- Thomas Jefferson
Exchange Community for Nation in the above and you have Vienna. The Government decides what is in our best interests and we are expected to meekly follow, and you have for decades.
As the Meeting continued with the Police Fee center stage, Mr. Conley made his position also known on the Police Department needs.
Mr. Conley: I would never limit or cause the PD suffering for lack of support. This has nothing to do with lowering the PD Budget. Unless you (Mr. Rapp), are going to reduce PD Budget by that?
Mr. Rapp: Mr. Leach is absolutely correct. We have no idea what will happen with Home Rule? Attitude expressed tonight about Bullet Proof Vests, extra training as pet projects, on your logic would be eliminated. I will never vote for that.
Mr. Conley: You are spinning again. I am not talking about Bullet Proof Vests. Anyone that sits up here and makes that kind of comment should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Rapp: I am not ashamed of anything. (That is said to require a conscience)?
Mr. Conley: Indicating that I am interested in taking anything away from the PD, whatever it is, Manpower, Police Cars or Bullet Proof Vests is absolutely absurd. I have talked about this for months. You know darn well I don't want to take anything away from Pifer or his people. That item is a line item like any other line item in that budget. Your are spinning it and throwing out scare tactics, is just wrong.
Mr. Rapp: Just proves again you have no understanding of how what it takes to make a budget work.
Mr. Conley: Explain that to me? Just how it is done?
Mr. Rapp: You are out of order. (This was done twice. I would suggest you go back to my initial comment at the very top of page).
Mr. Rapp: That Fee is 10% of the PD Budget whether you like it or not, that amount is money has to be made up from somewhere?
Mr. Conley: From buying a house to demolish it? Someday to might build a new City Building? Plus the connecting Storm Water and what ever else might be coming along with it? Talking about the same amount of money on an annual basis. You are concerned about Home Rule? I don't know which of your conversations to listen too? You want to take money from the Seniors, but go across the street o spend money to tear that house down today? We don't know what will happen with Home Rule, so should forego that until we see what happens?
Mr. Rapp: Are you referring to the PD Fee? We have a motion on the floor. Before you go on these tangents, we have a motion and need to conduct business.
Mr. Conley: I am going to finish. You are constantly trying to silence my voice. And this is another perfect example of it. We sat here last week and I am going to go through my list.
Mr. Rapp: If it is nothing to do with the PD Fee, than you must save it for Council Comments.
Mr. Conley: Will save for Comments as probably more valid than anyway.
Mr. Rapp: We have an amendment to reduce the $3.50 per Citizen Fee down to $2.02? This amendment failed 3-3 with Mr. Bibbee, Mr. Conley and Mr. Elam voting for it. Mr. Rapp, Ms. Smith and Mr. Leach voted against it. (remember Mr. Bibbee's vote here folks).
There is a PD Fee at $42./ year that comes to $3.50/ Month for everyone. This failed also on a 3-3 vote. Mr. Bibbee, Mr. Conley and Mr. Elam against it, Mr. Rapp, Ms. Smith and Mr. Leach were for it.
I noted above to remember Mr. Bibbee's vote to lower the $3.50 to $2.02. In yesterday's posting, I noted where Mr. Elam wanted to amend it to go down to $2.02 for everyone. Mr. Conley wanted to amend it lower, down to $2.02 for the Seniors and $3.50 for everyone else. Now the first vote was for Mr. Elam's amendment. Mr. Conley's did not seem to be voted on? Had it been voted on and passed, it would have been supposedly as illegal as the $4.05 versus $2.02 in effect now. Over and over, Mr. Bibbee has been against ANY reduction in Revenue. He has been emphatic on that and why the Seniors at all? He could not even understand what a "fixed income" was? Mr. Frazier's definition being far better than mine.
But for some reason, Mr. Bibbee voted to lower it down to $2.02, be it the Seniors or everyone? This vote did not compute with his constant "No decrease in Revenue" position.
One need note he was one of the VFD people that got the $1,500 year Pension, Incentive, Annuity, retention payments since 1999 while still active and may well be still getting it today? In any case, he knew that would not pass with a sure 3-3 vote.
And than, his true colors showed when he also voted against the $3.50/ month reduction down for everyone under 65 plus the 1/3 or so of the Seniors who did not take the reduction. This while raising the $2.02 up for those 2/3s of the Seniors that did take the reduction to the $3.50. Follow the "Bouncing Ball" on this guy as he insures cover for himself while still backing the Cabal that is pretending to represent the Community.
The Council should have voted on the $3.50 for everyone first and than removed the $2.02. Instead as noted, it is now gone with a vote on the 27th whether Mr. Rogers is back or not. He would vote to repeal if for a 4-3. The $3.50 for all is in limbo as it was defeated and can not be voted on again in its present form. Can you see how slick Mr. Rapp, Ms. Smith, Mr. Leach and Mr. Bibbee are when they want more not less? I am a bit suspicious that this is more about covering up the questionable budgets year after year on that line be it the City or what it sends to the State Auditor? So as we sit/ stand today, the only changes are or will be the $4.05 for everyone commencing 1 October 2018. UNLESS it does not get voted on for some reason?
This completed the PD Fee for this meeting. Council will continue with Agenda.
The announcement that Sears will close by early December is a long time coming, but now here. The other shoe is how many other Stores may well have a proviso in their leases enabling them to also leave the Mall if an "Anchor Store" leaves?
This would be a "Great" site for a competitive Grocery Chain. Again getting long, 'nuff said'.