I've not had a raise since 2008 either. I'm not sure what that has to do with saying sales taxes are "way up" if in fact they're still "way down"

But they haven't been "way down" for the past twenty years, in fact they've been "way up" for the majority of it. The city has fought us tooth and nail for 2% in the "fat" years that they grossed much more than that. Now that they go thru a couple of flat years and we say we don't want a raise, they want us to cut and use the poor pitiful me plea. I've been involved in this cat and mouse game way to long to fall for the banana in the tailpipe scheme.

If revenues are what all this is based upon, then the city is behind about 12% in giving raises since 2000. If the DOK were up 20% in revenue, would you feel misrepresented in asking for a 5% raise?

barnold, in the private sector I'd ask for a raise if times were good and I felt I was doing a good job. And if the raise were denied, I'd have the choice of seeking a job elsewhere.
I guess this is where there's a disconnect between union public employees and private sector workers. But this gets away from my question: Are revenues up or are they down from where they were three years ago? The rest of this is just a rehash of fruitless conversations that have been ongoing for months now.

Perhaps we should just take whatever concessions the city projects for this years revenues.....say 4% and then if revenues are actually up at the end of the year the city will graciously make up the difference......because they are always honest and do everything city leaders promise.

Fortunately for us we have an arbitration process that let's a 3rd party decide what is fair and balanced for both sides. If only it were binding on the city and not just the union it would be a perfect world.

Ok, so I'm going to assume that you don't have information that indicates sales taxes are "way up"....

Taxes for 2010 are down from projections. (They will probably be down from 2009 actual collections, but we won't know for another couple of months)
Taxes for 2009 were down from projections. (I'll have to hunt for the #'s to remember if they were up from actual collections from 2008.)
Taxes for 2008 were up from projections and actual revenue collected in 2007.
Taxes for 2007 were up from projections and actual revenue collected in 2006.
Taxes for 2006 were up from projections and actual revenue collected in 2005.
Taxes for 2005 were up from projections and actual revenue collected in 2004.
Taxes for 2004 were up......and so on.

Like I said earlier, I'd be fine with a raise being based on actual revenue collections after the year is complete. Think the city could agree on a set percentage?

Sorry, got a year ahead of myself with the projections versus actual collections.......

REALLY????? So you're saying the city has now collected more than it did the prior year???
The way I understand it, to put it in personal finance language, imagine you had a great job earning $100,000 a year in 2008. You lost that job, and the only job you could get paid $35,000 a year. Things improved slightly over the spring, and you got a raise of $5,000 in April.
I'm not sure that would allow you to resume spending as you were in 2008 - which is, what I believe, what the unions are wanting (or is it more with raises?)
The last I saw, the city was still millions below what it collected last year, and is in fact at mid-2000s collection levels. If I'm wrong, please provide the new numbers.
I think I've asked some pretty critical questions of both sides here and I've tried to stay quiet in recent weeks. But I can't let this one slide. If I'm wrong, well, good for everybody. But I'll be very surprised if I am.

Think you are right Steve.

IIRC, the most recent article I saw in the Oklahoman stated that sales tax for that month was $2M (mol) from a year ago (just for that month). Reportedly, the city is $19M (mol) down from projections for the year and for most of that year there were double digit declines (projected or actual, not sure). While being $2M on the plus side is wonderful, one month does not a trend make.

Don't care about projections.
Here's what I can find in archives:
As of this last month, city COLLECTIONS were still $15 million below what they were last year. From what I can determine, collections this time last year also were BELOW what they were for the prior year....
Why is it so difficult to simply go with the facts? Looking at the above numbers, would one say "sales taxes are way up?"
By the way, for what it's worth, I can assure any of you firefighters and police that the mayor has no love for me right now. I'm irritating him with questions as well.

Good for you steve, keep it up. I think everyone wants answers and not a soft shoe song and dance.

So Steve on July 1, the start of the new ficsal year are we still going to be 15 million short? If that is the plan we could really cut some of those useless positions we have on the payroll.

If you look at the percentages we are 2% down in revenue, Why is the city asking for almost 4% in concessions?

Mike, as of the May sales tax check, collections for the 2010 fiscal year ending June 30 were down about $15 million from what was collection for the same 11 months the prior year. This is what I read in Bryan's story. You're asking me to take a stand in whether firefighters should get a raise. I won't do that. I will, however, question the accuracy of saying "sales taxes are way up."

Steve, we are not asking for a raise, we are just trying to hold on to what we have. Steve, it is also very interesting that you keep harping on us for presenting facts wrong. Yet you never seem to think the city could be doing anything misleading!!!

Steve, I know you know how to ask questions, do you have the ability to answer as well? You sure ignore mine!

Mike, I've not ignored you. You need to go back and read my posts. I'm an equal opportunity annoyance. You're annoyed about me in this thread? That's fine. I've also likely annoyed the mayor in this thread or a related one about his promises on the direction of the use tax for public safety during the MAPS 3 campaign, statements made about the convention center, and the apparent move to continue providing $700,000 a year for money-losing river boats that have declining passenger counts while cutting other city services.
And if you think I'm anti-public safety, check with folks who have been around for a while in police and fire. Check into my reporting on the police fleet in the mid-1990s, and into my stories on ambulance funding, etc.
I'm on the downtown business beat now - but I've got enough of a record that I doubt anyone who really knows me or my work would accuse me of being a city hall lackey.
This is the last time I'm going to go through this explanation. I don't think it's unreasonable of me to question something put out as fact if there is hard information that points in a different direction. I'm not going to take sides on whether there should be a raise.

Just answer the question- If revenues are down 2% why is the city asking for 4% in concessions?

Don't care about projections.
Here's what I can find in archives:
As of this last month, city COLLECTIONS were still $15 million below what they were last year. ...

But the projections are important because that is what they base the upcoming budget on (state & city). Then when actuals come in above or below those projections, they might have to make mid-year adjustments. Personally, think they have the budgeting process bass-ackwards. They need to take actual revenues received the previous year, and then spend that money in the next year. Instead of guessing and budgeting/spending money that they don't yet have. Not that it would be an easy thing to do (would have to have 2 years worth of revenue sitting in reserve).

Just answer the question- If revenues are down 2% why is the city asking for 4% in concessions?

This is an easy one:

Revenues: down 2%
Concessions: requesting 4%
Expenses: Insurance, wage adjustments, fuel, equipment, supply's, utilities, etc;, up 11%

This is an easy one:

Revenues: down 2%
Concessions: requesting 4%
Expenses: Insurance, wage adjustments, fuel, equipment, supply's, utilities, etc;, up 11%


Really, not trying to pick a bone with you on this one, but this is what I am seeing from all of this.

Police down over a 100 positions since 2007
Fire down 65 positions since 2008.
Hiring freeze since March 2009.
Many retirements and nobody to fill their shoes.
All of these things combined = HUGE SALARY SAVINGS BY THE CITY.

This temporary shortfall of revenue is more than made up by salary savings of running each of these depts short of staffing. Cant wait for the May, June and July sales tax checks to come in. I wonder what is the city excuse going to be when the downed revenues from 2009 are offset by the huge income in tax for the next 3 months. Not projected, but actual.

You see projected revenue is only as good as the guy who is forecasting it and its very easily manipulated by using various VOODOO accounting methods.

Ex. If I were to forecast a 5% revenue increase for the next fiscal year and we actually only came at a 4% increase in revenues. The city would say we have a 1% budget shortfall, which leads you to believe this is gloom and doom. Yet, in actuality we have 4% more funds available this fiscal year than the one before. Let say the net effect of insurance and cost of living increased by 2% during that same time frame. We then would have a Net Revenue Increase of 2% over the previous year.

I am looking into my crystal ball right know and can predict the next 3 months are going to be dramatically up for sure.
Reasons for this:

A large majority of the roofs in OKC are getting replaced and guess what all of those roofing materials and supplies are sales tax revenue, not the labor, but the materials and supplies. This amount will be astonishing to say the least.

Another poster brought up the Crest supermarket on the southside of the city is opening June 23. It will bring about large sales tax revenues as well.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Folks, this is called government/union math. Apparently the current economic reality doesn't matter - it's all about what is going to happen in the future. This probably makes perfect sense to the unions and to the city manager and his staff. Don't you want to just embrace it and make it a part of your day to day private business operations?

Folks, this is called government/union math. Apparently the current economic reality doesn't matter - it's all about what is going to happen in the future. This probably makes perfect sense to the unions and to the city manager and his staff. Don't you want to just embrace it and make it a part of your day to day private business operations?

Ah yes, the outraged truth seeker. Why not throw in the ones who pull the strings behind the curtain. But first, you might want to call upstairs and make sure it's OK to criticize the Chamber. You wouldn't want to waste time on a story that would never see print.

Not outraged at all Wambo. You guys might want to confer amongst yourselves, however, before deciding I'm your enemy. I'm not being critical, just noting the obvious difference between the perspective of govt/unions and everybody else on economic realities. I will now officially withdraw from this conversation until I see either side come up with something that clearly requires some questions.
So resolved: sales taxes are "way down" year to year, and not "way up" - right?
(Geez, why was this simple question so upsetting?)
n/m

I don't think you're our enemy Steve. I just wonder where the journalistic inquisitiveness is on the questions raised here.

If the city has been saving money for years on the open positions in the PD and FD, all the while collecting a 3/4 cent dedicated sales tax to fund those positions, how can they still require cuts in those departments? That's a pretty simple question. Not the first time it's been asked. Please tell me the simple answer. How can they collect money for a service then refuse to provide that service, and even go so far as to try to cut further into that service, without anyone in the press asking those simple questions? I know it's not your beat anymore but the guy who has it simply doesn't seem to care. As a matter of fact, he gets visibly upset when you present numbers that contradict what he's being spoon fed out of city hall.

It's a simple question, surely it has a simple answer.

Junkie- you know that the unions make AGREEMENTS with the city, it's not that the unions take all they want until it's gone. The city is getting something out of this. It's really funny how you try to demonize those damn unions for using the standard negotiating process, it's give and take on both sides!

Folks, this is called government/union math. Apparently the current economic reality doesn't matter - it's all about what is going to happen in the future. This probably makes perfect sense to the unions and to the city manager and his staff. Don't you want to just embrace it and make it a part of your day to day private business operations?

Actually its called simple math, but the city is the one who puts their spin on it to provide the gloom and doom. You see Steve, if you are smart enough you can make numbers say anything that you want them too. As for the economic condition, tax revenues are up for the last several months, yes we were down for the previous year, but we are making tremendous strides in chewing up that shortfall.

Are there other areas of the state and the country who are less fortunate than we are? Yes. The inverse is true as well. There are other areas of the state and country who haved continued to not be phased by this national recession. We can only use the national economy as an excuse for so long and that time has passed.

Junkie- you know that the unions make AGREEMENTS with the city, it's not that the unions take all they want until it's gone. The city is getting something out of this. It's really funny how you try to demonize those damn unions for using the standard negotiating process, it's give and take on both sides!

It's really funny how you claim that I "demonize" the Unions. I agree the process involves give and take on both side, but you can't deny that in recent years, the Unions have done more taking then giving.

Like I've always stated, if the money's not there, the money's not there.

[/COLOR]

It's really funny how you claim that I "demonize" the Unions. I agree the process involves give and take on both side, but you can't deny that in recent years, the Unions have done more taking then giving.

Like I've always stated, if the money's not there, the money's not there.

Not only would I deny it, it's pretty laughable that you would say it.

In this one statement you've proven that you know absolutely nothing about the topic of which you speak. Please do some research with both eyes open before you come on here and preach the anti-union diatribe.

Yeah, what he said!!!!!!

Yeah, what he said!!!!!!

Mikemarsh and Wambo, listening to you two reminds me of the old saying--"two wrongs don't make it right".

Not only would I deny it, it's pretty laughable that you would say it.

In this one statement you've proven that you know absolutely nothing about the topic of which you speak. Please do some research with both eyes open before you come on here and preach the anti-union diatribe.

Anti-Union--NO

Anti-Union that constanly spews the "poor me, I need, I want, we must have, look how good we are, what would they do without us Bullcrap--YES

Anti-Union--NO

Anti-Union that constanly spews the "poor me, I need, I want, we must have, look how good we are, what would they do without us Bullcrap--YES

Wow, do you slump to one side with that massive chip on your shoulder?

Like I said, do a little research. Broaden your horizons some. Quit believing everything your old bosses tell you. It'll be practically painless and you'll sound alot smarter.

Actually its called simple math, but the city is the one who puts their spin on it to provide the gloom and doom. You see Steve, if you are smart enough you can make numbers say anything that you want them too. As for the economic condition, tax revenues are up for the last several months, yes we were down for the previous year, but we are making tremendous strides in chewing up that shortfall. ...

Up for the last several months? Last one I saw showed revenues were approx $2M up. That was for a grand total of ONE month. One month does not a trend make. Yes it was far better than the mostly double digit declines that happened for most of the past year, but that ONE month of growth does not offset the previous 12 months. A positive $2M doesn't come close to making up for the $19M they are short.

A fairly recent article said that the City is probably 3 YEARS away from being at the revenue levels we were before the decline. That is just to get back to the starting point again. After that, then we can start talking about revenue growth. In the meantime, a lot of associated costs keep rising, so you have to make up for that too.

Wow, do you slump to one side with that massive chip on your shoulder?

Like I said, do a little research. Broaden your horizons some. Quit believing everything your old bosses tell you. It'll be practically painless and you'll sound alot smarter.

You and Mike are the ones with the chip, anytime someone voices an opinion that you disagree with, you label them a "Union Basher".
I haven't talked to my old bosses in almost a year, my info comes from reading and understanding the budget process, would do you some good to do so yourself. (take off your union glasses first, the ones with the one way focus).

Up for the last several months? Last one I saw showed revenues were approx $2M up. That was for a grand total of ONE month. One month does not a trend make. Yes it was far better than the mostly double digit declines that happened for most of the past year, but that ONE month of growth does not offset the previous 12 months. A positive $2M doesn't come close to making up for the $19M they are short.

A fairly recent article said that the City is probably 3 YEARS away from being at the revenue levels we were before the decline. That is just to get back to the starting point again. After that, then we can start talking about revenue growth. In the meantime, a lot of associated costs keep rising, so you have to make up for that too.

Did that same article tell of the recent hail storm, that is costing over $ 1 Billion dollars with a "B" to reimburse in damages. A portion of that damage is going to benefit our city in sales tax revenue, through the materials it takes to repair the damages. Im sure that they didnt mention that.

Did that article mention anything about the floods in OKC Monday. Well guess what all of those materials and goods will be sales tax revenue also.
It just keeps getting better.

Countdown to Crest opening, lets keep our outer ring tax revenue in OKC, support our city, keep our tax revenue in the city, lets put this downed economy stuff behind us.

Let me see if I remember this right. If Maps3 passes it will put more police and fire on the streets. Anyone else remember that statement the mayor made? Now today in the paper it said the city has reduced the fire dept by 29 positions and the police dept. by 26 positions. Now these positions are vacant because the city has let manpower drop through attrition, so we are shorthanded! The paper also said if the fire and police will accept concessions we can hire 20 positions for each dept. How does that work? 3/4% public safety sales tax, maps3 and they want the employees to pay for the new personnel. Is anyone paying attention to this?

You and Mike are the ones with the chip, anytime someone voices an opinion that you disagree with, you label them a "Union Basher".
I haven't talked to my old bosses in almost a year, my info comes from reading and understanding the budget process, would do you some good to do so yourself. (take off your union glasses first, the ones with the one way focus).

Ok junkie, so as to aviod the usual pissing match, why don't you take a stab at answering the question I asked Steve a few posts back. It would be interesting to hear your explanation to the puzzle. Remember that the 3/4 cent sales tax was to be used for this purpose only. It wasn't supposed to be a substitute for the general fund budget that was already going for other purposes. Remember that they have never hired the 200 additional FF's that the money was for. Don't forget that the city has been pocketing the savings for not hiring these people for years now. Please don't use the tired old excuse that he costs are outrunning the tax. The tax was projected (and sold to the voters) to be enough to support 200 and has never been asked to do that.

Then you can explain how the mayors promises of hiring FF's and PO's with the use tax money is all of a sudden dependent on existing employees in those departments taking wage and benefit concessions. Funny, that didn't make it into the commercials that ran every 10 minutes, for days on end, ad nauseum. If they are actually being hired with use tax money, why does that have anything to do with wage and benefit cuts? Sounds more like the existing FF's and PO's are going to be hiring them with money out of their own pockets via the cuts.

Surely someone with your knowledge of the budgetary processes of the city can answer these questions without resorting to the same old tired lies we hear all the time. Don't use the "if the moneys not there it's not there" line please. Tell me where the money is, since it's only supposed to be used for one purpose.
Take your time and answer them both please.

Let me see if I remember this right. If Maps3 passes it will put more police and fire on the streets. Anyone else remember that statement the mayor made? Now today in the paper it said the city has reduced the fire dept by 29 positions and the police dept. by 26 positions. Now these positions are vacant because the city has let manpower drop through attrition, so we are shorthanded! The paper also said if the fire and police will accept concessions we can hire 20 positions for each dept. How does that work? 3/4% public safety sales tax, maps3 and they want the employees to pay for the new personnel. Is anyone paying attention to this?

So, if P & F do not reduce their wages they lose 26 & 29 positions respectivly, even though with the passage of MAPS 3 there would be additional P & F on our streets protecting us. However, if they will agree to cut their wages they would only lose 6 & 9 positions, what a deal.

This deal reminds me of the Rescue Squad issue back in 1998. Remember?

The City and then City Manager Glen Deck claimed revenues were down and they needed to cut the F.D. budget by a mere $650,000. In 1998 everything was as it is today, EXCEPT, there were 999 FF and 6 Rescue Squads. The City told us that if we would agree to their plan that would put the 6 R.S. out-of-service, decommission them, and take them off the streets, re-classify the 18 Captians and the 18 Drivers positions and cut their pay down to a entry level Firefighter position that they would let us keep those positions. We did not like the plan, however, in the spirit of co-operation we agreed.

So, in FY/98-99 they (the City) reduced the number of Fire rigs on the streets of OKC by 6, (savings to the capital expenditures budget), cut the pay grade of 18 Captains and 18 Drivers down to 36 Firefighters (a savings to the personal services expenditures budget) and saved their $650,000.

Shortly after this quid pro quo agreement had been signed and before the ink had dried, Mr. Deck left, and Mr. Couch became the new C.M. Shortly after he became C.M. he began cutting positions to the tune of 51.

So go ahead, trust them, cut your wages lose the 9 positions, show them what great employees you are. If you do this don't be shocked to wake up one morning making less money only to find 26 & 29 positions disappeared while you slept.

We remember Andy. Exactly why this thing doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hades of happening. But hey, I'm sure RC can tell us how that was such a smoking good deal for us back then.

It's been explained over and over, but as long as you wear your narrow visioned glasses, you will never be open to understanding the other side. Were things promised that shouldn't have been, yes, but when personnel cost rise much faster then revenue, cuts have to be made.

It's apparent that no matter what I, or any else says, all you will do is respond with the usual smart-ass remarks, and I choose not to play your games.

One interesting thing is that I keep hearing how the Fire Department short handed, have been since fiscal year 98/99, yet the Fire Department has been able to maintain the quality service they have always provided, so apparently the present staffing numbers are adequate.


The wind is letting up, I'm going fishing.

RC,
Don't forget about your promise to be one of the first ones at the council meeting to chastise the council for cutting Fire & Police personnel. We'll be looking for you and save you the first spot in line......as soon as you get back from the lake of course.

RC,
Don't forget about your promise to be one of the first ones at the council meeting to chastise the council for cutting Fire & Police personnel. We'll be looking for you and save you the first spot in line......as soon as you get back from the lake of course.

Do that, lunch after Council Meeting, I'm buying!!

Did that same article tell of the recent hail storm, that is costing over $ 1 Billion dollars with a "B" to reimburse in damages. A portion of that damage is going to benefit our city in sales tax revenue, through the materials it takes to repair the damages. Im sure that they didnt mention that.

Did that article mention anything about the floods in OKC Monday. Well guess what all of those materials and goods will be sales tax revenue also.
It just keeps getting better.

Countdown to Crest opening, lets keep our outer ring tax revenue in OKC, support our city, keep our tax revenue in the city, lets put this downed economy stuff behind us.

OK, so I guess you're suggesting that we should all pray for a new natural disaster each month? That we could have a nice steady stream of new revenue for the city to fund anything they wanted rather than just some one time extra money from an occasional storm.

Did that same article tell of the recent hail storm, that is costing over $ 1 Billion dollars with a "B" to reimburse in damages. A portion of that damage is going to benefit our city in sales tax revenue, through the materials it takes to repair the damages. Im sure that they didnt mention that.

Did that article mention anything about the floods in OKC Monday. Well guess what all of those materials and goods will be sales tax revenue also.
It just keeps getting better.

Countdown to Crest opening, lets keep our outer ring tax revenue in OKC, support our city, keep our tax revenue in the city, lets put this downed economy stuff behind us.

Not disputing any of that and you are probably correct (we had a similar effect during one of our ice storms). The point of that is those revenues haven't been accounted for yet (still future) and the article didn't mention them because the events hadn't happened yet either. But just like the bump in revenue due to the ice storm, the bump from these recent happenings are going to be short term bumps as well. Nice to see, but don't be surprised if they drop back down again (unless something fundamental changes in the overall economy).

You will know the economy is turning around when the help wanted sections in the paper etc start growing. We print one of those job finder papers and not that long ago, was a 40-48 page paper on a regular basis. For the past year, it has been 16 pages or less.

We have to be cautiously optimistic. The Council took that approach and is hoping that revenues continue to climb (avoiding much of the cut back to the Bus service and a couple of other areas).

OK, so I guess you're suggesting that we should all pray for a new natural disaster each month? That we could have a nice steady stream of new revenue for the city to fund anything they wanted rather than just some one time extra money from an occasional storm.

No need to go to that extreme...seems to happen with about that frequency lately without "praying" for it.

It's been explained over and over, but as long as you wear your narrow visioned glasses, you will never be open to understanding the other side. Were things promised that shouldn't have been, yes, but when personnel cost rise much faster then revenue, cuts have to be made.

It's apparent that no matter what I, or any else says, all you will do is respond with the usual smart-ass remarks, and I choose not to play your games.

One interesting thing is that I keep hearing how the Fire Department short handed, have been since fiscal year 98/99, yet the Fire Department has been able to maintain the quality service they have always provided, so apparently the present staffing numbers are adequate.


The wind is letting up, I'm going fishing.

Ok, I'll assume you, like every other clear thinking person, can't explain the first question without resorting to the voo-doo math and lies the city puts out to explain it. Good enough. Like I've said before, it took Bob Macy coming to a council meeting and threatening to arrest someone to keep them honest with that money as soon as the tax was passed. They've had alot more time now to figure out the legal technicalities around that tax and no district attorney to keep them in line.

How about taking a stab at question #2. How does the hiring of personnel with use tax monies have anything to do with existing personnel taking wage and benefit concessions? When were the two connected? Certainly not the song the mayor was singing previously.

Then you might want to reread Andy's post a few back to understand where our general distrust of the city manager and his motives comes from. That's pretty much how the relationship started and it's gone down hill from there. I don't know how many times you have to beat someone in arbitration and court before they realize that their methodology in dealing with this stuff is wrong.

Lastly, I'll be happy to turn down the smart-ass if you'll turn down the pompous, arrogant know it all. Hope the fish are biting.

Wambo,

ROTFLMAO at how pissed RC is going to get after reading that. Heard he noodled a 30# carp last week. I think that's what he's bringing to lunch tues. after the council meeting.

I'm really not trying to piss him off, although that'll probably be the end result. I'd really like a straight answer from him. Not the same old BS I could get from city hall. He claims to understand the intricacies of the budgeting process for the city. I'm starting to think he only understands what they tell him he understands. Critical evaluation on his part seems to be reserved for those below the rank of middle management at city hall. Anything above that he accepts without question.

No need to go to that extreme...seems to happen with about that frequency lately without "praying" for it.

Of course we could also have a discussion about how much money those storms cost the city in clean up and repair expenses. I suspect that pretty much offsets any extra sales tax revenue that is generated.

good point

Of course we could also have a discussion about how much money those storms cost the city in clean up and repair expenses. I suspect that pretty much offsets any extra sales tax revenue that is generated.

I am sure that the city would like you to believe that.
I dont think you have a clue how many roofs in OKC that are getting replaced.
The city is not paying to clean up the roofs, the tear off or the haul off.

Almost all of the cost of storm cleanup is going to borne by just about everyone except the city. It sure sounded good though.

I am sure that the city would like you to believe that.
I dont think you have a clue how many roofs in OKC that are getting replaced.
The city is not paying to clean up the roofs, the tear off or the haul off.

Almost all of the cost of storm cleanup is going to borne by just about everyone except the city. It sure sounded good though.

I'm not referring to damage done to personal property as far as the city paying for anything. There was a considerable amount of damage done to city owned property. Also the city is responsible for a large amount of clearing and removing some types of debris. When we had the snow storm for Christmas, I do believe the city was responsible for most of the clearing. Don't you remember from past ice storms when the city had to pay for picking up all of the huge amounts of tree limbs that had fallen?

I am sure that the city would like you to believe that.
I dont think you have a clue how many roofs in OKC that are getting replaced.
The city is not paying to clean up the roofs, the tear off or the haul off.

Almost all of the cost of storm cleanup is going to borne by just about everyone except the city. It sure sounded good though.

OKC Begins Flood Cleanup Effort - Oklahoma City News Story - KOCO Oklahoma City (http://www.koco.com/news/23979491/detail.html)

I'm not referring to damage done to personal property as far as the city paying for anything. There was a considerable amount of damage done to city owned property. Also the city is responsible for a large amount of clearing and removing some types of debris. When we had the snow storm for Christmas, I do believe the city was responsible for most of the clearing. Don't you remember from past ice storms when the city had to pay for picking up all of the huge amounts of tree limbs that had fallen?

City did have to pay for much of this, but was reimbursed by FEMA as I recall, as part of storm damage remediation.

City did have to pay for much of this, but was reimbursed by FEMA as I recall, as part of storm damage remediation.

This is cleanup that's just starting so I would be suprised if the city has already been reimbursed knowing how fast the federal government works. I'm not saying it won't happen though. It's still very unlikely that the city will come out in the black after the storm as was suggested earlier.

Think FritterGirl was talking about the FEMA/Fed help w/cleanup from the Christmas ice storms etc

Think FritterGirl was talking about the FEMA/Fed help w/cleanup from the Christmas ice storms etc

That could be. I thought she was also responding to my post of a link about the flood cleanup which was in the previous post.

Okay, just to get back on topic for a minute. The sales tax report published by the city today for tha second half of April and first half of May show collections up by 2.9%. What I find disturbing is that the city is still claiming the budget it under by approx. $19,000,000.00.

On 2/9/10 the city made amendments to the budget and added some $12,000,000.00 from the fund balances to cover the shortages. Shouldnt they be going off of the amended budget instead of claiming they are short for the original budget?

<<sigh>> It would be nice if Government could use one set of numbers. That would certainly make it easier for the rest of us to follow along. But that may be the point (they don't want us to follow along). Unfortunately, they have so many sets to pick and choose from, they use which ever set makes their point the strongest.

Larry, so far the city will not release the numbers from the amended budget to our negotiating team. They are sticking to their facts from the original projected budget. The fiscal year ends on the 30th of this month. So it will be interesting. The funny thing is that due to projections the numbers are coming back that the fire dept. would be getting a 1.5% raise this year. NOW LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR, THE FIRE DEPT. IS NOT AND I REPEAT NOT ASKING FOR A RAISE, THIS IS WHAT THE MARKET APPROACH IS SHOWING WE SHOULD GET.

Of course we could also have a discussion about how much money those storms cost the city in clean up and repair expenses. I suspect that pretty much offsets any extra sales tax revenue that is generated.


I am sure that the city would like you to believe that.
I dont think you have a clue how many roofs in OKC that are getting replaced.
The city is not paying to clean up the roofs, the tear off or the haul off.

Almost all of the cost of storm cleanup is going to borne by just about everyone except the city. It sure sounded good though.


This is cleanup that's just starting so I would be suprised if the city has already been reimbursed knowing how fast the federal government works. I'm not saying it won't happen though. It's still very unlikely that the city will come out in the black after the storm as was suggested earlier.

The last one is true, from the City Council meeting 7/20/10

Storm Cleanup

City on the hook for $450,000 in cleanup costs. City Manager said it was highly unlikely that we will be reimbursed for any significant portion (exception was specific tornado damage).