There is a lot of talk on the new U.S.- Mexico Trade Agreement (USMTA), and all the benefits to both sides versus the old NAFTA that caused the U.S., to lose millions of jobs.
Maybe we should have called it the Mexico- U.S. Trade Agreement (MUSTA)? Because we musta get it done or else? Little humor folks, a little humor.
Or we can continue as I said I would on that infamous Council Meeting of the 23rd.
Mr. Rapp: We only have $350,000., in the Unencumbered Balance for 2018- 2019 Budget. There was a comment to reduce everyone down to the $2.02/ month. This was said to bring in only $110,000.,/ Year? And the above carryover of $350,000., would be used to maintain the $215,000., it would leave only $135,000. (See Public Forum on the 29th posting).
As Mr. Skogstad has said, we have a problem with the Ordinance in effect for 43 years. Our Duty is to do what's right to fix this. We are going to fix this one way or another. Either do away or take out the discount for the Seniors. As the Atty said, it is an unfair advantage. (Yet, when I asked about it in October 2014, Mr. Skogstad was unable to find his "Remiss even then". So this shows he is very, very liberal in how he reads any Law/ Ordinance depending on what Mr. Rapp is looking for as an "Opinion"? Remember, he only found he would be "remiss" if he did not point out that it was probably illegal when the move to completely remove it for the Seniors came up)?
Now going back to the 2010- 2011 Fiscal Year budget, the City was showing as much as $226, 528., in some years for that line 351, Police Protection Fee. It finally stabilized in 2013- 2014 and in each subsequent year at the $215,000 amount? The consistency seems a bit odd to say the least folks? So how much was the City really collecting? I would be willing to bet a $1.00- 2.98 against anyone, that the City has not collected $215,000/ Year in many of the 2013- 2014 years onward?
Mr. Rapp than went on to say that the PD Budget is the largest in the City. The PD Fee is about 1/10th of the Budget. He than presented a page of the State Auditor's Budget showing the line for the PD Fee. To show the City is doing its budget properly.
There are no secrets on where that money goes. The Auditor's Office will back that entry that all the money in that line goes to the Police Department. They would back that up with the Revenue that is there.
Right there, he has pulled the State Auditor into his web of deceit and deception among other things. I have been very, very critical for the quality of Audits that seem to be done each year by the State? The above statement by him would confirm that suspicion. It is and has been partially inaccurate for years. And that would be at best. Everything Mr. Rapp said about line 351 was basically irrelevant as to fact.
And as noted, Mr. Rapp began the scare tactics of the Home Rule Program being repealed. This supposedly would enrich the State coffers by some $72 Million a year? But would devastate the City Budgets of many Cities now receiving those funds.
Mr. Rapp than revealed one of the worst effects an organization can have for us in this State. That being the West Virginia Municipal League. While the name may sound positive, many of the screwed up Laws are generated there. Those people contact the local Delegates/ Senators and use their local influence to get Laws written or re-written to water them down. Very frankly, it is the "Machine" protecting the Machine.
There was than some give and take between Mr. Elam, Mr. Leach, Mr. Bibbee and Mr. Skogstad on options to be done if 1% were to go away. Mr. Leach continued the scare tactics on having to find new Revenue Sources to offset the $3 Million loss. Mr. Bibbee than came in with we were possibly per Mr. Skogstad not doing the "Right" program for our Citizens.
1. How about reducing spending?
2. How about realigning as an example when we roll vehicles based on need not show?
3. Begin to have out of towners pay some small fees to do what they now do for free?
Mr. Rapp: We have to come to some decision. Than back to compliance with Law as is his opinion.
Ms. Smith: Ordinance since 1974. Collected funds since that time. PD has used those funds out of General Fund for operating. I am not a fan of reducing Revenue Sources. It is a step backward. I agree with Attorney with need to amend Ordinance The $215K is a lot of money. It is the greatest funding budget in the City. The Budget each year is conservatively submitted. We have a lot of cruisers that take a lot of maintenance. I cannot support doing away with it. Fix the Ordinance- all pay the same. Since it has been in place since 1974, maybe we should be looking at increasing it?
Mr. Bibbee: I see what you are saying, don't think we are doing is right?
Ms. Smith: On collecting the Fee?
Mr. Bibbee: No on the different amounts on the demographics of the Community.
Ms. Smith: Yes, everyone pays the same.
Now as Mr. Conley is gearing up to speak, it is a good time to stop for now. 'nuff said'.