The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Here's my opinion as of right now...

-I've never had a problem using even the non-emergency line for any issue at my stores.

-I've never had an issue with response times for any non-emergency issue.

(These issues are usually at our Downtown location with folks going to the shelters.)

-I see police patrol cars EVERYWHERE.

-I think the study by the University of Cincinnati on crime ignores better ways to decrease crime.

-I think the lack of education funding, increases crime...not a lack of police officers.

-I think more police actually increases crime rates and we could lower it by having a more efficient police force.

-There were was no study done on the need for more fire department personal.

-I think this is a political move by Bartlett just like the dams are a political move by Bynum.

-Isn't this suppose to be for capital improvements?

Feel free to prove me wrong on any of that. I'm voting yes on the transit and economic development packages. I went to tons of Vision meetings and think they are at least going to improve the city regardless of the fact the council ignored a lot of good proposals.

No one is going to "prove" you wrong on those issues. Its not that kind of argument. Compared to other cities our size we are understaffed on police from what I read. The other points you make about policing are more strategy oriented. More cops doesn't mean more arrests, simply better able to know and interact with their assigned areas. I see that as a positive.

Fire department using poor quality equipment is an issue for me. Firemen are like football players. They don't age well because they are in harms way. We don't provide the best in protective gear from what I've heard. Tough job and no one knows till they need them.

But the reality is that everything is political. Dewey needs their support. We need protection. They made their strongest case for funding and now the public agrees or not.

Its sort of a little white lie that hiring more police automatically means more police on the streets.  

No where in the glossy literature did I read how many officers are waiting on the next academy so they can be promoted OFF patrol into more desirable assignments, which sometimes results in fewer, not more, cops on patrol (and a top-heavy department).

I just drove home from Cherry Street to White City...we counted four patrol cars on the way home.

Were they driving or parked in front of a cop’s home?

Driving.

Here’s my take on the public safety tax:

Every politician makes the same promise of more safety and better education, it’s what they do.  No one has put out any research that we need more cops other than referencing staffing levels in peer cities with no causation related to lower crime rates that I’m aware of. I’ve heard from one side violent crime keeps dropping in Tulsa which means there’s less need for cops.  I’ve also heard that out of the east division, basically seven cops cover 60 square miles on any shift.  This was to imply severe under-staffing.  When we had an early morning confrontation with our psychotic ex-neighbor, I felt the response time was adequate from the east side division.  Granted, if they had been working a fresh homicide they might not have gotten to us at all.

The fire department got their $70 million included just for the asking with absolutely no prior justification for them needing more money, just that if the TPD was getting “theirs", the TFD should get “theirs".

The president of the FOP is now saying that the public safety tax needs to be put in a lock box until the promised staffing levels are met.  He’s implying that the safety tax might be used as a slush fund for other uses.

So, there is the deeply political side of this that keeps getting people re-elected by making citizens feel more safe and the distinct fear that these funds could be allocated for uses other than public safety.  

I also suspect the hiring of more officers will result in more administrative staff within TPD making it even more top-heavy.  I also think we need to quit using the FD as first responders to every accident and medical emergency, that is gawd-awful expensive.

I’m inclined to vote no for this part of the package, personally.  I hope if it fails it will give the city more incentive to go to the Oklahoma Legislature and demand different funding mechanisms for city operations than sales tax.  Sales tax is an outmoded finance mechanism.  The problem with the current idiots in OKC is they are afraid of anything which says “tax increase” even if it meant they were replacing one form of taxation with another which would not raise overall tax rates for individuals.

Smart Growth Tulsa has released a blog post on this tax and it includes links to several reports:

http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/vision-tulsa-overview-proposition-1-public-safety/

I'm voting no.  Public safety shouldn't be part of the vision vote.

It bothers me that it's a new permanent tax too.

I'm almost certain it has the best chance of being voted in though..unless the Frontier/KOTV keeps hitting the public with stories of "buying rank" and such.

I asked a firefighter that came into the shop today. He works at the Admiral station. He said the public has no idea how understaffed they are and cited the response time to a sexual assault recently. I don't doubt there are issues, but is it staffing or effiency? He said the main issue on funding is that it's coming from sales tax. Why can't we simply adjust this so that my property taxes pay for it?

With firefighters responding to sexual assaults, no wonder they are understaffed.     I would think that would be a police or EMSA thing.

Quoting my previous post:


State law is the reason for this, not local ordinance.  I spoke with John Fothergill about this a week or so back.  He’s the aide to Counselor Jeannie Cue and is also the Tulsa City Council’s Legislative Liaison.  He has lobbied on the city’s behalf to change this but he said legislators will do nothing about it if the public is not calling for it.  It’s time to organize much like the people trying to modernize our alcohol laws have, so the legislature will listen.  They are wasting time trying to force Amazon and other online retailers to collect sales tax with new legislation.  I think there would also need to be movement out of OKC citizens on this as well for people to listen at the State House.

They are first responders because of their multiple locations and being trained for rendering aid. In most assaults or accidents time is critical. Even simple aid can save a life. Police are more into the crime itself and EMSA doesn't have enough staff to be the first on the scene. If you want to eliminate waste, consider looking into the EMSA regime and the duplication of efforts by having two separate administrative organizations.

I also remember talking to a fireman from a nearby station who told me he had to buy much of his own equipment because the funding was so poor that the equipment provided was dangerous.

Get rid of EMSA and put the medics in the fire stations.

If you have to respond firefighters to each call, why not do like Broken Arrow and bring the ambulance service back into the fire stations?    It seems pretty straightforward.

Or is that opening doors that money has paid to be tightly closed?

Its complicated and political. We actually share the expense of EMSA with OKC. Go figure. We've come close a couple times to re-doing the whole system but they have escaped so far. Same director since its inception. You tend to make long term friends and knowledge of skeletons. Reference TCSD.

Tulsa looked at that several years ago.  We discussed it here at length and I’m sure the conversation eventually segued to Marshall’s beer. 

I think the EMSA contract was up and the city looked into the FD taking on that responsibility and seems like they figured out it was cheaper to use EMSA.  I’m not sure though that they took into account that the FD is still first responder to accidents and med emergencies when it was all calculated out (ergo my rant about saving money with the FD no longer doing first response so long as we have a contract with EMSA).  I can’t imagine it’s really more expensive to station a paramedic truck at each station, staffing requirements should be the same as it would with EMSA currently.

Remember though, Oklahoma is fond of it’s authorities and little fiefdoms so don’t expect a change any time soon.

http://www.newson6.com/story/15279015/tulsa-fire-department-wants-citys-ambulance-contract

Sounds like OKCFD has had issues with ambulance availability.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/emsa-oklahoma-city-fire-department-at-odds-over-ambulance-availability/article_0db1973d-728a-5c3a-896a-e7fb1883493b.html

There's no way it's cheaper to have EMSA.

Not as long as we have both. I see OKC only requires FD when its high priority or zero level at their EMSA.

I think the argument made here was that as long as they kept response times within the contractual limits and EMSA put the billing on city utilities there wasn't enough savings to justify having TFD do the work. Especially since the TFD would then ask for more funding.

If you figure that $5.45 per month "EMSAcare" could be diverted from EMSA to TFD, it may go a long way to help offset the cost of bringing the ambulance service back in house.   That is above and beyond what insurance pays.


If I pay the utility fee, will you bill my insurance?
Yes.EMSA has and will continue to bill any third-party insurance payors. More than 80% of EMSA’s revenue comes from third-party insurance payments, such as Medicare, Medicaid, private health insurance and others. It would be unfair for taxpayers to bear the burden of healthcare costs that could be otherwise covered by insurance providers.

Hard to argue with that logic. But they did and won the battle. Authorities, once formed, are difficult to dismantle.

Just remember what it was before EMSA

(http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/30/MPW-15192)

I wonder how many women Cos molested during that shoot.

Not just women...

(http://www.moviemem.com/images/pictures/store/eBay%20LOBBY%20CARDS%204/MOTHERJUGSANDSPEEDLC4.jpg)

Nah, That was Larry Hagman's job.  ;)

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab163/dvanhorn32/vlcsnap-224471.png)

Cos was practicing new drug therapies.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/70/c8/54/70c8548af5774f3d7d1a42969aaea463.jpg)

Central Ambulance.  In hearses.  Bag 'em and tag 'em. 

I haven't had to use EMSA in a long time, but last time they were very good.  Any direct bad experiences out there more recent than 25 years or so??

Family has had direct experience with Broken Arrow system several times over last 15 years.  Exceptional group of people in their organization!

Both systems can be made to work well.  Just can't do it on half staffing, half equipment all the time like we tend to try for in Tulsa.  Doesn't need to be in Vision though.

I vote No to Vision for police/fire.  Dewby, quit short changing the city!  Do your job!!

Even the police have doubts that the safety tax is a good idea.


Police union still worried city won’t use public safety tax as promised

    “I guarantee you, their (the Mayor’s Office’s) plan is when they start getting that new tax, they are going to use it to get us back up to strength, and that is not the way it’s been sold to the public,” Ballenger said. “If that’s the case, they could cut us by 100 officers, and that new tax is really only going to fund 60 new officers, instead of 160.”

https://www.readfrontier.com/spotlight/police-union-still-worried-mayors-office-wont-use-public-safety-tax-intended/

Police Union says the city needs to put the revenue from the new public safety sales tax in a “lock box” until the Police Department reaches its authorized strength of 783 officers, or 61 percent of the city’s general fund is permanently obligated to public safety.
https://www.readfrontier.com/spotlight/police-union-still-worried-mayors-office-wont-use-public-safety-tax-intended/

“Frankly, how is the mayor going to deal with the public when we have a public safety tax that has been approved and he is sitting on the money until we have 783 officers? That would be irresponsible,” Twombly said. “I don’t know where anyone comes up with these kinds of schemes.”

I thought the term "lock box" in this instance meant, that portion of the tax could "only to be used for X" until they met the goals (783 officers etc.),   not "not to spend any of the tax at all" until they met the goals?

I'm not even going to the Dive Bar meeting tonight. Pointless.

I went. Blake spoke highly of vision.

Shocker.

He should get on here and sell us on the public safety tax.

They know better than to speak in a forum where people can voice their true opinions.  Un-moderated discussion with strongly anti establishment views will never turn out well.

Put me down as a firm NO.

1) The budget has already been grossly inflated over historic trends.

In 1969 the City of Tulsa had a population of about 330,000 people. The police & fire budget was $44.6 Mil including capital equipment (in 2008 dollars the numbers the report used (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Martinson-Budget-Presentation-Public-Safety-Analysis.ppt), real dollars it was $7.7mil).  Each citizen of Tulsa spent $135 on police and force.

Today the population is nearly 400,000. The police and fire budget in 2008 was $150mil excluding capital equipment. Each citizen of Tulsa spent $375 on police and fire, plus more money for trucks, cars, guns, computers, etc.

Are we getting three times the service? The excuse seems to be that we need to "keep up with the Joneses." If Little Rock is spending more money, we better do it too! Now, that statement doesn't care about results, and for certainly doesn't apply to education... but gimme more!

Better yet - in 1969 we had 1200 officers and firemen. In 2008 we had 1600. Number of warm bodies went up 33%. Budget went up ~3000%. The money isn't going to more bodies, it sure isn't going to more efficiency, and crime statistics don't show it is having any effect.  But don't worry, this time the money will go to more patrol officers.

2) Low correlation between officers and crime.

The same report  (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Martinson-Budget-Presentation-Public-Safety-Analysis.ppt) shows that there is, at best, a 26% correlation between crime and police budgets. In other words, it is a small fraction of the explanation for a crime rate. Yet, we commit almost all of our resources to it. (education level, unemployment level, and youth service had a much higher correlation. In Tulsa, 76% of the variance can be explained by the unemployment rate between 1995 and 2007)

In 2010 Tulsa laid off 120 officers. Yet the crime rate did not change. When we worked to add most of those officers back to the force, the crime rate didn't change. it is hard to draw any correlation from the data (https://www.tulsapolice.org/content/crime-numbers-ucr.aspx).

So the data suggests there is little correlation between officer numbers and the crime rate. Our own recent experience shows that there is no noticable correlation... but this time when we add officers crime will go down!

3) Fire department slush fund

Do we have a rash of structure fires that I'm not aware of? Are there sections of town and factories burning down that just aren't making the news? With EMSA as our EMT service, TFDs primary responsibility is to fight fires...and serve as first responders in a more vague roll for everything else. The vast majority of their calls are for rescue/EMS, many of whom are responding to car wrecks and sweeping up glass and soaking up fluids (recall EMSA is the primary EMT). The second highest category is false alarms. Structure fires are way, way, way along the bottom of the list.

Obviously a fire department is a key component to public safety. Not only for fires, but also for hazmat situations and as backup EMT if we decide to continue using EMSA. But in our system, fighting fires is their primary purpose. There are 6-700 structure fires per year in Tulsa, causing about $16,000,000 in property damage.

If you take their budget and spread it out to each structural fire they fight, it comes to nearly $80,000 per structure fire. We have 1 fire station for every 12,000 residents.  Since 1980, the number of structure fires decreased by 30%... yet we have increased fire department runs by 400%! Albuquerque has 130,000 more people and 10 less stations. Ft. Worth has nearly twice the people and 8 more stations.

As we saw above, the budget has grown faster than any other city budget. We've been given no real reason as to why they need more money, more staffing, or more anything. I'm sure there are anecdotal reasons - but is their really a problem?

4) Salary and benefits are just fine

One of the key gauges to tell if you are offering the right salary and benefits is to check the number of qualified applications for open positions.  Even with a low unemployment rate, more than 200 people apply for each open fire fighter position in Tulsa.  The average salary and benefit compensation for TPD is $85,000 per employee. For Tulsa Fire department the number is $78,500 per employee. For everyone else in the City of Tulsa it is $52,000.

In some instances, it may not matter that much. You pay someone, but that someone lives in your community. So the services they provide coupled with the economic impact of them pumping that money back into the economy helps wash it all out.

But more than 50% of Tulsa Police officers and more than 60% of Tulsa Fire Fighters don't live in Tulsa. Many cities require police to live within the city limits if they want to serve the City. Others add the requirement that the applicant must live in the City for a year before even applying, and must live there after applying. Still others offer incentives for officers to live in the City by giving housing subsidies to spread police out over the city or by adding seniority points if you live in the City. The result?  More police presence and localized lower crime rates.

5) Wrong Tax.

I disagree with the argument that we need to "properly fund" public safety.  While I'm sure we can improve our services, I don't think the data supports the notion that we need a massive increase in both police and fire. Nor do I believe the data supports the notion that it will have the desired effect.

But assuming I bought into all of that, proper funding for public safety is not VISIONARY. It is a mundane City service like sewer or water. It should be built into our core tax base. We should fund what we can of it from property taxes and as little as possible from sales taxes.

I am "no" for this, too, but not sure which parts you are talking about as grossly inflated...?  Looked like all the numbers kinda followed inflation, but I may have missed that.


Interesting point was how unemployment affected property crime.

And how huge the increases are with Fire Department making ambulance runs.  Seems like it may be counterproductive to send an FD every time an ambulance goes....

The numbers were adjusted for inflation:

1969: $7.7mil, including capital expenses (adjusted for inflation it would be $44mil)
2008: $150mil, EXcluding capital expenses

In other words, if the budget was following inflation it would be $44 million and it would include capital expenses. After adjusting for inflation, there is another $90mil in the police budget.

Flipping it around, the City would have had to spend $26mil in 1969 to equal the purchasing power of the dollars we spend today.

It is much worse.

The city budget for this year for Police and Fire is $181.8 million.

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/426340/02%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

But if you break it out by population...We pay a little over $450 per person per year. I have a family of four which means I pay $1,800 a year. It works out to about $5 a day for my family to be protected by police and fire.

Got it.  Yep, I missed that one.

Shows there is a lot more graft/corruption going on than before.  And I thought it was pretty bad in 1969!!

Buy a gun and a bigger water hose.

That is due in part to the union fear-mongering that paints a picture of cops running into someone in the grocery store that they last encountered at the bottom of a 6-cop dogpile.   Fear the community, and do whatever you need to do to make it home (in Jenks, Wagoner, Muskogee, etc).

The culture of police has changed to the breaking point.


And yes, Vision Tulsa is an advertiser with all the local TV stations.  Some have stricter policies than others about advertisers dictating news content.

Mayor Businessman should know that we can hire a bunch of police using the OT we are already paying to the existing force.

I am a no on this as well.

By design, this proposal is like a House bill. Enticed by features I support and I think are economically good for Tulsa but balanced off by so much pork, spin and gob features that it becomes difficult to weigh the negatives vs the benefits. This thread has made it even more difficult to support. Here's what I deduce.

     -We spend too much for police here. And the increase in funding isn't guaranteed to put more police on the street.

     -It is not a tax neutral proposal. It takes a temporary economic stimulator tax and makes it permanently fund police, fire and roads. That is a tax increase. Be honest with the voters and bring those up separately.

     - It is the same people who bellied up to the bar that always do. There were some amazing innovative ideas that got tossed or underfunded so the big boys could get their needs met.

     -It is complicated when simple would have had overwhelming support. The Gathering Place is a great reason for enhancing Zink Lake. Jenks didn't help build the dam. Build your own. Assuming the contributions of the casino was a typical, tragic oversight. A few simple, well defended proposals would easily pass.
   
     -Inclusion of roads and bridges was throwing bacon into the dog pen. Of course everyone hates our roads and the bridges are dangerous. Is this the right and best way to fund them? This was conceived as an economic stimulus and has been co-opted into a carnival of funding for deferred maintenance.

     - The councilors have done an admirable job of making sausage and presenting it as steak. Really, they believe in what they've done as a fair process with great potential for improving our community. Good salesmen. But there is some cognitive dissonance in the public perception.

Lastly, and what makes me likely support only one of the proposals, if any, is what I see every time I cross the 11th street bridge (the 66 bridge for the under 50 group). An ugly group of 5 bridges that screams out the confusion in the Tulsa political/industrial complex.
    
     1.The 1880 era railroad bridge which is historical, useful, and built to withstand over a hundred years of heavy usage. Probably a hundred more.
     2. The boilerplate 244 bridges that carry high speed traffic and will likely be worn out in 20 years.
     3. The old 11th street/66 bridge that is structurally unsafe even for pedestrians, is not being restored and serves as housing in some capacity for young drug users.
     4. The current 11th street/66 bridge that is useful, if not heavily travelled, as a link to west Tulsa and connection with rt 66 tourism.
     5. A blue and white canopied, well lit narrow bridge that was built with v2025 funds to, iirc, provide a light rail link from West Tulsa to downtown. Since completion it is unused, being blocked off from pedestrians, bikes, runners....all the folks who paid for it. And of course, no light rail. In short, it seems to be a boondoggle. Please, help me to understand why. And no one ever mentions it. Taxpayers don't even know they paid for it. It is a shining example of what these huge proposals can hide beneath their trenchcoats while offering candy to the peasants.

Then I think of what could have been done. Remove the stink factory at the I-44 bridge. Make preparations for a train to run below Turkey Mtn. and another to run into downtown from Sapulpa/OKC using a depot near Brady. Removal of the old 11th st/66 bridge. Exposing the creek that runs through Veterans park. Covering, removing or redesigning the east leg of the infamous IDL. And the other sweet little ideas that typically make up an organically grown community that didn't make the cut because they weren't connected to big players.

So much energy expended. So little return.

Everything the glossy mailers and prime-time TV ads promise, we either already have, or have the apparatus for, or would if we were using existing funding properly.  This measure not only breaks promises but rewards incompetence.

Was there ever a disclosure of who the deep-pocket backers are?

We sure as hell don't need any more firefighters....

I remember one telling me he had to buy his own equipment because the stuff supplied by TFD was out of date and in poor condition. That would have been easy to vote for. Even so, it should be well separated from a Vision type measure.

(answering own question)  Oh, the taxpayers.

So is lobbying / politicking with tax money even legal?  There's currently a DPS employee in hot water over something similar.

We spent $202M on the police department and $24M on public education. That's not progress.