"Fire Station #4 to celebrate grand opening on Wednesday"

[CaseyCornett]

Media Advisory

09/27/10 Contact: Kristy Yager, 297-2550

Deputy Chief Cecil Clay, 830-9199



Fire Station #4 to celebrate grand opening on Wednesday

WHO: The City of Oklahoma City


WHAT: The City’s first newly constructed fire station in 15 years will open this Wednesday, September 29.


The state of the art facility features the City’s most advanced fire station alerting system, individual sleeping quarters, a dedicated de-con area, EMS gear room and a large rig room with infrared heating. The most functional aspects of the station are the safety enhanced rig bay doors and the design of the sleeping quarters, which include private storage for firefighters on all three shifts.

The $2.7 million station is being funded through the 2000 General Obligation Bond Issue.


WHEN: 2 p.m. Wednesday, September 29


WHERE: 14200 Hogback Road. Take N I-35 to Memorial Road. Drive east for 9.5 miles. The road splits after 3 miles, stay on Memorial road to the right. Turn left (north) on Hogback Rd. You will see Station 4 on the hill to your right (east). Here is a MAP.


EVENT DAY CONTACT:
Joshua Ryan, 388-7347 cell or Cecil Clay 830-9199 cell

[andy157]

Except for the fact it took 10 years to complete this project, and it came in at $825,000. over budget, and I'll be paying on it for the next 30 years, when it could have been paid for in cash with the additional 3/4 cent sales tax I pay, I'm glad its finished, congratulations.

[barnold]

Glad to see it open 10 years after the bond was approved, that's about the city's speed. I don't think I'd go as far to say as state of the Art since it's riddled with design flaws and wastes money on many unnecessary items.

The good news is that homeowners in the area have been telling us that they got a break on their homeowners insurance the day after it opened.

[Ezrablum]

Except for the fact it took 10 years to complete this project, and it came in at $825,000. over budget, and I'll be paying on it for the next 30 years, when it could have been paid for in cash with the additional 3/4 cent sales tax I pay, I'm glad its finished, congratulations.

Would you care for a little cheese to go with that comment?

[metro]

don't tell the firefighter union folks that the City is spending money on them for new facilities.

[barnold]

Metro,

They closed old fire station 4 downtown to open this new one up. And I'm sure it's only by coincidence that the old station is just south of the Ford center. (Land will be sold for a MINT) The bond issue was passed in 2000. That's how long the station out there has been needed. Who do you think has been screaming for this station to be built? It was the firefighters and the UNION; not the politicians or city management. They only turned loose with the funds recently to get it done and then as usual pissed more money away on useless frills and design flaws. So don't worry about telling the union folks, rather you can thank us for continuing to beat the drum to get it built. Now maybe they can move on to repairing the station in Capitol Hill that been closed for over a year.

[Steve]

Is the fire station at NE 8 and Lincoln closed as well? What happened there anyway?

[barnold]

Old station 6 is closed due to the fire they had about a year ago. The property had been purchased by the folks developing around the Presby area and the new station was due to be built in the bricktown area prior to the fire. That little incident just forced the city to find land and build sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, the new site had to have the oil toxic waste cleaned up prior to building the new station so it's running behind schedule. You can see some progress on it today and it should be open in a year or less.

Station 6 is now squatting in old station 4 until the new station is built then it will be demolished. I'll have to go and see if I can find the bond issue that was passed for new station 6 but I believe it was 7 or 8 years ago as well. The money that the city is making off the sale of land from station 6 should be considerable and you would think that would go to pay off the bond, but that's not the way it works and those funds will be put back into the General Fund. Same with the funds from old station 4 when it's sold. So forgive me if i don't get excited about the city spending money on something tax payers asked for 8-10 years ago and then pocket the profits off the land investments for their own "pet" projects. Does anyone even care to look at where funds from the GF get distributed to? It's your money people!

[Steve]

How did station 6 catch fire? As for station 4 - is that on the central park site?

[barnold]

Mice with matches and I believe it's adjacent to site.

[Steve]

mice with matches?

[barnold]

Sorry, firefighter humor. Undetermined last I heard. So if you can't prove exactly what started it, you can narrow it down to electrical, human error or if still undetermined "mice with matches".

[Steve]

Humor! I remember when that was once in far more abundant supply than it is today!

[Doug Loudenback]

Except for the fact it took 10 years to complete this project, and it came in at $825,000. over budget, and I'll be paying on it for the next 30 years, when it could have been paid for in cash with the additional 3/4 cent sales tax I pay, I'm glad its finished, congratulations.

Casey, I have to go with Mike (above writer) on this one. While I'm glad this station is finally opening, unless I'm badly mistaken this project should have been completed long ago and if the allocated 3/4 penny sales tax had been properly handled by the city manager's office (and clear evidence [to me, at least] demonstrates that the city has persistently and deliberately misapplied Fire's share of the 3/4 penny sales tax over the years) it would have been completed long ago.

So, while the city should rightly take credit for actually getting this project done (which it was obligated to do ... after all, the station is not a free birthday present from city government to its citizens, is it?), the announcement should also be couched with at least some words of embarrassment and humility, not high-fives or back-patting.

The city could and should humbly say as a true penitent would, "Forgive me, citizens, for I have sinned. It has been 20-30 years since my last confession ... heck, I can't remember my last one if I ever did," etc., and then make a bona fide contrite confession about the city's persistent mishandling of Fire's share of the 3/4 penny sales tax.

If that should happen, which of course it won't, citizens could and probably would then then give city government a modest penance which could be privately performed and this particular sin of city government would be forgiven, and hugs would be received all around.

Might such a thing ever happen? Dream on, teenage queen.

[Doug Loudenback]

don't tell the firefighter union folks that the City is spending money on them for new facilities.

Metro, I think that you've missed the mark on dissing the firefighters and patting the backs of city government on this one.

[LakeEffect]

Station 6 burned when the station was out on a call. The land for Station 6 was not sold per se, it was swapped with Urban Renewal land for land in Bricktown so that the Bricktown Fire Station could be built (it also involved land and lease swapping with Bob Mienders and Don Karchmer, a very involved deal). The Fire Station Location Study that was done for Fire a couple years ago reinforced the need for the new location of Station 4, and also recommended the three new stations that were approved in the 2007 Bond election. The Location Study is worth a read; great analysis of response times using GIS mapping (http://www.okc.gov/fire/fire_report.pdf). Althought I do take issue with the fact that it's not an OKC fire unit on the front cover.

As a side note, any time the City sells land, it must re-pay to the funding mechanism by which it was originally acquired. I beleive that extends as far as this example: If Station 6 land was bought with Bond funds, then proceeds from its sale must go to the Bond program and be expended on related programs. I may be stretching; if that Bond is completely done, then it may have to go to General Fund.

Also, the thought that something was voter-approved in 2000, and therefore must have been built then, is far too simplistic. Each bond election is considered on a future sale basis, and each project is then generally sold along the initial timeline. Sometimes those projects move around. In the case of Station 4, the 3/4 sales tax wouldn't have helped b/c this is a Bond project. 3/4 might be used to supplement, but it's use (or mis-use, if you see it that way), was not meant for that project. Unless someone has a statement from the City saying that Station 4 funds would be issued immediately, then it's impossible to say it's 10 years late. In fact, since the election was in 2000, the funds wouldn't have been available until 2001. It would have then taken a 9 months to a year to design; 2002. Add the year to construct, and the very earliest it could have possibly been used would be the end of 2003. That's if it was on the first round of projects.

Finally, barnold, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts on the specific design flaws. What is wrong with the facility? Have you been in it? I would not call the closure of Station 4 a coincidence. That area of downtown has the least population density, and is well-served (or will be, when open) by Station 6 and Station 1, and even Station 5 if necessary. Station 7, when construction is finished, can also handle the relatively low population between the River and I-40. Hopefully, if Core to Shore becomes reality in 30+ years, we'll need a new station in that area to handle the density, but the need for Station 4 in its current location is no longer necessary.

[Mikemarsh51]

I never thought the city would sell those plots. I was sure they would gift them. I don't think they can sell themselves the land from station 4 for the park. Not sure.

The fire at station 6 was started by a loaner, someone not usually working there. He was cooking and burned the joint down.

My rub is the city obviously prioritizes projects and this one was pushed back several times. If you look at the City of Moore. They passed a sales tax in Nov. of 2006 to build 3 new stations and they are almost complete.

The 3 new stations will be 26, 29 and 38. Would anyone care to guess when they will be done? Station 21 and 23 are scheduled to be rebuilt from the same bond issue.

[LakeEffect]

My rub is the city obviously prioritizes projects and this one was pushed back several times. If you look at the City of Moore. They passed a sales tax in Nov. of 2006 to build 3 new stations and they are almost complete.

The 3 new stations will be 26, 29 and 38. Would anyone care to guess when they will be done? Station 21 and 23 are scheduled to be rebuilt from the same bond issue.

No denying that complaint. The process for determining what bonds sell, how much, and when, is relatively low-key. One good thing that was done this time was selling some of the Fire bonds early so that they could buy land before anyone else picked it up and drove the cost of the projects up.

[Steve]

Just heard something interesting.... Barnold, Mike Marsh ... did your brethren leave the stove burner on when they left on a call?

[flintysooner]

My rub is the city obviously prioritizes projects and this one was pushed back several times.

Is your disagreement that projects should be prioritized or with the process of prioritizing or the people who do the prioritizing?

[barnold]

Steve- that's the rumor. Last official word was undetermined. Wouldn't be the first time we had a structure fire caused by food on the stove though.

Cafeboeuf- I hope your not on a city computer right now.....hehe.....ya, I've been out there shaking my head each time, wondering who in the heck designed that place and why. I love our fire chief and am kinda disappointed that he would sign off on the design, but it is what it is and were stuck with it.
Station 4 is a cut up mess. The best thing about it is the apparatus bay even though I think the $26,000 bi-fold doors are over the top. The 30,000 gallon water tank that is for the sprinkler and water system is already leaning several inches out of square (that won't get fixed anytime soon), the automated alert system that is state of the art is unnecessary since both rigs will be going on all calls and even if one were to be left at the house someone has to close the doors. (unknown costs). All of the lockers and doors are keyed the same, if someone is in the bedroom you must dress in the hallway (see other posts for naked in the firehouse), a grown man cannot fit in the shower, there are more doors in the station than 3 standard homes basically making it a series of boxes, the concrete floors look like they haven't been finished (but they said that's it) and finally it could be the Jones fire station 4 for all anyone knows because they forgot to make sure it has an OCFD station 4 sign out front. That's just for starters. They moved those poor souls out there while contractors were still finishing their punch out lists and was trying to clean up. Those guys took it in stride but will spend the next several months cleaning up and changing things around to make it a livable space.
As to the bond issue, I would only guess that those 30+ year old stations had the bonds retired and any profits would go back to the GF. I do remember the land swap for station 6 but also seem to remember that the city benefitted monetarily which was why it was so "in depth" and took so long, but I would have to do some digging to confirm. Either way I don't care, I think the city should make a profit for their investment. The issue I take is with the length of time to replace or re-locate needed services. By your calculation it's only 7 years too late. That's too long! I agree that old station 4 is no longer needed but not when you pulled the additional Engine company from station 1 in it's entirety, thus reducing total manpower and equipment to cover the downtown area. The rural folks are reaping the rewards while those in the metro area are getting less, but they don't really seem to care anyway.
And since you brought up the location study in the first place and seemed to have studied it, why don't you share exactly how many of the recommendations the city has decided to go forward with. By the time anything is acted upon the study will be another 10 years out of date and behind the times again. That's not progress or reactionary planning, that's called playing catchup from years of poor leadership at the political level.

[rcjunkie]

barnold, does anything make you happy ?, or do you moan and gripe just for the fun of it.

[Mikemarsh51]

Flintysooner, in a nutshell my gripe is this. When the City and the Chamber of Commerce are pushing for these bond issues (which I have supported everything since I moved to the city in 1988, excluding M3) you see Buildings and streets in disrepair and then you see the police and firefighters. They use public safety to sell these taxes and bond issues. The 2007 G.O. bond issue had Public safety all over the commercials yet the fire dept. had the lowest amount of money dedicated, approx 16 million out of 760,000,000.00 dollars. Nothing has been done so far from that pot of bond money. I'll gripe when it's needed and praise when it's due. I am still tickled to be riding around in the fire engine I ride on. The station we park it in is a complete dump, with ant infestion and more dust than you can sweep up in a day.

It has got to be a matter of priorities. City of Moore has all new rigs, 3 new stations and the Fire fighters are paid more than Oklahoma City. All this without M3, Thunder, Redhawks, Barons and Bricktown

[Larry OKC]

...Also, the thought that something was voter-approved in 2000, and therefore must have been built then, is far too simplistic. Each bond election is considered on a future sale basis, and each project is then generally sold along the initial timeline. Sometimes those projects move around. In the case of Station 4, the 3/4 sales tax wouldn't have helped b/c this is a Bond project. 3/4 might be used to supplement, but it's use (or mis-use, if you see it that way), was not meant for that project. Unless someone has a statement from the City saying that Station 4 funds would be issued immediately, then it's impossible to say it's 10 years late. In fact, since the election was in 2000, the funds wouldn't have been available until 2001. It would have then taken a 9 months to a year to design; 2002. Add the year to construct, and the very earliest it could have possibly been used would be the end of 2003. That's if it was on the first round of projects. ...

Not disputing any of that because I think that is the reality. However, I also think there is a perception among the public in general that bond issue projects are going to be built sooner rather than later. That with a bond, it is borrowed money and that you don't have to wait for the money (like with a sales tax based MAPS type project). Seems that the time frame from passage to completion is about the same no matter how it is paid for (borrowed or pay-as-you-go).

Case in point, a few years ago now (before the 07 bond) where an audit was done that showed projects hadn't even been started going back over 3 different bond issues and 18 years (at the time of the audit). When asked, the City Manager said that 1) higher priorities existed (MAPS) and 2) they didn't have the supervisors to oversee the projects. Asked for followup, asking what the projects were (article didn't go into any detail) and if those projects had been completed or even started (when they were asking for more money for the 07 bond issue. Absolutely no reply.

I also agree that not spending bond money and a bond project would probably be illegal, but I think the point is that we have the 3/4 cent tax designed for just this sort of thing and probably should have never been part of the bond issue to begin with.

While there may be a vague understanding that bond money is borrowed money, depending on the length of the bond (i.e., 10, 20 or 30 years) the actual cost can easily double or triple the actual cost. There was a case back with the original MAPS where they thought they were going to have to issue bonds to cover cost over runs. IIRC, it was going to be a $10M, 20 year bond and the article stated the debt service would be $1M/year. The $10M project just doubled to $20M (unclear if the $20M included paying back the principal or if that was just covering the interest, so may have tripled it). Much more efficient to utilize sales tax money whenever you can...pay cash as opposed to taking out a loan.

You mentioned that the earliest it could be completed would have been 2003, yet it is 2010. Would you agree that it is 7 years late? Obviously, priorities change and things get shifted around and delayed. That's going to happen and probably can't be avoided. Good case in point, reportedly, money was already earmarked from the MAPS 4 Kids Use Tax for a new Fire truck. Priorities changed and that money was diverted to pay for the Cox improvements for the new hockey team. Granted, that money is essentially an internal loan from the City to itself, and they do plan on paying the money back through a seat surcharge (presuming sellout crowds, should be paid back in about 5 years or so). But that is small comfort when you realize that means that new Fire truck is at least 5 years away (unless they find another source for the funds). If they don't have sellout crowds and if the new hockey team is even still around, that 5 years could be pushed back even more.

[LakeEffect]

One problem with bonds is that the funds are only sold once a year. Therefore, you just can't get to all of the projects in a timely manner. For instance, the 2007 Bond is planned for a 10 year horizon. Therefore, right from the start, the City doesn't even plan to sell the final bonds until 2017, making construction happen 2018 at earliest. That fact may not be well explained during campaigning. Also, just so you feel a bit better, the 1989 and 1995 Bonds are completely done now. I think the 2000 is almost completely done as well. Call 297-2581 and ask for the Bond program manager.

Barnold, I'll bite. I'm not playing sides at all, so here's the list from the report:

Priority #1: Construct Bricktown fire station (FY 2008). Under construction.
Priority #2: Relocate Station 6 to NE OKC (FY 2008). Changed to relocate Station 4 to NE, Station 6 to Bricktown. Done.
Priority #3: Relocate Station 4 to SW 104th & Council (FY 2009). Station funded by 2007 GO Bond...
Priority #4: Construct new station at SW 59th & Richland (FY 2011). Station funded by 2007 GO Bond...
Priority #5: Construct new station at SE 149th & Douglas (FY 2013). Station funded by 2007 GO Bond...
Additional FY 2010: Add new RL to Station 28.
Some time: Move ladders and chiefs around to more accurately spread out response times.

So, it seems the City has chosen to fund parts of the plan, but the time line is different than the consultant's. The tough part now is that every City department had to take budget cuts; the location study came before the economic collapse, and obviously didn't take existing funding into account. Eventually the City has to build the approved stations, and staff will need to come from somewhere (either new recruits or moving existing stations around).

Here's my biggest beef - the Union has this report in its hands. Why are union members fighting their battles via postcard and on OKC Talk? Why don't they get some real PR to take their banner forward? Same with Police and their staffing study. The City paid these consultants, why not use that information in your own fight? Why am I the one pointing this out?