David, sadly you are uninformed and you ignorance is showing. Contract talks were already at a impasse and had gone to arbitration when the vote was held. In no way could the two be tied together. So be a man and tell all the Cops and Firefighters you see on the street that you do not support them.

Metro, you are being a good liberal by refusing to accept that someone my have a differing opinion than you and might want to voice it. Squash that opposition!!!!

David, sadly you are uninformed and you ignorance is showing. Contract talks were already at a impasse and had gone to arbitration when the vote was held. In no way could the two be tied together. So be a man and tell all the Cops and Firefighters you see on the street that you do not support them.

This post does nothing to explain that letter. Care to try again, this time without dodging the question and without the personal attack?

Mike you clearly do not know me, as I am anything but a liberal.

Now Dave, ignorance means lack of knowledge. Sorry if that hurt your feelings!

I have never seen that letter, I am part of the fire dept. I do know that the city did not commit an unfair labor practice on the PD. That put us in different situations. What I do remember is the city waited past the deadline the PD gave them. Which meant it would be too late to stop the advertising campain.

Now Dave, ignorance means lack of knowledge. Sorry if that hurt your feelings!

I have never seen that letter, I am part of the fire dept. I do know that the city did not commit an unfair labor practice on the PD. That put us in different situations. What I do remember is the city waited past the deadline the PD gave them. Which meant it would be too late to stop the advertising campain.

Naw, it was the whole bit about "So be a man and tell all the Cops and Firefighters you see on the street that you do not support them." that I considered a personal attack. If it was not meant as such then you have my apologies for that assumption.

I just have a hard time listening to arguments from the NotThisMaps crowd when at least part of that crowd was willing to drop their opposition contingent on their contract negotiations. That tells me that at least for them, all of the sound and fury about bad timing was just that.

Now you have some facts, the FD is locked in a battle with the city over a contract that is about to expire. I can't speak for the PD.

I was telling you to stand by your words. I don't see anything wrong with encouraging you to do so. I on many, many occasions get to hear what the people think. My only response is to tell them to have a nice day. Filling the boot for Jerrys kids is a prime example of when people express themselves. My Dad is one of Jerrys kids and I certainly don't enjoy the blast of crap we get sometimes. Have a nice day!

Seems funny to me that Oklahoma City has a 3/4 Cent sales tax providing roughly $70million a year to public safety, and the OCFD is below average in pay compared to 10 like sized departments and cities that do not enjoy a $70 million bump every year. Yet Most of those cities got a small raise last year and we in OKC are talking about laying off a large number of our Firefighters. Seems that someone isn't telling the truth about where money is being spent.

Naw, it was the whole bit about "So be a man and tell all the Cops and Firefighters you see on the street that you do not support them." that I considered a personal attack. If it was not meant as such then you have my apologies for that assumption.

I just have a hard time listening to arguments from the NotThisMaps crowd when at least part of that crowd was willing to drop their opposition contingent on their contract negotiations. That tells me that at least for them, all of the sound and fury about bad timing was just that.

Let me preface this with a disclaimer. I am not a police officer nor do I play one on TV. I have no inside information on the dealings between the FOP and the city. But I don't think that's going to be necessary in this case.

David, read the whole document and not just the highlighted area. If you read the first paragragh, you'll notice that it is a response to a proposal from the city. These proposals are always kept inside the meeting room until they are agreed upon by both groups. Most of the proposals, put forth in negotiations, never see the light of day because they are dismissed by one or the other parties. That being said, I wonder why we don't see these proposals in the newspaper every year during negotiations? Maybe because that's not the way these things are, or ever have been, done. The problem is that Mr. Moore neglected to take into account who he was dealing with and the lengths they would go to to make the FOP look bad.

The deal, proposed by the city, apparently would have taken care of the primary concern of the FOP, in that it addressed the manpower problem that they have. If you read the rest of the document, it would also have taken care of the future manpower problems. These concerns were what I understood to be their primary problem with the MAPS election. Remove those concerns and it's not suprising that they remove their opposition to MAPS, is it?

I was telling you to stand by your words. I don't see anything wrong with encouraging you to do so. I on many, many occasions get to hear what the people think. My only response is to tell them to have a nice day. Filling the boot for Jerrys kids is a prime example of when people express themselves. My Dad is one of Jerrys kids and I certainly don't enjoy the blast of crap we get sometimes. Have a nice day!

Well it rather sounded like you were telling me to go pick a fight with either a Policeman or a Fireman to prove my manhood, which really seems like a bad idea.


Let me preface this with a disclaimer. I am not a police officer nor do I play one on TV. I have no inside information on the dealings between the FOP and the city. But I don't think that's going to be necessary in this case.

David, read the whole document and not just the highlighted area. You'll notice that it is a response to a proposal from the city. These proposals are always kept inside the meeting room until they are agreed upon by both groups. Most of the proposals, put forth in negotiations, never see the light of day because they are dismissed by one or the other parties. That being said, I wonder why we don't see these proposals in the newspaper every year during negotiations? Maybe because that's not the way these things are done.

The problem is that Mr. Moore neglected to take into account who he was dealing with and the lengths they would go to to make the FOP look bad. The deal proposed by the city apparently would have taken care of the primary concern of the FOP, in that it addressed the manpower problem that they have. If you read the rest of the document, it would also have taken care of the future manpower problems. These concerns were what I understood to be their primary problem with the MAPS election. Remove those concerns and it's not suprising that they remove their opposition to MAPS, is it?

I did read all of the document and not just the highlighted area, but thank you for that suggestion. However, it doesn't actually change my opinion of their willingness to drop their opposition to Maps 3 if the contract negotiations had played out differently.

If the Fire and Police Depts are going to bring about layoffs, I think that we should start with the Fire and Police stations downtown. Most of the patrons whom are on this site have made claim that F and P are not needed downtown anyway. Careful what you wish for you just might get it.

This post does nothing to explain that letter. Care to try again, this time without dodging the question and without the personal attack?

Well, my post did address the letter and you seem not to want to answer any of the questions I posed. Why did the city decide to release this when it never has before? Why, if this agreement addressed the concerns that put the FOP at odds with the MAPS election, is it suprising that they would drop their opposition?
I doubt any amount of explanation would change your opinion. You don't seem to understand the negotiation process that the city and the employee associations go through every year, so my explaining the process probably won't mean much to you. The fact that the city has been caught breaking the rules,once again, probably doesn't do too much to sway your opinion either. It speaks to their character or lack thereof.

Well, my post did address the letter and you seem not to want to answer any of the questions I posed. I doubt any amount of explanation would change your opinion. You don't seem to understand the negotiation process that the city and the employee associations go through every year, so my explaining the process probably won't mean much to you. The fact that the city has been caught breaking the rules,once again, probably doesn't do too much to sway your opinion either. It speaks to their character or lack thereof.

I can find two questions in your last post:


That being said, I wonder why we don't see these proposals in the newspaper every year during negotiations?

This one is either not addressed to me, or is not something I can answer as I am neither a mind reader or privy to the decisions of whoever in the city government released it.


Remove those concerns and it's not suprising that they remove their opposition to MAPS, is it?

This one I thought I did, but I will try again. I do not believe that they should have been allowing those concerns to stand in the way of Maps 3 in the first place. Using opposition to a 7 year improvement program like Maps as a bargaining chip in a single year's round of negotiations? Are you kidding me?

Are you kidding me? MAPS 3 OPPOSITION WAS NOT USED AS A BARGAINING CHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Do you not get it? The opposition was because there was a looming problem with funding for public safety that the city was not being forthcoming about at the time. And here we are today, facing the public safety cuts and problems that Police and Fire were worried about prior to Maps 3. What happened to "the passing of Maps 3 will add firefighters and police officers" "we will have the best trained, best equipped, and best compensated firefighters in the region" blah blah lies..... Your perception of why Police and Fire were against maps is directly from the public spin campaign put on to pass Maps 3 regardless of the accuracy of the Police and Fire claims. It was not a bargaining chip for a raise. I guess yo ucould stretch it and say it was a bargaining chip to adress current drastic problems with things we need, before moving on to a wish list of things that we want. I am glad Maps passed, I think it will be great, but what about the shortfalls for public safety?

Isn't it strange how many people have posted on here with such zeal and passion in favor of getting Maps passed to keep our city moving in the right direction, yet most have not put any effort or concern at all into the fact that our City Manager is talking about laying off 250 Police and Firefighters? Why aren't we all calling our city leaders every day telling them to use some of the contingency fund or use tax, instead of threatening lay offs? I thought we all wanted our city to prosper and do well, step up and voice your passionate concern for the problem at hand. Show some of that zeal to keep moving the City forward.

No, considering the FNP shot themselves in the foot with their opposition to MAPS. I'm actually surprised we're not hearing more "I told ya it'd come back to bite ya's."

I see, so you really don't care about the City itself. I mean lets face it, if you don't care that P&F may suffer lay offs, which in turn effects the citizens and this City's image, then why would you really give a **** if anything improved at all through Maps3? Confusing to me. Either you care about the City whole heartedly or you don't.

Metro you are some piece of work, are you going to check the voter rolls and find the name of the 30,000 or so who voted no on Maps3 and put their names on a list that says they are not allowed into any Maps3 projects?

Metro, you say you are not a liberal. Well what is the name of the party that goes out of their way to stick it to someone who votes against them? Your rantings on here certainly suggest you are part of that group!

No, considering the FNP shot themselves in the foot with their opposition to MAPS. I'm actually surprised we're not hearing more "I told ya it'd come back to bite ya's."

So the upcoming layoffs are retribution from the city and not due to the budget concerns raised by the P & FF. Even knowing how our city officials work, I think that's a stretch. Your desire to get a pound of flesh speaks volumes.

I didn't say that's how I personally felt, I think that is where you all are missing it, but I am surprised not more people are throwing it out, but agree with it or not, the FNP did shoot themselves in the foot. And to clarify NO I don't think the layoffs are retribution, but I think they lost some sympathy with city leaders and others. Fire and Police contracts should have NOTHING to do with MAPS 3, it's apples and oranges.

Metro, you say you are not a liberal. Well what is the name of the party that goes out of their way to stick it to someone who votes against them? Your rantings on here certainly suggest you are part of that group!

I'm not metro, but don't need to be on this point. It's a shifting target. Any peeps with the power, irrespective of their party, or even non-party, label are quite capable of striving to advance their agenda. It's neither an R thang, nor a D thang, not even a non-partisan. Good, baf, or indifferent, it's simply a power thang.

Kevin, I do agree with you. Personally I do think the city is using this opportunity to reduce the cost of these departments using the economy as an excuse. I just does not make sense to me to not keep up with the growth in population. We still have 3 new stations to build. How do you do that when you are cutting manpower?

This one is either not addressed to me, or is not something I can answer as I am neither a mind reader or privy to the decisions of whoever in the city government released it.
Please. The fact that you are sitting upright, breathing and know how to use a keyboard shows you aren't dumb enough to mean this. You really can't figure out why the city would make a proposal to the FOP and when the offer is considered favorably by the FOP, all of a sudden it shows up in the news? If it was the citys proposal and acceptable by the FOP, why did it never come to pass? Could it be the fact that the city let the deadline pass so they wouldn't have to honor their proposal? Come on, you seem alot brighter than that. It doesn't take mind reading or inside info on the inner workings of the city to figure this one out. It's pretty straight forward. Pull your blinders off and broaden your view. Sometimes the simplest answer is as far as you need to go. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lies like a.....well you get the picture.

Please. The fact that you are sitting upright, breathing and know how to use a keyboard shows you aren't dumb enough to mean this. You really can't figure out why the city would make a proposal to the FOP and when the offer is considered favorably by the FOP, all of a sudden it shows up in the news? If it was the citys proposal and acceptable by the FOP, why did it never come to pass? Could it be the fact that the city let the deadline pass so they wouldn't have to honor their proposal? Come on, you seem alot brighter than that. It doesn't take mind reading or inside info on the inner workings of the city to figure this one out. It's pretty straight forward. Pull your blinders off and broaden your view. Sometimes the simplest answer is as far as you need to go. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lies like a.....well you get the picture.

Unless I am reading it wrong, that letter is a REVISED offer back to the city. It is not a blanket acceptance of the city's proposal that the city should also have accepted but didn't.

Do you happen to know what paragraph E of the previous offer from the city looked like? Or paragraph G?

ljbab728, that was directed towards metro, who was saying if Maps3 had failed there was going to be a mass yuppie exodus from OKC. My point was there is more to OKC than just Maps related items. All of which I had vigorusly supported. You should read more of these threads.

Mike, I promise you I read most of these threads and am aware of most of your previous posts. That doesn't change my statement. Perhaps your point just wasn't completely clear.

Not to stir up trouble, but there seems to be an assumption that since Couch is City Manager that he will receive the same percentage cuts as "across the board" city employees. In private business many executives order "across the board" pay cuts that don't effect them because their contracts specifically prevent them from being effected by such cuts. I wouldn't rule it out in municipal government executive positions. There's a definitive answer to this, I just don't know what it is. But, I think it's premature to jump to the simplistic assumption that since Couch is City Manager he would receive the same cuts in salary.

Maybe that's something Bryan Dean on the City Hall beat at The Oklahoman could look into.

No, considering the FNP shot themselves in the foot with their opposition to MAPS. I'm actually surprised we're not hearing more "I told ya it'd come back to bite ya's."So the lesson to be learned here for those who in the future may consider opposing City Hall is. If you do, you do so at your own risk, and for doing so, you should expect swift and certain retaliation.

So the lesson to be learned here for those who in the future may consider opposing City Hall is. If you do, you do so at your own risk, and for doing so, you should expect swift and certain retaliation.

Andy, I think the implication is more that you run the risk of losing public sympathy if future negotiations with the city don't go your way. That's not saying that the city is right or wrong. It's just a matter of the public's perception.

Mike, I promise you I read most of these threads and am aware of most of your previous posts. That doesn't change my statement. Perhaps your point just wasn't completely clear.

.oops. wrong quote.

It's a little more complicated than that. OKC is at a make or break point with young professionals. If OKC had not passed MAPS 3, you would have seen many move away, probably including myself if I could convince the wife to move away from family. As many have complained in numerous threads on this site, it's bad enough knowingly waiting and trying to be a part of the process of OKC taking a few more decades before we reach major league amenities versus moving away if the yahoos can't cast a good enough vision and plan for the future and moving to a location who is decades ahead of OKC and live with the quality of life that so many want. Many young, single professionals simply would not have wanted to waste their lives hoping that a MAPS 3 would come again some day.


The city has grown with AND without MAPS. It hasnt grown soley because of MAPS. Young professionals have come in here and left with and WITHOUT maps. Not a good point. I think you are taking your own personal feelings here and applying them to OKC population as a whole.

Let me preface this with a disclaimer. I am not a police officer nor do I play one on TV. I have no inside information on the dealings between the FOP and the city. But I don't think that's going to be necessary in this case.

David, read the whole document and not just the highlighted area. If you read the first paragragh, you'll notice that it is a response to a proposal from the city. These proposals are always kept inside the meeting room until they are agreed upon by both groups. Most of the proposals, put forth in negotiations, never see the light of day because they are dismissed by one or the other parties. That being said, I wonder why we don't see these proposals in the newspaper every year during negotiations? Maybe because that's not the way these things are, or ever have been, done. The problem is that Mr. Moore neglected to take into account who he was dealing with and the lengths they would go to to make the FOP look bad.

The deal, proposed by the city, apparently would have taken care of the primary concern of the FOP, in that it addressed the manpower problem that they have. If you read the rest of the document, it would also have taken care of the future manpower problems. These concerns were what I understood to be their primary problem with the MAPS election. Remove those concerns and it's not suprising that they remove their opposition to MAPS, is it?



Exactly. Good post.

The city has grown with AND without MAPS. It hasnt grown soley because of MAPS. Young professionals have come in here and left with and WITHOUT maps. Not a good point. I think you are taking your own personal feelings here and applying them to OKC population as a whole.

Sure the city, has grown with and without MAPS. However, it has down a lot more growing with it than without it.

See SPOT Run version:

Police had a manpower study done 2-3 years ago that showed how SHORT we were, how outdated their equipment and buildings are. City didn't have money to add more. They remain short.

Then, City proposed to bring more things to the city to bring more "yuppies" in. More projects, more yuppies, need more police and fire protection.
City already very short by their own study and proposes something to add to their short supply and lack of money.

Police and fire say, "hey, wait a minute, shouldn't we do this first? we're dying here!!"

City makes police and fire look like jerks, by twisting statments and half truths, partial reporting.

Residing yuppies jump on city band wagon, continually bashing police and fire for wanting a raise.

Where does the story go south here for you?

If the Fire and Police Depts are going to bring about layoffs, I think that we should start with the Fire and Police stations downtown. Most of the patrons whom are on this site have made claim that F and P are not needed downtown anyway. Careful what you wish for you just might get it.

I would think that is crap considering a certain incident that happened downtown about 15 years ago.

Sure the city, has grown with and without MAPS. However, it has down a lot more growing with it than without it.

Yes but without it...it still grew and people still came in.

Unless I am reading it wrong, that letter is a REVISED offer back to the city. It is not a blanket acceptance of the city's proposal that the city should also have accepted but didn't.

Do you happen to know what paragraph E of the previous offer from the city looked like? Or paragraph G?

But that that doesn't change the fact that the highlighted portion of the document, which seems to concern you greatly, is contingent upon both parties acceptance of the revised proposal. It doesn't matter to me what paragraphs E or G said previously since those aren't what they are offering to agree to. Like I said previously, the biggest mistake that I see here is that an experienced labor attorney like Jim Moore would put that in writing, so that it could be exploited, knowing the type of people he's dealing with.

This document was put out for one reason only, to draw attention to that highlighted paragraph and hope people jump to the same conclusion that you have. I know it doesn't matter to you, but this is completely contradictory to the rules both parties have observed for years. This wasn't a leaked document. It was put out by the city manager and should tell you something about his character and scruples.

This same flagrant disregard for the rules is why the city is pouring money down a hole in a court battle with the FF's as we speak. Their inability to observe and play by the rules. But hey, it's easy to go to court when it's the taxpayers money, not your own.

But that that doesn't change the fact that the highlighted portion of the document, which seems to concern you greatly, is contingent upon both parties acceptance of the revised proposal. It doesn't matter to me what paragraphs E or G said previously since those aren't what they are offering to agree to. Like I said previously, the biggest mistake that I see here is that an experienced labor attorney like Jim Moore would put that in writing, so that it could be exploited, knowing the type of people he's dealing with.

This document was put out for one reason only, to draw attention to that highlighted paragraph and hope people jump to the same conclusion that you have. I know it doesn't matter to you, but this is completely contradictory to the rules both parties have observed for years. This wasn't a leaked document. It was put out by the city manager and should tell you something about his character and scruples.

This same flagrant disregard for the rules is why the city is pouring money down a hole in a court battle with the FF's as we speak. Their inability to observe and play by the rules. But hey, it's easy to go to court when it's the taxpayers money, not your own.

This is starting to sound like a broken record, but lets try again. What concerns me greatly is that the FOP was willing to drop their opposition to Maps 3 based on the outcome of their negotiations with the City. That is what says to me that it was a bargaining point. All of this side discussion about who was willing to agree to what version of the proposal is completely beside that point.

However, the previous contents of paragraphs E and G should matter to you as those previous contents where what the city had last offered: "Second, the FOP revised paragraph E of your November 6, 2009, proposal as follows" and "Third, paragraph G of your proposal is revised as follows". You cannot reasonably make the argument that "If it was the citys proposal and acceptable by the FOP, why did it never come to pass? (your words)" if what the FOP sent back was different then the city's last proposal. The reason I asked about E & G in the city's previous offer in the first place was because I was wondering if you knew that it was similar enough to what the FOP sent back that your argument made sense. I am actually willing to believe you on this, even agree to it, as long as you can deal with the logical holes in your argument.

All that being said, I am also wondering whose idea the "The FOP is willing to get on board with MAPS 3" bit was in the first place. Does anyone (not just Wambo here) know?

All that being said, I am also wondering whose idea the "The FOP is willing to get on board with MAPS 3" bit was in the first place. Does anyone (not just Wambo here) know?

I hate to tell you this, but when it comes to FOP issues, I'm just speculating. When it comes to how the city deals with its employees and their unions I'm doing alot better than speculating. What are you basing your opinion on other than this document?

You said that this document is the reason you lost all sypmpathy towards the public safety unions. I'm just trying to show you that the document isn't all there is to know about the situation. IMO the city put the document out to garner the exact type of public opinion that it got from you. So at least in your case, apparently, mission accomplished.

A wiser, older person mentioned that Mr. Couch might have done the interveiw with the Sentinel to see what the public opinion would be. Give this interview, wait a week and do some polling. Test the waters, so to speak.

See SPOT Run version:



Where does the story go south here for you?


NikonNurse, I like your See SPOT Run logic. Easy to read.

A wiser, older person mentioned that Mr. Couch might have done the interveiw with the Sentinel to see what the public opinion would be. Give this interview, wait a week and do some polling. Test the waters, so to speak.

If that is the case why the Sentinel?

I would think that is crap considering a certain incident that happened downtown about 15 years ago.


I agree with you completely. I was just trying to let these people know how serious this is by poking some fun at them. Nobody wants their neighborhood fire station closed, but thats exactly what is going to happen, not to mention staffing any future stations. Such much for keeping up with the city growth.

OKC has not built a new fire station in 15 years. I can assure you that we have been building houses and developing neighborhoods like wildfire in OKC for the last 15 years, not to mention the increase in population.

Still, the city choses to keep their head stuck in the sand and not want to address the reality and/or state of the city.

OKC has not built a new fire station in 15 years. I can assure you that we have been building houses and developing neighborhoods like wildfire in OKC for the last 15 years, not to mention the increase in population.

Still, the city choses to keep their head stuck in the sand and not want to address the reality and/or state of the city.

Isn't Station 4 under construction right now, moving to Hogback & Memorial? Also, the 2007 GO Bond Election approved new stations to be constructed at SE 149th & Douglas, SW 104th & Council, and SW 59th & Richland... so it's not completely fair to say that OKC and Fire aren't actually planning for an expanding populous.

I know the response back - there won't be firefighters to fill those new stations, unless we close existing, or find some other way to create new funding. I agree, that's a huge issue that should be taken up ASAP.

I believe BTB was talking about additional stations. Those new stations are projected to be 6, 8 and 12 years respectively away form reality. That's twenty years and more between additional stations. The cities growth won't even be close to being kept up with.

#26 119th and Rockwell 6 years away
#38 59th and Richland 8 years away
#29 149th and Douglas 12 years away

I believe BTB was talking about additional stations. Those new stations are projected to be 6, 8 and 12 years respectively away form reality. That's twenty years and more between additional stations. The cities growth won't even be close to being kept up with.

#26 119th and Rockwell 6 years away
#38 59th and Richland 8 years away
#29 149th and Douglas 12 years away


These are the stations that I was referring too in my last post from the GO BOND 2007. The earliest that one is planning on being completed in 2016.
These stations are new ones, not replacing existing ones. By the time these stations get built we will be needing 3 or 4 more.

The one at SW 119th and Rockwell was needed about 5 years ago when development churned up in that area of the city.

These are the stations that I was referring too in my last post from the GO BOND 2007. The earliest that one is planning on being completed in 2016.
These stations are new ones, not replacing existing ones. By the time these stations get built we will be needing 3 or 4 more.

The one at SW 119th and Rockwell was needed about 5 years ago when development churned up in that area of the city.

I'm sure that a station is need in that area but SW 119th and Rockwell is not heavily developed. It is still mostly rural estates with a small amount of regular housing additions. The city can't be expected to build a new station for every new addition that is developed.

Did anybody find out if Couch would be subject to the cuts?

Did anybody find out if Couch would be subject to the cuts?

Don't know about him personally, but if you look at the recent cuts made this fiscal year (primarily unfilled positions), his office got cut too.

I'm sure that a station is need in that area but SW 119th and Rockwell is not heavily developed. It is still mostly rural estates with a small amount of regular housing additions. The city can't be expected to build a new station for every new addition that is developed.

This is a fundamental question of planning. Do you follow growth and expand City services to provide the same type of coverage that you provide in the original urban areas, or do you keep coverage at a lesser level and keep services internal.

Should people who move way out expect 4 minute engine service and 8 minute ladder service? If they do, who is going to pay? All citizens? Just the outer citizens?

The City doesn't seem to have ever thought this far out. It has a Comprehensive Plan (created in 1977, updated in 1989 and 2000), but few Departments even know about it and follow it. The Comp Plan contains language about keeping growth and services aligned, but it's obvious that the City has outgrown itself and not been able to recover the increased service cost...

On another note, the City Manager's employment is being discussed by City Council in executive session on Tuesday. The agenda doesn't indicate what the discussion includes, but this is a yearly thing, and I think his pay is considered then. I doubt staff will see an overall pay cut... I think the departments all have plans to reduce budgets without pay changes.

This is a fundamental question of planning. Do you follow growth and expand City services to provide the same type of coverage that you provide in the original urban areas, or do you keep coverage at a lesser level and keep services internal.

Should people who move way out expect 4 minute engine service and 8 minute ladder service? If they do, who is going to pay? All citizens? Just the outer citizens?

The City doesn't seem to have ever thought this far out. It has a Comprehensive Plan (created in 1977, updated in 1989 and 2000), but few Departments even know about it and follow it. The Comp Plan contains language about keeping growth and services aligned, but it's obvious that the City has outgrown itself and not been able to recover the increased service cost...


Those who move to the far flung suburban areas have to accept some responsibility for not being near city services. An example which is not a responsibility of the City but has to be taken into account is access to hospitals. There are many other types of services and activities desired that have to be sacrificed to some extent to live in those areas. I have lived in both the suburbs and in the city and have never complained about what the services are based on where I lived. I knew that ahead of time.

ljbab728, there may be a grain of reality in your statement. I have this idea of you driving by a burned down house in the rural part of town and you saying, "it's their fault that happened, after all they chose to live there". Those people who live out the pay their taxes same as you. The did vote for more protection and it will come. Don't feel bad, they are closing stations in town. Station 11 at 50th and Western will be one of the first. I'm wondering what the folks around McGuinness are going to say when that station closes?

ljbab728, there may be a grain of reality in your statement. I have this idea of you driving by a burned down house in the rural part of town and you saying, "it's their fault that happened, after all they chose to live there". Those people who live out the pay their taxes same as you. The did vote for more protection and it will come. Don't feel bad, they are closing stations in town. Station 11 at 50th and Western will be one of the first. I'm wondering what the folks around McGuinness are going to say when that station closes?

Mike, you are at least partly right. Those people knew what the services are when they moved there and shouldn't expect that just because they pay their taxes they will receive more service than what was already available. If the City agrees to make changes and can fund it that's great. Does someone living at 119th and Rockwell expect to have city bus services? Losing services in an area where it already exists is an entirely different matter and I won't disagree with you about that.

... Station 11 at 50th and Western will be one of the first. I'm wondering what the folks around McGuinness are going to say when that station closes?

Is closure set as part of meeting targets for the planned budget reduction for 2010-11, or is it slated to close for a different reason?

Irrespective of the reason for the closure of the station, what station(s) will be tasked to provide coverage for the area after Station 11 closes, and where are they located?

Will all the personnel staffed in Station 11 have their positions eliminated, or will some staff positions at one or more new stations?

Where does Station 11 equipment end up after closure?

Just curious, and imagine others may be as well.

I'm curious about the overall budget report. I assume that, like police, cuts of personnel are the last part of the proposed 12% cut proposal. What are the other parts of the cut? Is there anything else to cut before personnel?

At least one Councilman has stated we are past the point of cutting office supply expenses (due to the tight budgets of at least the past couple of years and the actual cuts this fiscal year). The next step is personnel (positions themselves and/or the related costs...insurance, furloughs, pay rates, vacation etc, etc).

This is a fundamental question of planning. Do you follow growth and expand City services to provide the same type of coverage that you provide in the original urban areas, or do you keep coverage at a lesser level and keep services internal.

Should people who move way out expect 4 minute engine service and 8 minute ladder service? If they do, who is going to pay? All citizens? Just the outer citizens?

The City doesn't seem to have ever thought this far out. It has a Comprehensive Plan (created in 1977, updated in 1989 and 2000), but few Departments even know about it and follow it. The Comp Plan contains language about keeping growth and services aligned, but it's obvious that the City has outgrown itself and not been able to recover the increased service cost...

On another note, the City Manager's employment is being discussed by City Council in executive session on Tuesday. The agenda doesn't indicate what the discussion includes, but this is a yearly thing, and I think his pay is considered then. I doubt staff will see an overall pay cut... I think the departments all have plans to reduce budgets without pay changes.



I dont believe for a minute that the city has a long term plan for public safety other than cuts. They have done a poor job of keeping up with the population growth. Public safety is not a priority for the city and has not been for 15 years. Of course PS eats up about 2/3 of the budget, but the public safety funding source is 20 years outdated.

The priorities that the city are committed too are developing bricktown and the core to shore plan. They are going to do "whatever that takes" to do that. I am all for the C2S and bricktown development, but public safety has to keep up with that development and it has not.

About response times for fire and police, the people that live in the outer fringe of the city pay their taxes also. The city has an obligation and a duty to provide them with adequate police and fire protection. All citizens are going to pay for this, just as all citizens are paying for MAPS. As far as a bus route and other things like that, save your money and use those services where they are doing the most good, in the inner city.

I would be very suprised if the city mgr, his staff to include the dept heads will receive any pay cuts. If anything they will get a bonus for cutting the personnel in their respective departments.

About saving money for the city, I think the city spend entirely too much money on remodel projects as well as new construction projects.
For example, the new bricktown fire station is going to cost somewhere in the vicinity of 3 million dollars to build. I was told by a credible source that a fire station on the southside of the city was to require a new roof, total tearoff and replacement, to go back with comp shingles almost $ 60,000, or to go back with a metal roof almost $ 120,000. You have got to be kidding me, are they going to use "gold" to roof this station with. Either way, I think that a reputable roofing contractor could do this project for a quarter to a third of what this bid is for.

MWC, just built 4 new fire stations for a total of 4.5 million dollars.
Moore is in the process of doing the same thing.
OKC fire stations are more than double the price of the ones in other metro cities. Why is that????? HMMMMMM. I have been in the ones in MWC, they are state of the art and they are energy efficient. So what gives.
Could it be OKC's bid process? Could it be the outlandish architecture fees?
Could it be whomever is getting these bids is getting some kickbacks?
Do we need to change the way that the city does this process to eliminate the probability of impropriety. What the hell are we doing wrong?

Oh for the record, I am a home builder/ land developer outside of the OKC limits, so I do not have any sort of interest financially or otherwise in any OK city projects or C2S or bricktown. Just trying to help trim the fat, if that is truly the goal here and not to trim personnel from public safety.

I cant wait for the thoughts.....

I dont believe for a minute that the city has a long term plan for public safety other than cuts. They have done a poor job of keeping up with the population growth. Public safety is not a priority for the city and has not been for 15 years. Of course PS eats up about 2/3 of the budget, but the public safety funding source is 20 years outdated.

The priorities that the city are committed too are developing bricktown and the core to shore plan. They are going to do "whatever that takes" to do that. I am all for the C2S and bricktown development, but public safety has to keep up with that development and it has not.

About response times for fire and police, the people that live in the outer fringe of the city pay their taxes also. The city has an obligation and a duty to provide them with adequate police and fire protection. All citizens are going to pay for this, just as all citizens are paying for MAPS. As far as a bus route and other things like that, save your money and use those services where they are doing the most good, in the inner city.

I would be very suprised if the city mgr, his staff to include the dept heads will receive any pay cuts. If anything they will get a bonus for cutting the personnel in their respective departments.

About saving money for the city, I think the city spend entirely too much money on remodel projects as well as new construction projects.
For example, the new bricktown fire station is going to cost somewhere in the vicinity of 3 million dollars to build. I was told by a credible source that a fire station on the southside of the city was to require a new roof, total tearoff and replacement, to go back with comp shingles almost $ 60,000, or to go back with a metal roof almost $ 120,000. You have got to be kidding me, are they going to use "gold" to roof this station with. Either way, I think that a reputable roofing contractor could do this project for a quarter to a third of what this bid is for.

MWC, just built 4 new fire stations for a total of 4.5 million dollars.
Moore is in the process of doing the same thing.
OKC fire stations are more than double the price of the ones in other metro cities. Why is that????? HMMMMMM. I have been in the ones in MWC, they are state of the art and they are energy efficient. So what gives.
Could it be OKC's bid process? Could it be the outlandish architecture fees?
Could it be whomever is getting these bids is getting some kickbacks?
Do we need to change the way that the city does this process to eliminate the probability of impropriety. What the hell are we doing wrong?

Oh for the record, I am a home builder/ land developer outside of the OKC limits, so I do not have any sort of interest financially or otherwise in any OK city projects or C2S or bricktown. Just trying to help trim the fat, if that is truly the goal here and not to trim personnel from public safety.

I cant wait for the thoughts.....


Bob, contrary to what the city wants us to believe, public safety eats up 2/3 of every other city budget as well, we are no different. However, Oklahoma City has a dedicated 3/4 cent sales tax supposedly earmarked for public safety. That dedicated sales tax provides general fund relief to the tune of 70 million dollars a year. In other words, that is 70 million dollars less a year that OKC has to spend out of its general fund to fund the police and fire.
That 3/4 cent sales tax was more than adequate 20 years ago. Due to increased personnel costs, insurance and the like it appears that it is not a sufficient funding source any longer. We need to look at increasing this tax to a full one cent.

At least one Councilman has stated we are past the point of cutting office supply expenses (due to the tight budgets of at least the past couple of years and the actual cuts this fiscal year). The next step is personnel (positions themselves and/or the related costs...insurance, furloughs, pay rates, vacation etc, etc).

Larry, you are correct, we have been taking budget cuts even in the good times, we are way past office supply and toilet paper cuts. We are to the personnel cuts, either in wages or positions.

I really think that the worst of this is behind us. We had a bad last 12-13 months in sales tax revenue. I am optimistic that sales tax revenues are going up at this time. I am hopeful that when the tax revenues return in the very near future that PS concessions and cuts are taken off of the table.
Lets get past all of this budget woe stuff, shop in OKC.
Remember, the new crest is going to be opening for business soon, hopefully we can get back some tax revenue from surrounding cities when it opens and keep it.

Bob, contrary to what the city wants us to believe, public safety eats up 2/3 of every other city budget as well, we are no different. However, Oklahoma City has a dedicated 3/4 cent sales tax supposedly earmarked for public safety. That dedicated sales tax provides general fund relief to the tune of 70 million dollars a year. In other words, that is 70 million dollars less a year that OKC has to spend out of its general fund to fund the police and fire.
That 3/4 cent sales tax was more than adequate 20 years ago. Due to increased personnel costs, insurance and the like it appears that it is not a sufficient funding source any longer. We need to look at increasing this tax to a full one cent.The 3/4 cent sales tax does in fact provide relief to the General Fund, in more ways than one. First, had there never been a special tax created, the additional stations, equipment, and manpower would still have been needed, and the General Fund would have had to pay the cost. Second, the General Fund receives additional relief from the special tax in the millions of dollars, 11 million this year. Third, the City has come up with creative ways to funnel special tax funds into the General Fund. This year for instance, $961,777. under the guise of an "other" project to fund the cost of 15 additional Fire recruits over and above the normal 951, which don't exist anywhere but on paper. The 3/4 cent special tax is adequate to fund what it was meant to fund if the City would stop putting such a drain on it.

This is a fundamental question of planning. Do you follow growth and expand City services to provide the same type of coverage that you provide in the original urban areas, or do you keep coverage at a lesser level and keep services internal.

Should people who move way out expect 4 minute engine service and 8 minute ladder service? If they do, who is going to pay? All citizens? Just the outer citizens?

The City doesn't seem to have ever thought this far out. It has a Comprehensive Plan (created in 1977, updated in 1989 and 2000), but few Departments even know about it and follow it. The Comp Plan contains language about keeping growth and services aligned, but it's obvious that the City has outgrown itself and not been able to recover the increased service cost...

On another note, the City Manager's employment is being discussed by City Council in executive session on Tuesday. The agenda doesn't indicate what the discussion includes, but this is a yearly thing, and I think his pay is considered then. I doubt staff will see an overall pay cut... I think the departments all have plans to reduce budgets without pay changes.

Careful there Cafe - you're asking the sort of common sense, smart questions that cost Garner Stoll his job. We want it all - unrestricted growth, low taxes, and police and fire protection for every square mile of farmland that gets turned into yet another neighborhood filled with homes that look just like thousands of others built this past decade.
I really wonder what will happen to these neighborhoods in 30 years when they are no longer new and trendy. And how will we maintain the increased level of police and fire protection to these areas as they age and go downhill? (trust me folks, they will. I don't see anything that will make these areas the next Crown Heights, Quail Creek, Heritage Hills or Mesta Park).
Here's the thing folks: in my 20 years I've never heard the police or fire unions say "stop the development - we can't keep up with the growth." I've never heard a council member say "we need a moratorium on housing development in my ward - we can't keep up with the growth." I've never heard a developer say "We should make this rural area off limits to more development - we can't keep up with the growth."
It's interesting to see how crashes occur - the warnings are out there, and yet people move forward as if there will never be a bill to pay at the end of the party. Good luck with that...