... When are people going to start making the politicians accountable? They have stolen an average of $19 million a year from the PD & FD budget and label them as the thugs. ...

Strongly stated. A part of me assumes perhaps overstated as well. But perhaps not.

For those, like me, who do not know, what public safety expenditures are paid for out of the general fund?
If none, what is the stated position for the fund transfers?
If some, does the general fund expenditure level approximate, exceed, or fall well below, the amount of the transfers?

Actually, the "why" on the private company hybrid model is it allows the city to continue recouping some of its money from Medicare/Medicaid. That's been the reasoning since early on. As for everything else in these threads, it all comes down to a couple of simple themes. One: firefighters believe they should have better staffing and better pay. And that's ok. That's understandable. And they also are arguing that despite the rough economy and having less money than it did two years ago, the firefighters say their demands can be met if the city were to have better priorities on its spending. They can point out to the $700,000 being spent annually on the river cruisers. They can point to the money the city spends on trips sending the council to visit with the crew of the USS OKC sub every couple of years in Florida. They can point to consulting contracts, they can point to public art, what have you.
Some would say these are important expenditures, others might not.
Firefighters' opponents in this matter say they already are very well paid and have been spared the cuts that have hit many cities across the U.S. The same opponents could argue that the firefighters union is out of touch with the real economy and should be working city leaders to find ways to cut costs and streamline operations before making any more demands for better staffing, better pay, at a time when the citizens who pay them are hurting, and many of them have been living with less pay, less staffing for three years and going... and of course those opponents often forget just how horrible a job these firefighters have, dealing with some of the worst job conditions imaginable. Less staffing and stagnant pay may very well have more of a sting when you're outside in 100-degree weather fighting a hazmat spill or a fire at a dangerous abandoned factory building.
I guarantee this thread and its companion will always be stuck in this basic argument, with neither side winning over sympathizers from the other because any meaningful dialogue that occurs here seems to end up in personal attacks and inuendo by both sides. Nobody is really listening here, though I've been trying...

Strongly stated. A part of me assumes perhaps overstated as well. But perhaps not.

For those, like me, who do not know, what public safety expenditures are paid for out of the general fund?
If none, what is the stated position for the fund transfers?
If some, does the general fund expenditure level approximate, exceed, or fall well below, the amount of the transfers?

I have tried to refrain from using the word "stole" but it does seem apt. He was referring to his earlier post #238, which was a cut/paste of one of my posts in another thread where the annual City budgets show clearly that a combined yearly total of money from the dedicated public safety sales tax is being diverted to the General Fund of about $20M/year ($19.91M for 09-10 budget year).

But to answer your questions:

2 cents of our sales tax goes to the General Fund. 3/4 cent goes to P.S. 1/8 cent goes to the Zoo and 1 cent has generally gone to the various MAPS programs for most of the past 16 or so years). The balance goes to the State. The majority of the General Fund budget goes to P.S. (65% or $227.72M of the General Fund)

I couldn't find any stated purpose of the transfers in the charts, just states that:

"Fire Sales Tax to General Fund"
07-08: $10,963,561
08-09: $11,167,483
09-10: $11,263,377

"Police Sales Tax to General Fund"
07-08: $8,417,092
08-09: $8,573,650
09-10: $8,647,270

As stated in the previous post, similar amounts have been diverted from the 3/4 cent tax presumably as long as the tax has been in effect. Can only attest to as far back as the 03-04 budget years as that the ones posted on the City's site, only go back that far.

More money goes to Public Safety from the General Fund than the amount that is being diverted back ($227.72M compared to $19.9M). But the point of it is, according to law, the 3/4 cent tax is a dedicated tax and can only be used to fund P.S. needs (equipment, buildings, personnel etc). NOT to be put into the General Fund.

It is entirely possible that the diverted money is then in turn put back into the P.S. funds paid from the General Fund, but WHY? It was already in the P.S. fund to begin with. By transferring the money into the General Fund, there is no limitation on how the money is being spent. Just as with the Education Lottery, the 3/4 cent dedicated tax was intended to be supplemental funding (on top of any from the General Fund). IMO, in reality, if the $19.9M/year was left where it belongs, P.S. from the General Fund would probably be reduced by the same amount and we would still be where we are.

I have tried to refrain from using the word "stole" but it does seem apt. ...
I couldn't find any stated purpose of the transfers in the charts ....

More money goes to Public Safety from the General Fund than the amount that is being diverted back ($227.72M compared to $19.9M). But the point of it is, according to law, the 3/4 cent tax is a dedicated tax and can only be used to fund P.S. needs (equipment, buildings, personnel etc). NOT to be put into the General Fund.

It is entirely possible that the diverted money is then in turn put back into the P.S. funds paid from the General Fund, but WHY? It was already in the P.S. fund to begin with. By transferring the money into the General Fund, there is no limitation on how the money is being spent. Just as with the Education Lottery, the 3/4 cent dedicated tax was intended to be supplemental funding (on top of any from the General Fund). IMO, in reality, if the $19.9M/year was left where it belongs, P.S. from the General Fund would probably be reduced by the same amount and we would still be where we are.

Thanks Larry. I'd have to part company with saying stole seems apt though.
I don't get the need for the transfer either, but if roughly 10X the amount of transferred into the General Fund goes back out to Public Safety, I can't see me getting on board and cruising the river on the good ship Swiper.

I agree it makes little, if any, sense, at least on the surface, to transfer money into the general Fund to use for PS, when it is already in the PS fund.

One thing does come to mind. Simple perception.
With the aid of the fund transfer, it can be touted that nearly 2/3 of the general fund revenues (65%) are applied to PC. If those dedicated PS funds never left the PS fund, and assuming no additional general funds went to PS, there would be a drop of general fund percentage to PS, down to about 56%.

Perhaps there is a more sound reason for the transfer than political perception. Perhaps not.
Based on the additional information though, and again, I thank you for it, I'm still inclined to think of 'stolen' as being overstated.

Steve,
Standing ovation! Now let's see you get it printed.

The only misnomer I would correct is the fact that the city can recoup funds from Medicare/Medicaid if they are the transport service.

Thanks Larry. I'd have to part company with saying stole seems apt though.
I don't get the need for the transfer either, but if roughly 10X the amount of transferred into the General Fund goes back out to Public Safety, I can't see me getting on board and cruising the river on the good ship Swiper.

I agree it makes little, if any, sense, at least on the surface, to transfer money into the general Fund to use for PS, when it is already in the PS fund.
One thing does come to mind. Simple perception.
With the aid of the fund transfer, it can be touted that nearly 2/3 of the general fund revenues (65%) are applied to PC. If those dedicated PS funds never left the PS fund, and assuming no additional general funds went to PS, there would be a drop of general fund percentage to PS, down to about 56%.

Perhaps there is a more sound reason for the transfer than political perception. Perhaps not.
Based on the additional information though, and again, I thank you for it, I'm still inclined to think of 'stolen' as being overstated.

DISCLAIMER: this updated info is from the "Option 2" budget which was adopted by the Council in June, presumably it was adopted "as is" with no changes made.

pg 45 (54 of PDF) also on pg 62 (71 of PDF)
While the diversion is still going on, the numbers actually went down from previous years were they had steadily increased.

"Fire Sales Tax to General Fund"
08-09: $11,180,640 (actual)
09-10: $11,263,377 (adopted)
10-11: $7,893,926 (proposed...a decrease of $3.369M from last year)

"Police Sales Tax to General Fund"
08-09: $8,583,750 (actual)
09-10: $8,647,270 (adopted)
10-11: $6,577,546 (proposed...a decrease of $2.069M from last year)


Interestingly you bringing up the perception angle, according to the "Operating Expenditures by Function" chart on pg 57 (66 of PDF), the percentage for Public Safety has dropped to 52% (had been 65% in the same chart in previous years).

"Public Safety, which includes Police, Fire, Animal Welfare and Municipal Courts and comprises 52% of the operating expenditure budget."
This inclusion of the Courts & Animal Welfare skews the amount I gave in a previous post. The $227.72M was based on the 65% of General Fund figure for the more inclusive Public Safety (I was thinking it was just for Fire/Police), so the actual amount to Fire and Police would be less than that (however, F&P does make up the majority of the Public Safety category).

Yet the "General Fund Expenditure by Function" chart on pg 59 (68 of PDF) has the percentage back at 65%

Percentages are the same as prior years, but the General Fund dollar amounts to Fire/Police have gone down with this years budget

Fire
08-09: $82,267,544 (actual)
10-11: $78,857,636 (proposed)

Police
08-09: $108,484,539 (actual)
10-11: $103,534,227 (proposed)

I'm with Steve on this one. Of course you can find money elsewhere that you think should be applied to your department. Any department could say that. But that says you think those other items aren't neccessary. Granted, a trip to the USS OKC probably isn't, but there are things like that the city does that have less tangible outcomes.

I'm still going to say, "What makes you think you deserve it more" than the next guy. But you aren't going to like that...like usualy. So we end up in the same circular argument where we will never agree with the other. I've seen the numbers, I agree you need staff...no surprise there. With growth comes demand. That's not the point...it never was. The point is (and always has been for me), that there are too many things to be done to help improve the responce time and manpower useage to cover properly before just throwing money and manpower at it. That's the "easiest" thing to do, but not the most effective. The study posted several pages back show very clearly that there are several minutes to be made up in response time on the administrative side. When that is improved, the time spent on the scene by the department is decreased because the fire has spread less.

The numbers involve more than what's printed on a page. When you dig more thuroughly, you'll find that the departments aren't being treated unfairly. Percentages are a much better indicator than dollars. There are only so many to go around, and like it or not, just like the whole country, everyone has to cut.

Now all the crap we've had go back and fourth...do you hear the Police Department pissing and moaning like the Fire Department? Nope.

We're not going to agree no matter what though.

Well, in fairness to the Fire Department, the only Police Department member that posted here (that I know of at least, feel free to correct me) was that Iron### guy, who was enough of a troublemaker during the Maps 3 run-up that he got banned after directly getting into it with an Admin.

Today in the news:
East St. Louis lays off 1/3 of police force, 1/4 of firefighters. Furlough days offered by city rejected by union.
San Jose lays off 50 firefighters. Union is hoping new contract talks will result in rehirings.
City Manager of Bell, California has a $600,000 per year pension that now must be paid by dozens of area cities after he and other city leaders were sacked for getting paid too much.

Today in the news:
... City Manager of Bell, California has a $600,000 per year pension that now must be paid by dozens of area cities after he and other city leaders were sacked for getting paid too much.


Could just be my at times somewhat warped mind, but if I were a betting man, I'd be betting certain recently retirees move far, far away from those who will be paying the freight. That whole scenario just seems to be beggin' for someone to decide to have an ill cousin test the viability of a DSAF defense.