OKC Police & Fire needs

[andy157]

I was looking for something else and happened upon a pie chart that showed what portion each activity of the fire department comprised of the whole. Almost 50 percent of activity is related to medical and related calls. So, it seems logical to give more of the resposibility for them back to ambulance services, which would solve the manpower shortage problem incredibly quickly. A significant number of ambulance calls are either for nonemergent conditions, or the situation is hopeless. If people aren't happy with ambulance service they can then put pressure on the city to hire more personnel. Firemen can be called as backup if needed, or can respond to situations when it is known that multiple people will be needed, such as multiple car MVAs and the like. Seems like a fairly simple concept.

Betts. I mean this with all due respect. I don't know you from Eve. Furthermore, you don't strike me as a stupid person, so please don't think this insinuates you are. Nevertheless, you don't have a clue about what it takes to protect the Citizens of this City, including yourself.

[andy157]

But, if most of your work is medical, then perhaps we have too many stations? Or too many rigs? Or are they both mandated as well? Is it a per capita requirement? If so, who makes the requirement? Is there a national or state rule about reponse times? Actually, I'm simply curious.

But, hawk, there are other kinds of "keeping citizens alive". There are immunizations. There are medical visits. There are programs to keep people physically fit. There is the police department. Again, without unlimited money, no one gets everything they want. We cannot create a utopia, because money is finite. For every person we hire, we cannot hire someone else. Maybe that's a social worker who helps prevent child abuse. Is it less important to prevent child abuse than to get someone out of a car in which they're trapped? There are no easy answers here, including the ones you all are offering.

Stations and rigs, are they are both mandated you ask, yes as a matter of fact they are. They were both mandated by we the Citizens of this City June the 20th of 1989. Did you happen to be one of us? I'm paying extra taxes for my mandates, and guess what, if you live in OKC so are you. I'm also paying for your mandate to enhance the Ford Center which enables you to be happy 41 nights during the year. You and I simply disagree regarding our priorities.

[sentrymechanic]

Betts. I mean this with all due respect. I don't know you from Eve. Furthermore, you don't strike me as a stupid person, so please don't think this insinuates you are. Nevertheless, you don't have a clue about what it takes to protect the Citizens of this City, including yourself.

As a firefighter, I have to agree with Andy regarding this statement. Unfortunately, this applies to a majority of the public. Most people don't realize what all takes place on EMS calls and really don't care until its them or their family that's having an issue.

I know its been stated already but there are so many calls where an ambulance is simply not equipped or staffed to handle a call on their own. Whether it be extrication, lift assistance, or simply us starting prehospital care if they are coming from a considerable distance, fire and ems compliment each other nicely. EMS is a big part of what we do and the days of a fire department only running fire calls are long gone.

[Larry OKC]

Find it amusing that some people don't want to talk about the Ford Center any more but keep doing so anyway. Maybe that rule only applies if you agree with what she believes (even if the reporting indicates otherwise). ;-)

So I will refrain from responding to the inaccuracies brought up and will try to stick to the thread subject. (Don't everyone thank me at once)

...I don't remember the ballot giving me the choice of spending money on the Ford Center or our police and fire departments.

You are correct on that as the police and fire departments weren't a part of the ballot. As you have correctly pointed out there is a finite amount of money available.

There is also a tipping point when voters will say "no more". Even if it had been included on the Ballot, it might have ended up being an either/or (though they could vote for both, like we did for ALL of the propositions in the 2007 G.O. & School bond issues...but passed only some in the Tinker bond vote). One key point in both the G.O. & School bond votes, the misleading claim was that taxes were not going to be raised. With the Tinker bond vote, no such claim was made, it did mean an increase in taxes and some passed, some didn't.

Similar situation we have here. MAPS 3 makes the misleading claim that it isn't a tax increase. But if there was a separate tax for City Services on the Ballot it would be an obvious tax increase and that gets you back to the tipping point again. If MAPS 3 passes, they believe it will be at least 7.75 years before a separate tax can be considered. And by then there will probably be a MAPS 4. I think part of the thinking expressed in this thread is that if MAPS is passed, there is less chance of getting what they need to fund City Services, because you get closer to that tipping point.

Especially true now that there appears we are going to have some sort of tax vote to fix the County Jail. IF there is a County Jail sales tax (lets say a penny) then the current fact that OKC has one of the lowest sales tax rates in the Metro (think it's #14) will change to OKC having one of the highest (tied for 2nd place with 6 or 7 surrounding communities within Okla. Co. being tied for #1). Earlier articles indicated a combination of sales tax and bond tax might be used but the latest article only mentioned the bond (in the headline), so don't know for sure (don't think they really know yet either).

So I see both sides and agree with the question that keeps getting asked (but I haven't seen answered yet): how defeating MAPS gets them any closer to their goals?

(My apologies to Doug but I loved the way he wrote it)

On one hand it doesn't get them any closer. But on another hand, MAPS passing puts it farther out of reach (the tipping point). And on the third hand, if MAPS fails, then that tipping point is decreased some.

[TaoMaas]

I'm sorry, but when I see our police officers asking for more money and at almost every intersection where there's a traffic light, there will be 2 or 3 folks who go through the intersection after the light has turned red, I can't help but think, "You want more money? It just blew through. Go get it."

[betts]

On one hand it doesn't get them any closer. But on another hand, MAPS passing puts it farther out of reach (the tipping point). And on the third hand, if MAPS fails, then that tipping point is decreased some.

You might be right. However, there is an unspoken rule in politics: "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

If MAPS loses, it will be hard to be as sympathetic to police and fire wants as I have been in the past, although I will try very hard to be objective. I do know they'd better not be calling me to donate to their unions without expecting a lecture and a hang-up. And I'll be ______ if I'm stopping to put money in the boot. I am actually equally or more likely to vote for a tax increase to support them if it passes than if it doesn't. City hall may feel the same way, dunno.

[How to rock]

Once again Larry OKC attempts to clear the fog of this HUGE discussion. His point about the sales tax is pretty close to on point. I will answer your question Larry OKC. Failing this version of MAPS 3 will force the City to go back to the drawing board and assemble a tax package that will not only "satisfy the wants of the city but it's needs". That quote is taken from what the fire union President said to the city counsel members on September 29, 2009.

Betts, concerning your idea on a tax INCREASE. I doubt the majority of the public would feel the same way. Especially given the current economic situation. As for your comment about putting money in the boot. That money is the Jerry's Kids campaign. I regret that your feelings about this issue will effect your giving to such a worthy charity. I hope you will donate in another method if this version MAPS 3 fails.

MANY posts have talked about if MAPS 3 fails...... Check your history. The original MAPS (MAPS 1, if you wish) failed the first time it was put before the voters. It was then reformulated and put before the voters again in just a few months. It then passed and the rest is history. The same can be done with MAPS 3. Councilman Walters has been heard saying this many times but the City would like the public to believe otherwise.

I will close with another quote from Councilman Walters which was said at the city counsel meeting on September 29, 2009 concerning MAPS 3. His words were "We can do better then this. We can do better then the proposal that is on the table."

If you would like to hear Councilman Walters comments you may visit the following link:
September 29, 2009 Council Meeting Brian Walters

[dismayed]

MAPS 1 failed the first time? I don't recall that at all. Is that true? Or are you talking about the String of Pearls that failed like a decade before MAPS 1?

[flintysooner]

I only remember one MAPS vote which passed and which surprised me.

[How to rock]

I attempted to look on the City website to find a reference concerning the original MAPS vote but I couldn't find anything. This is what happened as I recall it. I am sorry, I know we all like independent references for facts such as this.

My point being that if this version of MAPS 3 fails it is not the end of the world for OKC. The City will just need to redesign the package to better meet the demands of the citizens. Then the new package may be voted on. This could happen within just a matter of a few months.

I would like to provide a little more information to consider. On the website The City of Oklahoma City's Offical Home Page the list of votes for projects is provided at MAPS 3 | Oklahoma City. I looked through the list of projects suggested.

The summary is as follows:
Downtown "Central Park" - 36 votes (estimated cost 130 million)
New Convention Center - 40 votes (estimated cost 280 million)
Fairgrounds - 22 votes (estimated cost 60 million)

I don't understand why so much money is being put toward projects that received so few votes.

[kevinpate]

The summary is as follows:
Downtown "Central Park" - 36 votes (estimated cost 130 million)
New Convention Center - 40 votes (estimated cost 280 million)
Fairgrounds - 22 votes (estimated cost 60 million)

I don't understand why so much money is being put toward projects that received so few votes.

Perhaps it will come into focus if you dwell on which larger scale players in OKC happen to favor those proposals. Does anything really truly doubt that the above three items would be part of MAPs3 even if they had received only 1 vote each?

[Larry OKC]

You might be right. However, there is an unspoken rule in politics: "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."

And that has been there point in several posts. They were told since the original MAPS all the way back to 1993, that if they supported it, their problems would be taken care of (being told the same thing now). If you have read the threads, taxes/revenue have increased but city services have not. All of the tax increases which resulted in higher revenue have basically just kept us current with rising costs, inflation etc. Their point is, this has been an ongoing problem and have never been addressed. They claim "They have scratched City leaderships back, but their back hasn't been scratched"

[Larry OKC]

MAPS 1 failed the first time? I don't recall that at all. Is that true? Or are you talking about the String of Pearls that failed like a decade before MAPS 1?

This isn't a slam but think he is mistaken on that point (maybe confusing it with another vote). Perhaps some items in MAPS had failed to pass earlier (but don't recall a quick turnaround...Doug where are you...LOL

Certainly, the MAPS that did barely pass (54%) was the 1st with that label attached. As the Mayor has joked, even though it barely passed it is hard to find anyone in OKC who DIDN'T vote for it now.

As far as the MAPS 3 Survey goes, there may be confusion on terminology (guilty of typing it myself a time or two). The "should there be a MAPS 3?", was a "vote" portion but the projects were not. These were suggestions by the respondents (with no prodding), not "votes" from a list of projects. The overwhelming suggestion was to address mass transit needs. Most of the other suggestions were distant runners. However of the top 14 suggestions (no matter what the gap is between some) are being addressed in MAPS 3 or have already been addressed in things like the 2007 G.O. & School bond issues.

Some problems with the Survey. It was unscientific (which they point out on the website). It wasn't limited to just OKC registered voters (they got responses from all 50 states and 57(?) foreign countries. The Survey is a few years old now (would the same results happen now?) Am sure they have done polling since then but it is always this survey they end up using. This several year old survey is the basis the Mayor is pinning everything on. "85% want a MAPS 3" (not the exact quote, but that is the gist). Technically true if you only count the 2,000+ respondents (again, from all 50 states and multiple foreign countries...over a 4 month period where you could "vote" multiple times). You could suggest multiple items too. Since the numbers are nearly exactly the same 40 & 41), it was probably the same 40 people that suggested the NBA practice facility and Ford Center improvements. Pulled out of MAPS 3 and put to a separate vote which easily passed.

[Larry OKC]

Interesting to point out that even though Mass Transit received the vast majority of suggestions, it isn't being fully implemented. Earlier article and the Mayor has mentioned it in speech after speech to look at the comprehensive transit plan the City spent 18 months on. The implication was that we would be getting that complete ($494M???) plan with MAPS 3, what we are getting is just the Downtown Streetcar portion @ $130M (8 times more than what the streetcar plan was supposed to cost under the Original MAPS). To get the rest of the plan, we are going to have to wait for MAPS 4 or more. At least 7.75 years away.

[Slivermoon]

Personally, I cannot recall any Oklahoma City dedicated sales tax proposition failing in recent history.

It would take someone a bit of research, but I believe there was:

1) a 1/8th cent dedicated sales tax approved for the Zoo in the late 1980's APPROVED;
2) a dedicated 3/4 cent Public Safety sales tax approved also in the late 1980's APPROVED;
3) then City voters approved a sales tax to support relocation of a major airline maintenance facility, APPROVED but not enacted as Oklahoma City was not selected as the facility site;
4) the original MAPS sales tax APPROVED in 1993 and subsequent (seperately approved) six-month extension;
5) Public Safety Capital Improvements Sales Tax APPROVED;
6) Maps For Kids schools capital improvements Sales Tax APPROVED;
7) Ford Center Upgrades and NBA Practice Facility Sales Tax APPROVED.

I think that's all.

Of these, those under the "MAPS" brand have been presented twice, not counting the 6-month extension which was voted and approved I think at 1/2 cent per dollar.

Unless someone can think of an Oklahoma City sales tax proposal I have forgotten, I am pretty sure that all have been approved by the voters for at least the last 20 years.

[dismayed]

This isn't a slam but think he is mistaken on that point (maybe confusing it with another vote). Perhaps some items in MAPS had failed to pass earlier (but don't recall a quick turnaround...Doug where are you...LOL

Certainly, the MAPS that did barely pass (54%) was the 1st with that label attached. As the Mayor has joked, even though it barely passed it is hard to find anyone in OKC who DIDN'T vote for it now.

I remember it passing the first time. As a matter of fact I was handing out stickers at the time that said 'Vote for MAPS!' or something similar to that and volunteered for that whole campaign. It's funny what you say because I talked to so many people who told me they were voting 'no' before the vote, but kind of like what you just said I never heard anything negative after the projects started going up. The reasons were varied... a lot of folks said they would just never vote for a tax increase, period. I think maybe the police/fire folks should go out and knock on some doors... they may find similar attitudes persist today. If that is the case then defeating one tax increase isn't going to make anyone want to vote for a different increase any more. In fact if anything it might actually awaken long-standing feelings of disgust towards the government and its desire to tax us for virtually anything. The last decade has been good in that the city has found a momentum with these issues, but I have no doubt that this could easily turn and then we would be back in the same place we were in the 1980s and early 90s, with people even voting down school millage increases.

But going back to How To Rock's point, I guess I don't agree that the city could just whip out another vote a few months later if it wanted to. For starters, on an issue as big as this they are likely going to hold it on a date that corresponds with a major election, such as legislative or presidential elections. Secondly, the city proposed numerous revitalization projects for years before MAPS and each one was voted down, or never even made it to a vote because of intense opposition. These were years and years apart. I guarantee you if a MAPS vote fails at the very least the city is going to conduct a study to determine why it failed and how to counter that in a future proposal, and I'm sorry but putting together an RFP, then selecting a company to do it, then allowing them to do the study and present the findings doesn't strike me as something that can be done in less than a year.

If the unions want to oppose MAPS for whatever reason that's fine, but they should be honest enough to admit that if they're successful it is going to delay the projects for years before we get another shot.

[Larry OKC]

... the 6-month extension which was voted and approved I think at 1/2 cent per dollar. ...

Just a slight correction, the 6 month "Finish MAPS Right" extension was also for a penny. Think you are correct on the others you listed?

[Larry OKC]

...on an issue as big as this they are likely going to hold it on a date that corresponds with a major election, such as legislative or presidential elections. ...

From what I have observed over the years...Although local/state leadership will say they want high voter turnout etc, they usually do just the opposite and hold a special election (which costs about $100K each). They could certainly save money and consolidate but they don't. The G.O. and School bond issues were held weeks apart and they were held not that far from a Statewide election (if memory serves). While City/County/State/Federal elections can't all be placed on the same ballot, there isn't anything saying you can't hold them on the same day and time. Local, single issue, Special elections traditionally have very low voter turnout (the Ford vote was an exception, it had about double the norm).

Have heard the excuse given that they don't want to confuse the voters!

The line of thinking runs confused voters have a tendency to vote No. Not that long ago there were 11 or so State questions on the ballot and they ALL passed. In reality, they don't want people showing up who aren't involved with their particular issue and are afraid that those people will automatically vote against it. They only want their supporters to show up.

[Slivermoon]

Just a slight correction, the 6 month "Finish MAPS Right" extension was also for a penny. Think you are correct on the others you listed?

Larry,

You could very well be correct and if so, I stand corrected and appreciate the input. I am going by memory at this point, which perhaps is not the best method to proceed under the circumstances, and will be most pleased to deffer to any with correcting facts.

Again, most appreciated.

[Wambo36]

Silvermoon, the 3/4 cent dedicated Public Safety tax failed on its first try because the city leadership at the time refused to ear mark it for public safety. After it failed they agreed to ear mark it and it passed.

[betts]

I attempted to look on the City website to find a reference concerning the original MAPS vote but I couldn't find anything. This is what happened as I recall it. I am sorry, I know we all like independent references for facts such as this.

My point being that if this version of MAPS 3 fails it is not the end of the world for OKC. The City will just need to redesign the package to better meet the demands of the citizens. Then the new package may be voted on. This could happen within just a matter of a few months.

I would like to provide a little more information to consider. On the website The City of Oklahoma City's Offical Home Page the list of votes for projects is provided at MAPS 3 | Oklahoma City. I looked through the list of projects suggested.

The summary is as follows:
Downtown "Central Park" - 36 votes (estimated cost 130 million)
New Convention Center - 40 votes (estimated cost 280 million)
Fairgrounds - 22 votes (estimated cost 60 million)

I don't understand why so much money is being put toward projects that received so few votes.

How many of us would have voted for a ballpark, a canal, an arena, river improvements if there had been a website for the first MAPS? I would never have even thought about doing any of those things. Does that mean they were a bad idea? I think history has proven that they weren't. Of course people aren't going to be thrilled about a new convention center. It's pretty hard to get excited about something you may never even set foot in. On the other hand, that's doesn't necessarily mean it's not something the city needs. To be honest with you, having never had a fireman or a policeman at my house in my lifetime, it's hard to get excited about spending my hard earned money on something I've never used, and may never use. Does that mean we don't need firemen or policemen? I think most of us would say "no". Not everything that is good for a city benefits us directly. I'm very happy to vote for things that benefit my city, even if I never plan to set foot in them or hope not to need them. I see it as a gestalt sort of thing. All these improvements work together to make this a better place in which to live, a place we can be proud of.

As far as putting together a package that "meets the demands of citizens", what precisely are those demands? Looking back at MAPS again, we didn't know we wanted a lot of those things until we got them. Now, we're happy someone took the initiative to suggest things we didn't think of ourselves.

[andy157]

Personally, I cannot recall any Oklahoma City dedicated sales tax proposition failing in recent history.

It would take someone a bit of research, but I believe there was:

1) a 1/8th cent dedicated sales tax approved for the Zoo in the late 1980's APPROVED;
2) a dedicated 3/4 cent Public Safety sales tax approved also in the late 1980's APPROVED;
3) then City voters approved a sales tax to support relocation of a major airline maintenance facility, APPROVED but not enacted as Oklahoma City was not selected as the facility site;
4) the original MAPS sales tax APPROVED in 1993 and subsequent (seperately approved) six-month extension;
5) Public Safety Capital Improvements Sales Tax APPROVED;
6) Maps For Kids schools capital improvements Sales Tax APPROVED;
7) Ford Center Upgrades and NBA Practice Facility Sales Tax APPROVED.

I think that's all.

Of these, those under the "MAPS" brand have been presented twice, not counting the 6-month extension which was voted and approved I think at 1/2 cent per dollar.

Unless someone can think of an Oklahoma City sales tax proposal I have forgotten, I am pretty sure that all have been approved by the voters for at least the last 20 years.

Looks to me as if you got them all.

[Patrick]

I think the MAPS 3 proposal includes what citizens asked for. Citizens had their chance to express what they wanted to be included in MAPS 3 on the MAPS 3 website. I don't see where a re-formulated MAPS proposal is necessary at this point. Of record, there was no mention of police or fire needs in citizens' recs.

I don't think it makes sense to start with a $400 million transit package. Transit is somewhat of a risk, and I'd rather do what most other cities are doing....start with a smaller start-up rail line and see how it does before expanding it. If it does well and is well received, then you can expand it a little at a time as the need arises. Eventually you have a complete commuter rail transit system. But, trying to do an entire system all at once isn't really smart IMO.

And no, MAPS 1 never failed. As has been said, it passed the first time around. No MAPS proposal has ever failed.

[smooth]

I think the MAPS 3 proposal includes what citizens asked for. Citizens had their chance to express what they wanted to be included in MAPS 3 on the MAPS 3 website. I don't see where a re-formulated MAPS proposal is necessary at this point. Of record, there was no mention of police or fire needs in citizens' recs.

I don't think it makes sense to start with a $400 million transit package. Transit is somewhat of a risk, and I'd rather do what most other cities are doing....start with a smaller start-up rail line and see how it does before expanding it. If it does well and is well received, then you can expand it a little at a time as the need arises. Eventually you have a complete commuter rail transit system. But, trying to do an entire system all at once isn't really smart IMO.

And no, MAPS 1 never failed. As has been said, it passed the first time around. No MAPS proposal has ever failed.

The last tax proposal I remember failing was in 1986 (give or take a year or two). The proposal was for what is now a badly needed NFL stadium. Had it passed, the Arizona Cardinals would have been the Oklahoma City Cardinals. I voted no and will regret that decision well beyond the day I die.

[Larry OKC]

The last tax proposal I remember failing was in 1986 (give or take a year or two). The proposal was for what is now a badly needed NFL stadium. Had it passed, the Arizona Cardinals would have been the Oklahoma City Cardinals. I voted no and will regret that decision well beyond the day I die.

WOW, really? And people are debating if we are a big enough market for the NBA?