Am not going to say much about the Council Meeting Thursday night just yet. Am going to speak a bit on what did NOT show up as of Friday at 6:30 P.M. on the meeting. Sometimes what does not get said/ written is more important than what did get done?
As some, any of you may have noticed in the Daily Blat Friday (28th), there was no coverage on what happened in the Council Meeting. I am suspecting it is being filtered and will begin to show Saturday and maybe not until Sunday/ Monday. The Blat seems to have learned my process to take a day or so to absorb what happened or not and that write on it?
Little doubt it is going to emphasize the high points of Mr. Rapp's comments and down play or ignore the items that he does not want to show up? The residents took a helluva beating at that meeting.
The other item I noticed but was not surprised at was that when "she with no name" wrote her posting, she somehow forgot to talk about the Public Forum Speakers. This is not an unusual issue with me as she has this strong feeling for me? And she did confirm what was suspected for some months on another person from the old group that had finally said something she did not appreciate for whatever reason?
I have said repeatedly that one should read various sources to get information on whatever and most especially Vienna which receives such limited and such a biased coverage. BUT, having said that, one must be careful of what is put out and the Truth or as so often the case, the Untruth of it?
And there are still so many of you that drank the "Rapp" flavored Kool Aid for years and decades and now are still drinking it from the Rappites be they overt or covert in their offerings. The above two sources are examples of getting very, very selective and biased information.
An example of information put out that is not factual from any source I have seen, heard or read? "Mr. Rogers (Who it appears had finally and safely gotten his boat unstuck from the mud at the 12th Street Dock/ Launch and returned in time to put the final nail in the $2.02 PD Fee?), was quoted as saying several times, Vienna, Williamstown, St. Mary's have been stated by the Mayor to be close in comparison having a turnover with employees. That (those), would be more of a fair comparison than P'burg". But no one gave any turnover numbers for them?
Did some research, (oh that word again), and found the following:
Per suburbanstats.org, Williamstown has a 2,908 population as of a 2017- 2018 count. St. Mary's per the same chart, has 1,860 population versus the City of Vienna which per the same chart now is back up to 10,749"? Williamstown and St. Mary's together (4,768), do not have 1/2 of the City of Vienna population than us versus P'burg with it 31,492 count?
So why does she not covering my comments have any value to the City? Because I had just received data from the City and the Company that is the Administrator for the City Computer System (CSSI), on my FOIA for information on the PD Fee since it began. Didn't know we had one did you? I knew there was a company involved in the backup and protection of City Data, but did not realize all the capabilities it had.
The City had provided me with a total of 34 pages covering at least 1.4 Million entries in the years that were in their possession and/ or the City. What I have initially noticed in one set of 17 pages, the last page for the time frame from February through August 2018 did not get done correctly. Only got a part of the page.
But in a very and I emphasize very brief review on the number of seniors receiving the discount since 1996, was that the difference in Jan., 1996 of $290.49 in what the City said it collected versus what appeared should have been the amount. 1,019 Seniors x $2.02= $2,058.38, but the City said it received $2.348.87? $2,348.87- $2,058.38= $290.49 short? That would equate to another 143 Seniors (short/ missing, updated 6:20 A.M., 9/29/18))? For the "Regular Count" (Households), it was 2,593 x $4.05= $10,501.65 while the City said it took in $10,428.35. A difference of $73.30 short? Already, it has a smell.
Than a quick check of October 2008. 723 Seniors at $2.02= $1,460.46. City shows $$1,462.05. Here is only a small $1.59 difference overage.
And finally before the Council Meeting I did November 2017. 1061 Seniors x $2.02= $2,143.22. City noted $$2,133.77. A difference of $9.45 overage for the Seniors? The City Regular Count was 3,661. x $4.05= $14,658.07. But taking the same 3,661 (Regular Count) x $4.05= $14,827.05. So $14,827.05 - (City) $14,658.07 = $168.98 shortage?
And finally because of what is above, I added in the Businesses 293x $4.05= $1,186.65. The report shows $1,183.58. So 1,186.65- 1,183.58= $3.07 shortage?
So totaling both the City Seniors= *$ 2,133.77 Correct amount $ 2,143.22 = + $ 9.45 overage
City Regular Count= $14,658.07 Correct amount*$14,827.05 = - $168.98 shortage
City Business Count= $ 1,183.58 Correct amount*$ 1,186.65 = - $ 3.07 shortage
Total= $17,975.42 Total $18,156.92 $162.60 shortage
*Total ($18,147.47) +$ 9.45)
What is the point you ask? Seems, the City has a problem with the amount being received versus what the Senior, Regular Counts and/or Business are said to be? Where did the shortages go too? How did they occur?
In the other 17 pages that the City provided was the "Short Budget Report for the City of Vienna". First problem was that each page had an annotation of being page 1 of 2. So I asked where are the other 17 pages (2 of 2)? Mr. Rapp, "they don't exist". So there are 17 pages of 1 of 2, but not a single page 2 of 2? Typical response when something is being hidden?
But when I went to the "Actul Mtd" which I read to be the "Actual Month To Date" for November 2017, it read $17,913.12. This to include the above $17975.42 as part of the supposed 12 month average from the Short Budget Report? Take the $17,913.12 x 12= 214,957.44. Seems almost right on Budget? But Report shows $216,938.91 with an available $1,938.91 with no idea where the excess $1,938.91 came from?
I noted to Mr. Rapp that the numbers do NOT match up via simple math. This would seem to be the case for all the years provided? He did not want to hear it or even bother to reply. I don't think the City has a clue on what is going into line 351? Said there is no way to show the actual amount the Senior Deductions cost the City. 'nuff said'.