Similar videofirst bank last five transaction check.
First Bank of Linden, Linden, Alabama
About First Bank of Linden
On this page you can find all information you need about First Bank of Linden in Linden, AL, including the address, photos, E-mail, working hours, you can also find Google Maps placement of all departments in the city. First Bank of Linden provides cash advances for individuals and legal entities in Linden
|Address:||116 E Coats Ave, Linden, AL 36748, United States|
|Phone:||+1 (334) 295 - 8741|
Other companies in Linden, AL
Advise to read before applying
Alabama One CU purchasing First Bank of Linden
Alabama One Credit Union in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, has agreed to buy First Bank of Linden in Linden, Alabama.
Alabama One will pay cash for the $80 million-asset unit of First Linden Bancshares in the purchase-and-assumption transaction. A press release about the transaction did not disclose the price.
The deal is expected to close by the second quarter of 2021 and continues an expansive move for Alabama One, which earlier this year absorbed Alabama Rural Electric Credit Union to gain statewide reach. Adding First Bank of Linden will extend the credit union's reach in Western and Central Alabama, while increasing its total assets to $825 million.
"We are delighted to partner with First Bank of Linden, especially as they share our focus on running a high-quality, low-risk institution with a strong commitment to both the community and to our customers," Bill Wells, CEO, Alabama One said in a press release. "This transaction will also strengthen our presence in west Alabama, an area of our state we view as strategically important."
Bank / Credit Union
|Bank||First Bank of Linden|
|Branch||First Bank Of Linden Branch (Main Office)|
|Address||114 East Coats Avenue,|
Linden, Alabama 36748
|Contact Number||(334) 295-8741|
|Service Type||Full Service, brick and mortar office|
|Date of Establishment||05/07/1904|
Opening Hours and DirectionsFind Opening Hours on Google Maps
|Bank Holding Company||FIRST LINDEN BANCSHARES, INC.|
|HeadQuarters Address||114 East Coats Avenue,|
Linden, AL 36748
|Bank Type||21 - STATE NONMEMBER BANK|
|FDIC CERT #||15695|
|Total Bank Assets||$78,616,000|
|RSSD (Federal Reserve ID Number)||478430|
|RSSD (Federal Reserve ID Number) for Holding Company||2059954|
Routing Number for First Bank of Linden in AlabamaA routing number is a 9 digit code for identifying a financial institute for the purpose of routing of checks (cheques), fund transfers, direct deposits, e-payments, online payments, etc. to the correct bank branch. Routing numbers are also known as banking routing numbers, routing transit numbers, RTNs, ABA numbers, and sometimes SWIFT codes (although these are quite different from routing numbers as SWIFT codes are solely used for international wire transfers while routing numbers are used for domestic transfers). Routing numbers differ for checking and savings accounts, prepaid cards, IRAs, lines of credit, and wire transfers. Usually all banks have different routing numbers for each state in the US. You can find the routing number for First Bank of Linden in Alabama here.
Total Assets:The sum of all assets owned by the institution including cash, loans, securities, bank premises and other assets. This total does not include off-balance-sheet accounts.
RSSD:The unique number assigned by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) to the top regulatory bank holding company. This unique identifier for First Bank of Linden is 478430.
FDIC CERT #:The certificate number assigned to an institution for deposit insurance. The FDIC Certificate Number for First Bank Of Linden Branch office of First Bank of Linden in Linden, AL is 15695. This unique NUMBER is assigned by the FDIC and is used to identify institutions and for the issuance of insurance certificates by FDIC.
In Re Lawrence William Sloma, Debtor.first Bank of Linden, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Lawrence William Sloma, Defendant-appellee, 43 F.3d 637 (11th Cir. 1995)
The district court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court in an adversary proceeding filed by the Chapter 7 debtor Lawrence William Sloma. This dispute north america continent map the issue of Sloma's assignment of payments under an annuity to First Bank of Linden as security for a loan, seven years prior to filing his bankruptcy petition, and claiming an exemption under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
Sloma injured his shoulder in a work-related accident. He was employed by Gulf Coast Catering Company which provided catering services to offshore oil rigs. Damages for the injuries were governed by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901, et seq.
Gulf Coast and its insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, negotiated a settlement with Sloma to fulfill his rights under the Act pursuant to which Sloma was to be paid $180,000.00, structured as follows:
$10,000.00 to be paid immediately
$ 5,000.00 to be paid after 5 years
$10,000.00 to be paid after 10 years
$15,000.00 to be paid after 15 years
$20,000.00 to be paid after 20 years
$ 500.00 per month to be paid for 20 years.
Upon payment of the $180,000, Sloma's employer and its carrier were discharged of any further obligation or liabilities to Sloma. The settlement was approved as an Award by the United States Department of Labor, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 908(i).
The employer's insurance carrier, National Fire Insurance Company, paid the $180,000.00 award to Sloma by the payment of $10,000.00 in cash to him and the purchase from Manufacturers Life Insurance Company of an annuity, naming Sloma as first bank of linden alabama Annuitant, for which National paid Manufacturers a single premium. Sloma agreed that he should be paid as follows:
$500.00 per month for 20 years certain until 240 payments have been made, and after that for the remaining life of the annuitant.
$ 5,000.00 on October 1, 1989
$10,000.00 on October 1, 1994
$15,000.00 on October 1, 1999
$20,000.00 on October 1, 2004.
On December 8, 1984, Sloma obtained a loan from the First Bank of Linden for $85,000.00 for the purpose of acquiring and operating a Western Auto Store. Sloma executed an absolute collateral assignment of the annuity payments (provided to the Bank by Manufacturers) to secure the loan. The loan was structured to be repaid in accordance with the annuity payments that were assigned to the Bank.
The Bank continued to receive monthly payments from Manufacturers pursuant to the assignment until Sloma's business venture failed and, in violation of the security agreement contained within the note to the Bank, Sloma directed that Manufacturers forward all future payments to him personally.
Due to the default under the terms of the note and the conversion by Sloma of the monthly payments subject to the security interest and assignment in favor of the Bank, the Bank filed suit against Sloma in the Circuit Court of Morengo County, Alabama. Judgment was entered against Sloma for the amount due under the note. The Bank then caused the issuance of a garnishment against Manufacturers to enforce payments under the assignment to satisfy the judgment. The Circuit Court issued a final order directing that Manufacturers fulfill the obligation under the assignment to the Bank and pay all future annuity payments until the judgment held by the Bank against Sloma was paid.
Sloma filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on January 8, 1992, seven years after the assignment by Sloma to the Bank of his iboc app payments. Sloma asserted a claim of exemption as to the payments due from Manufacturers. The Bank did not file objections north dakota state vs south dakota state basketball Sloma's claim of exemption within 30 days. After the petition was filed, the Bank continued to receive the monthly payments from Manufacturers pursuant to the final judgment of the State Circuit Court.
Sloma filed an adversary proceeding against the Bank asserting that the payments due from Manufacturers were exempt property. After a trial the bankruptcy court entered a final judgment in which it determined that the annuity payments due from Manufacturers constituted an assignment of the right to receive compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act, and that such assignment was void ab initio, as a matter of law.
The district court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court that the benefits under the Act were not assignable and that the annuity payments were the exempt property of Sloma. This appeal ensued.
Standard of Review
The facts are undisputed. The issues in this appeal are questions of law, therefore the standard of review is de novo. In Re Club Associates, 956 F.2d 1065, 1069 (11th Cir. 1992).
Two questions are posed in this appeal. First, was the assignment of the annuity payments to the Bank by Sloma in payment of his note for $85,000.00 valid, or was the assignment barred under the anti-assignment provision of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act. Second, did the Bank's failure to file a timely objection in bankruptcy to the claim of the property as exempt by Sloma prevent the Bank from challenging the validity of the exemption.
We start with the Award made to Sloma under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act. It states:
The employer, Gulf Coast Catering Company, and the insurance carrier, National Union Fire Insurance Company, shall pay to Lawrence Sloma, the claimant employee, compensation in the amount of $180,000.00, in a structured settlement as specified herein above, the payment of which will discharge the liability of the employer and insurance carrier from all future installments of compensation and the file of Lawrence Sloma will be closed.
To satisfy the Award, Gulf Coast's insurance carrier, National Union, paid Sloma $10,000.00 in cash and obtained a $170,000.00 annuity from Manufacturers in favor of Sloma as the annuitant, payable in installments as set forth supra. Sloma subsequently assigned the payments under the annuity to the Bank to obtain a loan which the Bank would not have made absent such assignment. To determine the validity of this assignment, we must focus on the proper interpretation of 33 U.S.C. § 916 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act, which provides:
No assignment, release, or commutation of compensation or benefits due or payable under this chapter, except as provided by this chapter, shall be valid, and such compensation and benefits shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from levy, execution, and attachment or other remedy for recovery or collection of a debt, which exemption may not be waived. (Emphasis added).
Neither we nor counsel have found any helpful precedent to guide us in the application of this section to the unusual facts of this case. There can be no doubt that had the employer paid Sloma $180,000.00 in cash, he could have used it in any way he desired. Cf. Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund, 39 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (ERISA anti-alienation analysis). Here the employer paid Sloma $180,000.00, $10,000.00 in cash and the purchase of an annuity for $170,000.00. We see no material difference whether the employer paid for the annuity or whether the employer paid Sloma $170,000.00 with which he purchased the annuity. The annuity is a payment under a contract where for a gross sum paid by the employer, Manufacturers became liable to pay certain sums to Sloma. The right to receive payments was purchased and paid for prior to Sloma's adjudication in bankruptcy. The payments are essentially repayments in installments of the sum with which the annuity was purchased. See In Re Power, 115 F.2d 69, 73 (7th Cir. 1940). Sloma received benefits of $180,000.00 under the Act by the purchase of the annuity for $170,000.00 and $10,000.00 in cash.
The payments received by Sloma under the annuity contract were not due and payable under the Act; they were payments made to him by a third party, Manufacturers. What the Supreme Court said in McIntosh v. Aubrey, 185 U.S. 122, 125, 22 S. Ct. 561, 563, 46 L. Ed. 834 (1902), sums up the issue in this case, that "the exemption provided by the act protects the fund only while in the course of transmission to the pensioner [annuitant]. When the money has been paid to him it has 'inured wholly to his benefit,' and is liable to seizure as opportunity presents itself. The pensioner, however, may use the money in any manner, for his own benefit and to secure the comfort of his family, free from the attacks of creditors."
The purpose of the anti-assignability provisions of the Act to benefit an injured employee was served and ended once the amount of the award of $180,000.00 was paid to Sloma by the payment of $10,000.00 and the purchase, in his behalf, of an annuity for $170,000.00. Sloma's assignment to the Bank of the payments under the annuity in repayment of his loan of $85,000, made long prior to the bankruptcy, was valid and the Bank is entitled to the payments until its loan is fully repaid. The Bank was substituted for Sloma to receive annuity payments over the period of time established by Sloma's loan repayment schedule. During that time, Sloma had no existing right to redirect the payments to himself.
Failure to Object to Claim of Exemption
The second issue concerns the lack of objection by the Bank to Sloma's claim of exemption within the 30-day time limit pursuant first bank of linden alabama Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b). Sloma argues that the Bank's failure to do so prevents it from now challenging the validity of the exemption. We disagree.
The validity of the assignment to the Bank of payments under the annuity and the necessity for objecting to it in the bankruptcy proceedings are interrelated. We have held that the assignment is valid and not barred by the Act. Since Sloma's lack of interest in the assigned property does not establish a basis for a proper claim of exemption, there was no need for the Bank, a secured creditor, to object. The consensual lien establishes the creditor's interest in the property. It is well established law that the trustee in bankruptcy takes only the title of the debtor in property of the estate. Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Co., 371 U.S. 132, 135, 83 S. Ct. 232, 234, 9 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1962). Having transferred his property interest to a creditor, a debtor cannot claim as exempt property that 2017 ford f 150 xlt does not own.
The assignment by Sloma to the Bank of Linden of the payments under the annuity was valid and not barred by the anti-assignment provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act.
There was no need for the Bank to file an objection to Sloma's claim of an exemption because he did not own the property claimed to be exempt.
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The majority states that there is no "helpful precedent to guide us in the application of this section to the unusual facts of this case." I, however, believe that a recent case from the Tenth Circuit, In Re Delgado, 967 F.2d 1466 (10th Cir. 1992), is instructive. In Delgado, an injured employee received a lump sum workman's compensation settlement which she placed in a certificate of deposit maturing in five years. She also took out a loan in which she granted the bank a security interest in the certificate and assigned the certificate as collateral. The Tenth Circuit held that the bank's security interest in the certificate was not enforceable under Kansas's statute prohibiting assignment of worker's compensation benefits. The Tenth Circuit explained that:
the Kansas provision defines compensation as including the actual payments and nowhere is there a limitation that the exemption applies only to security interests or assignments entered into before the compensation is actually paid. [W]e recognize that [the injured employee] will receive a windfall by recovering the certificate of deposit funds after having spent the loan proceeds which have not been repaid. To avoid such a situation, a bank would need to inquire concerning the source of funds which will serve as security for a loan. In this case, though, the Bank was fully aware that the workmen's compensation award was placed in the first bank of linden alabama of deposit which served as security. By structuring the transaction so as to control the compensation funds before extending credit to its long-time customer, the Bank took a risk.
Delgado, 967 F.2d 1466, 1468. Similarly, I believe that the assignment in this case was not valid. Sloma may "receive a windfall by recovering [the annuity installments] after having spent the loan proceeds which have not been repaid." But, just as the injured employee in Delgado was entitled to the windfall, Sloma is entitled to the windfall under 33 U.S.C. § 916. When it secured Sloma's loan with an assignment of the annuity that he received as compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the First Bank of Linden simply took a risk that did not pay off.
Section 916 provides: "No assignment . of compensation or benefits due or payable . shall be valid." The majority emphasizes the words "due or payable." Apparently, it believes that these three words mean that section 916 only invalidates an assignment of compensation that is to be received in the future. I disagree for the reasons explained in Delgado.
Even under the majority's interpretation of section 916, I believe that the assignment in this case was invalid. The majority explains:
There can be no doubt that had the employer paid Sloma $180,000.00 in cash, he could have used it in any way he desired. Here the employer paid Sloma $180,000.00, $10,000.00 in cash and the purchase of an annuity for $170,000.00. We see no material difference whether the employer paid for the annuity or whether the employer paid Sloma $170,000.00 with which he first bank of linden alabama the annuity. The payments received by Sloma under the annuity contract were not due and payable under the Act.
Thus, the majority argues that because Sloma's employer purchased an annuity for him, thereby satisfying its obligations, Sloma was able to assign the installments of that annuity. 2] That, however, is not what happened in this case.
In its findings of fact, the bankruptcy court found: "The settlement provided for the establishment of an annuity issued by Manufacturers Life Insurance Company ("Manufacturers"). The annuity policy provided that Sloma would receive monthly payments . and lump sum payments . The policy expressly provided that National Union was the owner of the policy." Thus, the employer never purchased an annuity for Sloma; instead, the employer's insurance carrier, National Union, purchased an annuity in which it maintained ownership. Because of this subtle difference, I believe that Sloma was still in the course of receiving compensation "due or payable" under the majority's interpretation of section 916.
The annuity policy was the result of a settlement that was approved by the United States Department of Labor pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 908(i). Section 908(i) (3) provides: "A settlement approved under this section shall discharge the liability of the employer or carrier, or both." Thus, the majority was correct when it stated: "Upon payment of the $180,000, Sloma's employer and its carrier were discharged of any further obligation or liabilities to Sloma." Sloma's employer, however, and its carrier, National Union, had not made the full payment of the $180,000 because National Union owned the annuity policy. Sloma merely stood as an intended third party beneficiary of the annuity contract between National Union and Manufacturers. As a result, the $180,000 had not been paid (past tense) to Sloma. Sloma was simply entitled to the installments of the annuity contract, which National Union owned; thus, he was still in the process of receiving "compensation or benefits due or payable." Therefore, the compensation could not be assigned to the First Bank of Linden.
In sum, I believe that the majority has incorrectly interpreted 33 U.S.C. § 916 as only invalidating assignments of compensation that has not been paid (past tense). Instead, the statute should be read in accordance with the Tenth Circuit's approach in Delgado. I also believe that even under the majority's interpretation of section 916, the facts of this case indicate that the compensation had not been paid (past tense), and therefore, the assignment was not valid.
First Bank of Linden in Linden, Alabama (AL)
Overview, Financial Summary, Detailed Financial Reports, Branches
First Bank of Linden - Overview
- FDIC Certificate #: 15695
Federal Reserve ID: 478430
Bank Holding Company (Regulatory Top Holder): First Linden Bancshares, Inc. (RSSDID: 2059954, Location: Linden, AL)
Date Established: May 07, 1904
Trust Powers Granted: No
Bank Charter Class: Commercial bank, state charter and Fed nonmember, supervised by the FDIC
Offices: 1 (Domestic: 1, Interstate: No)
FDIC's unique #: 9963
Numeric code: 21
Insurance Fund Membership: Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF)
Insured commercial Banks: Yes
FDIC Insured: Yes
Deposit Insurance Fund member: Yes
Ownership Type: Non-Stock
FFIEC Call Report 31 Filer: No
State Chartered: Yes
Subchapter S Corporations: No
Asset Concentration Hierarchy: All Other Specialization < 1 Billion
Date of Deposit Insurance: January 01, 1934
Last Structure Change Effective Date: March 31, 2006
Last Structure Change Process Date: November 03, 2006
Last Data Update: November 03, 2006
Data Source Date: April 05, 2012
- Address: 114 East Coats Avenue, Linden, AL 36748
Quarterly Banking Profile Region: Atlanta
FDIC Geographic Region: Atlanta
FDIC Supervisory Region: Atlanta
FDIC Field Office: Montgomery
Office of the Comptroller the Currency (OCC) District: Southwest
Office of Thrift Supervision Region: Southeast
- History of Changes
- Merge BIF and SAIF Funds into DIF
- Financial Summary
- Total assets: $81.3 mil
Equity capital: $11.3 mil
Deposits held in domestic offices: $69.4 mil
Return on assets (ROA): 0.90% ($0.7 mil)
Quarterly return on assets: 0.58% ($0.5 mil)
Return on Equity (ROE): 6.77% first bank of linden alabama mil)
Quarterly return on equity: 4.24% ($0.5 mil)
Net income: $0.7 mil
Quarterly Net income: $0.1 mil
Pretax return on assets: 0.95% ($772.0 mil)
Quarterly Pretax return on assets: 0.60% ($487.6 mil)
1992 - 1999 Historical total assets, liabilities and capital ($ mil)
2000 - 2011 Historical total assets, liabilities and capital ($ mil)
Historical Total Incomes ($ mil)
Historical Total Expenses ($ mil)
Historical total employees (full-time equivalent)
Assets and Liabilities (December 31, 2011)
- Dollar figures in thousands
- 19Total employees (full-time equivalent)
- $81,267Total assets
- $6,722Cash and due from depository institutions
- $0Interest-bearing balances
- $8,852Federal funds sold & reverse repurchase agreements
- $36,197Net loans & leases
- $478Loan loss allowance
- $0Trading account assets
- $664Bank premises and fixed assets
- $320Other real estate owned
- $0Goodwill and other intangibles
- $81,267Life insurance assets
- $1,052All other assets
- $69,984Total liabilities and capital
- $69,371Total liabilities
- $60,603Total deposits
- $69,371Interest-bearing deposits
- $93Deposits held in domestic offices
- 0.00%% insured (estimated)
- $0Federal funds purchased & repurchase agreements
- $0Trading liabilities
- $0Other borrowed funds
- $613Subordinated debt
- $11,283All other liabilities
- $11,283Total equity capital
- $11,283Total bank equity capital
- $0Perpetual preferred stock
- $600Common stock
- $10,083Undivided profits
- $0Noncurrent loans and leases
- $0Noncurrent loans that are wholly or partially guaranteed by the U.S. government
- $77Income earned, not collected on loans
- $0Earning assets
- $812Long-term assets (5+ years)
- $72,509Average Assets, year-to-date
- $5,492Average Assets, quarterly
- $81,573Volatile liabilities
- $82,089Insider loans
- $47,753FHLB advances
- $82,791Loans and leases held for sale
- $0Unused loan commitments
- $0Tier 1 (core) risk-based capital
- $10,586Tier 2 risk-based capital
- $0Total risk weighted assets
- $0Total unused commitments
- $3,965Restructured Loans and leases
Income and Expense (December 31, 2011)
- Dollar figures in thousands
- $3,689Total interest income
- $820Total interest expense
- $2,869Net interest income
- $167Provision for loan and lease losses
- $317Total noninterest income
- $0Fiduciary activities
- $244Service charges on deposit accounts
- $0Trading account gains & fees
- $73Additional noninterest income
- $2,377Total noninterest expense
- $1,186Salaries and employee benefits
- $89Premises and equipment expense
- $1,102Additional noninterest expense
- $642Pre-tax net operating first bank of linden alabama gains (losses)
- $37Applicable income taxes
- $734Income before extraordinary items
- $0Extraordinary gains - net
- $734Net income attributable to bank
- $0Net charge-offs
- $734Cash dividends
- $27Sale, conversion, retirement of capital stock, net
- $348Net operating income
Performance and Condition Ratios (December 31, 2011)
- Dollar figures in thousands
- Performance Ratios (%, annualized)
- 5.13%Yield on earning assets
- 1.14%Cost of funding earning assets
- 3.99%Net interest margin
- 0.44%Noninterest income to earning assets
- 3.30%Noninterest expense to earning assets
- 0.75%Net operating income to assets
- 0.90%Return on assets (ROA)
- 0.95%Pretax return on assets
- 6.77%Return on equity (ROE)
- 3.56%Retained earnings to average equity (YTD only)
- 0.07%Net charge-offs to loans
- 618.52%Credit loss provision to net charge-offs
- 29.96%Efficiency ratio
- 74,608Assets per employee
- 4.28%Cash dividends to net income (YTD only)
- Condition Ratios (%)
- 47.41%Loss allowance to loans
- 1.30%Loss allowance to noncurrent loans
- 620.78%Noncurrent assets plus other real estate owned to assets
- 0.49%Noncurrent loans to loans
- 0.21%Net loans and leases to deposits
- 52.18%Net loans and leases to core deposits
- 59.88%Equity capital to assets
- 13.88%Core capital (leverage) ratio
- 12.79%Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio
- 22.17%Total risk-based capital ratio
- $23Average assets
- $81,573Average earning assets
- $10,841Average equity
- $71,947Average loans
List of branches
- 1 Alabama Branch as of April 05, 2012
|0||9963||First Bank Of Linden||114 East Coats Avenue, Linden, AL 36748||May 07, 1904||Full Service Brick and Mortar|
This web site is not associated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by and has no official or unofficial affiliation with First Bank of Linden.
Based on public records. Inadvertent errors are possible.
bankencyclopedia.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk.
(USD, in thousands)
(USD, in thousands, ytd)
(USD, in thousands)
At the recent Linden Board of Education meeting on May 24, the board voted to increase members’ salaries by $100. The increase was approved unanimously, with board member Lillie Tate absent. The vote raises the salary from $300 to $400.
Board member Ola Ford was also re-elected as the Board Chairperson for 2021.
Under old business, Superintendent Dr. Timothy Thurman reported on the first bank of linden alabama meeting for the renovations to George P. Austin Middle School. He said that construction would begin once the students are out for the summer. Regarding the roof at the elementary school, the insurance company said that as soon as the board gets an estimate to let them know, and work will begin on the roof.
- The board approved the transfer of all Linden Board of Education funds from First Bank of Linden to Robertson Banking Company in accordance with State of Alabama Law requiring that school funds be kept in a qualified public depository banking institution.
- The board approved the financial statements for April 2021 and all bank statements have been reconciled
- The board approved a four day work week for the summer for 12 month employees
Print ArticleИсточник: https://www.demopolistimes.com/2021/06/04/linden-boe-members-increase-monthly-pay-by-100-discuss-renovation-projects/