 14, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Food Bank, "Bolster our community by voting “yes” on affordable housing," accessed October 14, 2018
- ↑ League of Women Voters of Oregon, "2018 ballot measure endorsements," accessed November 1, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Encyclopedia, "Metro Regional Government," accessed April 5, 2018
- ↑ Portland Tribune, "Oregon voters could ease affordable housing bond limits," accessed April 5, 2018
- ↑ Facebook: Bike Party, "About," accessed September 20, 2018
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff, email communication with Andrew Otis Haschemeyer, September 19, 2018
- ↑ Corvallis Gazette-Times, "Editorial: Measure 102 could be boon for housing," accessed October 5, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Live, "Editorial endorsement: Vote 'yes' on Measure 102's constitutional amendment measure," accessed October 5, 2018
- ↑ Willamette Week, "WW’s November 2018 Endorsements for Oregon Ballot Measures," accessed October 19, 2018
- ↑ H&N Editorial: Our view on several ballot issues," October 21, 2018
- ↑ The Register-Guard, "Vote no on Measure 102," accessed October 8, 2018
- ↑ National Housing Law Project, "Low-Income Housing Tax Credits," accessed July 13, 2018
- ↑ Portland Tribune, "Advisory panel learns what housing bond might buy," accessed April 4, 2018
- ↑ Portland Tribune, "Oregon voters could ease affordable housing bond limits," accessed July 12, 2018
- ↑ Oregon State Library, "State of Oregon Official Voters' Pamphlet," accessed November 11, 2013
- ↑ Oregon Live, "Portland City Council extends renter protection and 'housing emergency' policies," accessed April 4, 2018
- ↑ Portland Tribune, "Oregon voters could ease affordable housing bond limits," accessed July 12, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Encyclopedia, "Metro Regional Government," accessed July 12, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Metro, "What is metro?" accessed July 12, 2018
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 Oregon Metro, "Proposed regional affordable housing bond information," accessed July 12, 2018
- ↑ Bloomberg, "Oregon Weighs Record Bond for Housing as Real Estate Prices Jump," accessed July 23, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, “Voting in Oregon,” accessed October 17, 2019
- ↑ 37.0 37.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Voting in Oregon," accessed October 4, 2019
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Voting in Oregon," accessed October 7, 2019
 |
State of Oregon Salem (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
