A review of the ward allocation book and signed hearing notes finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the South Ward hall. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: a drainage repair entered as a shared cost in two neighboring wards.
The the ward allocation book and signed hearing notes lists 66 budget lines checked against ward requests; the previous window lists 67. Tomas Reed checked both against time-stamped route logs checked against field visits. The source was checked against a second copy held by Mina Corbett. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
North Ward counts the upstream work while South Ward counts the homes reached by the runoff. Both figures describe part of the same repair. The office has not supplied a separate measure that would settle the disagreement, so the two explanations remain competing accounts.
This report supports a narrower finding: the count is repeatable, but it is not enough to decide how repair money is divided when one street drains through two wards.
Afield visit checks the posted rule against the route residents actually use. The Year fifth, cold harbor window 2 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The clerk will publish both ward estimates beside the engineer’s route map.
