Bad Streets My Fault - I'm Sorry

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

More and more of the Third Penny is being spent on things that were traditionally considered normal operating costs -- like take-home vehicles for police officers (more than $17 million in the 2006 Third Penny).  While police and fire operating budgets continue to grow much faster than any other area of city government, they're sloughing off more and more of their operating costs onto the Third Penny -- displacing infrastructure needs.

Where did you get the $17 million pricetag for take home cars?

I believe that $17 Million is correct, over the expected life of the sales tax.

It runs about $3-4 million per year to provide each of our 800+ freeloading TPD personnel with a Take-Home vehicle to commute to Owasso, Sands Springs, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sapulpa, Glenpool.

Plus, additional millions annually for fuel and vehicle maintenance.

Not including TPS officers working private guard duty sitting in their car for 8 hours with the engine running.

[MH2010]

I don't think that number is right.  Someone cite the source.  Also, who is TPS?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

I don't think that number is right.  Someone cite the source.  Also, who is TPS?

From the City of Tulsa Goobermint website:

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/budget/documents/Ordinance21254.pdf

For the Third-Penny period from 2006 - 2012, there is $2.7 million in 2001 - 2006 police vehicle purchase carryover for unfunded but budgeted purchases (due to Third-Penny revenue shortfalls); plus, $14.3 million in police vehicle purchases for 2006 - 2012.

That coincidentally adds to:  $17 million.
Exact-a-mundo!

[:X]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

I don't think that number is right.  Someone cite the source.  Also, who is TPS?

$17 million is exactly correct.

On TPS, I think that is a typo for TPD.

He was probably thinking of TPS like in Tulsa Public Schools.....

Another local blood sucking Tax Vampire, like:

TPS, TPD, TAA, TAIT, TMUA, TCC, TTC, TDA, DTA, etc., etc., etc.

Have some imagination.....

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

More and more of the Third Penny is being spent on things that were traditionally considered normal operating costs -- like take-home vehicles for police officers (more than $17 million in the 2006 Third Penny).  While police and fire operating budgets continue to grow much faster than any other area of city government, they're sloughing off more and more of their operating costs onto the Third Penny -- displacing infrastructure needs.

Where did you get the $17 million pricetag for take home cars?

I believe that $17 Million is correct, over the expected life of the sales tax.

It runs about $3-4 million per year to provide each of our 800+ freeloading TPD personnel with a Take-Home vehicle to commute to Owasso, Sands Springs, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sapulpa, Glenpool.

Plus, additional millions annually for fuel and vehicle maintenance.

Not including TPS officers working private guard duty sitting in their car for 8 hours with the engine running.

Yes, I feel especially safe, warm and protected when I see TPD personnel moonlighting in our police cars on Sunday, stopping THRU traffic for the large, suburban churches.

In keeping with the Lord's Day, I do pause to say a brief prayer at that time:

"Dear Lord, please give our Tulsa City Leaders the courage and the wisdom to JUST SAY NO to our free-loading TPD personnel who want to commute and moonlight in city police cars, while burning our taxpayer provided fuel."

Amen.

[MH2010]

17 million over 11 years (2001-2012) not just in the 2006 third penny. Also, 17 million is 1.5 million a year. Not 3-4 million a year.

We're freeloading because we travel in our city vehicles to and from work?  We're not slaves.

The out of the city take-home vehicles are part of our benefits that Mayor Lafortune gave us to help make up for Tulsa being last in pay in our mutually agreed 10 city survey.

800 police officers do not live outside the city of Tulsa. The last city survey showed the number to be almost 400.  Of those, 100 or so are on specialty units that are subject to call outs. If that is the case, then they would still be able to take their cars home if the city reverted to the old system.

If the city decided to do away with take home cars completely, they would have to build additional parking so that police units could all be parked in secured parking. Overtime would increase because officers reporting to court or special call-outs would first have to go get their vehicles and then put them back before they went home.  This would add over an hour to each overtime event for each officer. The Union could then begin the argument of donning and doffing time with the city.  

Vehicle maintaince costs would go up.  If the vehicles were shared they would be ran 24 hours a day.  New vehicles would have to be purchased every 3 years not every 6-7.  

Officers working extra jobs, coming to work or going home from work would no longer respond to high priority calls. This would be at least 45 less uniformed officers on the street during shift overlaps. All of this would cause less officers to be visible on the streets.

The secret the city of Tulsa does not want to tell anyone is that for the city price of gas they get a fully trained and equiped police officer to answer calls and assist people.  If take-home cars were taken away, they would no longer have this benefit and citizens would start screaming for more officers when they actually saw how few officers are actually working on the streets at any one time.

Because of jealousy, the take-home vehicle topic is always talked about but the real issue is saving money.  If the city really wanted to save money, they would do away with the four 10-hour shifts officers work now and move them back to five 8 hour shifts. That would save the city more money than taking take-home cars away ever would.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

17 million over 11 years (2001-2012) not just in the 2006 third penny. Also, 17 million is 1.5 million a year. Not 3-4 million a year.

We're freeloading because we travel in our city vehicles to and from work?  We're not slaves.

The out of the city take-home vehicles are part of our benefits that Mayor Lafortune gave us to help make up for Tulsa being last in pay in our mutually agreed 10 city survey.

800 police officers do not live outside the city of Tulsa. The last city survey showed the number to be almost 400.  Of those, 100 or so are on specialty units that are subject to call outs. If that is the case, then they would still be able to take their cars home if the city reverted to the old system.

If the city decided to do away with take home cars completely, they would have to build additional parking so that police units could all be parked in secured parking. Overtime would increase because officers reporting to court or special call-outs would first have to go get their vehicles and then put them back before they went home.  This would add over an hour to each overtime event for each officer. The Union could then begin the argument of donning and doffing time with the city.  

Vehicle maintaince costs would go up.  If the vehicles were shared they would be ran 24 hours a day.  New vehicles would have to be purchased every 3 years not every 6-7.  

Officers working extra jobs, coming to work or going home from work would no longer respond to high priority calls. This would be at least 45 less uniformed officers on the street during shift overlaps. All of this would cause less officers to be visible on the streets.

The secret the city of Tulsa does not want to tell anyone is that for the city price of gas they get a fully trained and equiped police officer to answer calls and assist people.  If take-home cars were taken away, they would no longer have this benefit and citizens would start screaming for more officers when they actually saw how few officers are actually working on the streets at any one time.

Because of jealousy, the take-home vehicle topic is always talked about but the real issue is saving money.  If the city really wanted to save money, they would do away with the four 10-hour shifts officers work now and move them back to five 8 hour shifts. That would save the city more money than taking take-home cars away ever would.

Wrong.

It's not 17 million over 12 years.

It is 14 million over 6 years, plus the carry over from previous Third Penny that was UNFUNDED because of insufficient sales tax collections during the early 2000 era.  

That adds up to 17 million over six years.

MOST of the police department drives a COMPUTER all day.  They are not out patrolling.

A sworn LEO who is basically a computer clerk gets an ASSIGNED car to drive home or to moonlighting jobs.

THAT activity is what wears out the car.

At most, the city of tulsa needs 200- 250 police cars, running across multiple shifts.

Of course, if the contract is changed to what ever other major city in the U.S. follows, we can expect the police to retaliate by DESTROYING the engines and transmissions of our police cars.

[MH2010]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

17 million over 11 years (2001-2012) not just in the 2006 third penny. Also, 17 million is 1.5 million a year. Not 3-4 million a year.

We're freeloading because we travel in our city vehicles to and from work?  We're not slaves.

The out of the city take-home vehicles are part of our benefits that Mayor Lafortune gave us to help make up for Tulsa being last in pay in our mutually agreed 10 city survey.

800 police officers do not live outside the city of Tulsa. The last city survey showed the number to be almost 400.  Of those, 100 or so are on specialty units that are subject to call outs. If that is the case, then they would still be able to take their cars home if the city reverted to the old system.

If the city decided to do away with take home cars completely, they would have to build additional parking so that police units could all be parked in secured parking. Overtime would increase because officers reporting to court or special call-outs would first have to go get their vehicles and then put them back before they went home.  This would add over an hour to each overtime event for each officer. The Union could then begin the argument of donning and doffing time with the city.  

Vehicle maintaince costs would go up.  If the vehicles were shared they would be ran 24 hours a day.  New vehicles would have to be purchased every 3 years not every 6-7.  

Officers working extra jobs, coming to work or going home from work would no longer respond to high priority calls. This would be at least 45 less uniformed officers on the street during shift overlaps. All of this would cause less officers to be visible on the streets.

The secret the city of Tulsa does not want to tell anyone is that for the city price of gas they get a fully trained and equiped police officer to answer calls and assist people.  If take-home cars were taken away, they would no longer have this benefit and citizens would start screaming for more officers when they actually saw how few officers are actually working on the streets at any one time.

Because of jealousy, the take-home vehicle topic is always talked about but the real issue is saving money.  If the city really wanted to save money, they would do away with the four 10-hour shifts officers work now and move them back to five 8 hour shifts. That would save the city more money than taking take-home cars away ever would.

Wrong.

It's not 17 million over 12 years.

It is 14 million over 6 years, plus the carry over from previous Third Penny that was UNFUNDED because of insufficient sales tax collections during the early 2000 era.  

That adds up to 17 million over six years.

MOST of the police department drives a COMPUTER all day.  They are not out patrolling.

A sworn LEO who is basically a computer clerk gets an ASSIGNED car to drive home or to moonlighting jobs.

THAT activity is what wears out the car.

At most, the city of tulsa needs 200- 250 police cars, running across multiple shifts.

Of course, if the contract is changed to what ever other major city in the U.S. follows, we can expect the police to retaliate by DESTROYING the engines and transmissions of our police cars.

I wish you would make up your mind.  Are you saying officers should not have computers in their vehicles?  What would you suggest?

200-250 police vehicles would not cover the city.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

17 million over 11 years (2001-2012) not just in the 2006 third penny. Also, 17 million is 1.5 million a year. Not 3-4 million a year.

We're freeloading because we travel in our city vehicles to and from work?  We're not slaves.

The out of the city take-home vehicles are part of our benefits that Mayor Lafortune gave us to help make up for Tulsa being last in pay in our mutually agreed 10 city survey.

800 police officers do not live outside the city of Tulsa. The last city survey showed the number to be almost 400.  Of those, 100 or so are on specialty units that are subject to call outs. If that is the case, then they would still be able to take their cars home if the city reverted to the old system.

If the city decided to do away with take home cars completely, they would have to build additional parking so that police units could all be parked in secured parking. Overtime would increase because officers reporting to court or special call-outs would first have to go get their vehicles and then put them back before they went home.  This would add over an hour to each overtime event for each officer. The Union could then begin the argument of donning and doffing time with the city.  

Vehicle maintaince costs would go up.  If the vehicles were shared they would be ran 24 hours a day.  New vehicles would have to be purchased every 3 years not every 6-7.  

Officers working extra jobs, coming to work or going home from work would no longer respond to high priority calls. This would be at least 45 less uniformed officers on the street during shift overlaps. All of this would cause less officers to be visible on the streets.

The secret the city of Tulsa does not want to tell anyone is that for the city price of gas they get a fully trained and equiped police officer to answer calls and assist people.  If take-home cars were taken away, they would no longer have this benefit and citizens would start screaming for more officers when they actually saw how few officers are actually working on the streets at any one time.

Because of jealousy, the take-home vehicle topic is always talked about but the real issue is saving money.  If the city really wanted to save money, they would do away with the four 10-hour shifts officers work now and move them back to five 8 hour shifts. That would save the city more money than taking take-home cars away ever would.

Wrong.

It's not 17 million over 12 years.

It is 14 million over 6 years, plus the carry over from previous Third Penny that was UNFUNDED because of insufficient sales tax collections during the early 2000 era.  

That adds up to 17 million over six years.

MOST of the police department drives a COMPUTER all day.  They are not out patrolling.

A sworn LEO who is basically a computer clerk gets an ASSIGNED car to drive home or to moonlighting jobs.

THAT activity is what wears out the car.

At most, the city of tulsa needs 200- 250 police cars, running across multiple shifts.

Of course, if the contract is changed to what ever other major city in the U.S. follows, we can expect the police to retaliate by DESTROYING the engines and transmissions of our police cars.

I wish you would make up your mind.  Are you saying officers should not have computers in their vehicles?  What would you suggest?

200-250 police vehicles would not cover the city.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

NICE obfuscation.  

Using the Half-Truth so well, you should apply for a editorial writer job at the Lorton's World after you retire at 20 years service from TPD.

I said, and you distorted, that the MAJORITY of the TPD force sits at a desk ALL day, basically as computer clerks.

The distinct minority are detectives or patrolmen.  These individual probably need regular access DURING DUTY HOURS to a TPD police car.

Based on an extremely low patrol and traffic coverage, 200 - 250 TPD cars would be ample to cover the City of Tulsa.

The Tax Vampire Free-loading TPD personnel simply want to keep their cushy taxpayer benefit, invented first by former Mayor Silly Susan Savage in order to sustain the 3rd Penny Sales Tax expenditure level, and later extended by Mayor Major MisFortunate trying to ingratiate himself to his local Praetorian Guard to unsuccessfully gain their support for his failed re-election.

Tulsa Taxpayers, meet Dumb and Dumber.

[)]

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

...Mayor Silly Susan Savage
...Mayor Major MisFortunate

The name-calling is cute. What name can you come up with for me? (Hint: My name is in my profile)

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

...Mayor Silly Susan Savage
...Mayor Major MisFortunate

The name-calling is cute. What name can you come up with for me? (Hint: My name is in my profile)

Since this is a POLITICAL Forum, I think it is fair game to apply "nicknames" to our local political "leadership".

However, I would consider it a violation of Forum Decorum and Rules to Name Call a forum poster.

[Wilbur]

I could have sworn this topic was about roads!

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I could have sworn this topic was about roads!

Agreed.

My comments were related to local roads, in respect to Mayor Savage's and Mayor LaFortunate's misplaced spending priorities.

I.E., giving a freebie to the local Men in Black at very great annual expense to both the Third Penny Sales Tax, and the city operating budget.

I would like to re-focus this thread by asking why BOTH our city streets and our STATE MAINTAINED highways are both in such shambles?

Just drive I-44, the B-A, I-244, U.S. 64, and U.S. 75, and you will both see and feel what terrible shape the Tulsa area highways are in, and they are NOT a City of Tulsa responsibility.

Is it part of a coordinated SOFTENING-UP exercise to beat us into submission for a new $1.6 BILLION local road tax?

Having lived in Tulsa for a very long time, there does appear to be a correlation with the slackening of local road maintenance for a few years, followed by a huge new street bond election to FIX THE STREETS......

MIGHTY big coincidence there.......

[MH2010]

From the Tulsa World

Hefty utility hikes would be needed if a proposed City Council plan to fix Tulsa's streets is put into action.

Wastewater rates would jump 141.7 percent and stormwater fees would go up 53.6 percent, both over a 10-year period, a Public Works Department analysis shows.

The projected increases, when fully in effect, would translate to an additional $341.88 per year for a single-family residence.

The increases would be necessary to make up for the capital funding to maintain and expand the wastewater and stormwater systems that has been traditionally provided by the third-penny and general obligation bond packages.

"We need to do a better job of matching the expenses with the revenue," Councilor Bill Martinson said in an interview Friday.

"What's been happening is that we've had lower water rates, but we've been subsidizing them by not taking proper care of our streets."

Martinson has made a "Back to Basics" pitch to repair Tulsa's crumbling street system by relying mainly on existing taxes.

His plan would raise more than $1.6 billion for streets between 2010 and 2020.

A component of his proposal is to dedicate all future third-penny and general obligation bond funding to streets.

The council's streets subcommittee, led by Martinson, has been busy determining where the usual recipients of funding from those two sources would be able to make it up.

A Public Works analysis indicates the city's wastewater rate, which is $3.05 per 1,000 gallons, would have to increase over 10 years, reaching to $7.37 per 1,000 gallons.

The average single-family residence uses about 6,000 gallons per month.

So a family's annual bill would go from $219.60 now to $530.64 by the 10th year.

Similarly, the stormwater fee, which is a flat $4.79 per residence, per month, would go up to $7.36. That's a jump from $57.48 per year to $88.32.

The increases also would apply to businesses. Inflation was not factored into the calculations.

"One way or another, we're going to have to pay more to fix our streets," Martinson said.

During a meeting on the subject earlier this week, Councilor Cason Carter questioned how the Tulsa rates would compare with those of surrounding cities at the end of the 10 years.

Public Works Department Assistant Director Ken Hill replied that it's impossible to predict how much other cities would increase their own rates during that period but said Tulsa's current rates are lower.

Another aspect of Martinson's proposal is to capture the city's portion of Tulsa County's Four-to-Fix and Vision 2025 sales tax shares when they expire.

It also would raise the city's property tax levy by 3.3 mills to be in line with Oklahoma City's.

The latest analysis of Tulsa's arterial and residential streets gives them an average "D" grade on the Pavement Condition Index, which was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The streets will soon reach a failing grade if no additional money is allocated.

A city-sponsored "Complete Our Streets" residents panel has recommended significant sales and property tax increases to bring the city's streets to an average grade of a "C," to maintain that level and to do some priority widening.

But Martinson and the subcommittee have been exploring ways to limit the financial burden on taxpayers. They expect to have a plan of action formulated by this spring.

Brian Barber 581-8322

Ouch!

[FOTD]

If that's the deal in ten years, I will move from Tulsa. I know many others will too.

I thought we had an abundance of water in Green Country? Pirates!