View Full Version : Federal government provides grant to rehire 29 eliminated firefighters!



Pages : [1] 2

Mikemarsh51
02-24-2011, 08:44 AM
OCFD Fire Administration was notified today by U.S. Senator James Inhofe’s office that our application for the Federal SAFER Grant was approved.* Official notice of the award will be made Friday, February 25, 2011.* This grant will provide funding to replace 29 positions eliminated in current years’ budgets.*

betts
02-24-2011, 08:47 AM
Very nice. I know the personnel issue was the priority one for your department so that's great.

betts
02-24-2011, 08:53 AM
I'm going to add that were I running for City Council, which I will never do, my platform would include a consolidation of the FD and EMSA with small emergency response vehicles and telephone triage of calls. It would also include a permanent 1 cent sales tax increase, with .75% going to schools and .25% going to public safety for personnel, structures and equipment. Luckily, I don't have to win an election with that platform, as I probably wouldn't.

PennyQuilts
02-24-2011, 08:54 AM
How long does the grant last? Is it expected to be renewed?

LordGerald
02-24-2011, 09:12 AM
OCFD Fire Administration was notified today by U.S. Senator James Inhofe’s office that our application for the Federal SAFER Grant was approved.* Official notice of the award will be made Friday, February 25, 2011.* This grant will provide funding to replace 29 positions eliminated in current years’ budgets.*

That's good news Marshall. So, federal earmarks are fine as long as they benefit you?

Mikemarsh51
02-24-2011, 11:04 AM
LG, I'm actually opposed to these grants. I posted earlier how badly it disgusts me that the city manager has applied to FEMA for reimbursement of emergency services during the last snow storm. Oklahoma City has lots of cash on hand. they have snookered people into thinking they don't.

Kerry
02-24-2011, 11:14 AM
Where is the fedaral government going to get the money from?

Mikemarsh51
02-24-2011, 11:22 AM
From you Kerry!

BoulderSooner
02-24-2011, 11:30 AM
LG, I'm actually opposed to these grants I posted earlier how badly it disgusts me that the city manager has applied to FEMA for reimbursement of emergency services during the last snow storm. Oklahoma City has lots of cash on hand. they have snookered people into thinking they don't.

you have got to be kidding me ..

Mikemarsh51
02-24-2011, 11:42 AM
Bouldersooner, I'll bite. What has you perplexed?

Kerry
02-24-2011, 11:53 AM
From you Kerry!

Not from me they aren't. The Chinese maybe, but not me. I don't buy US Treasuries.

PennyQuilts
02-24-2011, 12:32 PM
Not from me they aren't. The Chinese maybe, but not me. I don't buy US Treasuries.

You'll end up footing the bill.

BoulderSooner
02-24-2011, 01:09 PM
Bouldersooner, I'll bite. What has you perplexed?

that it "disgusts" you that the city is being responsible with its budget and applying for federal aid to cover what was a "state of emergency" (as declared by the state) that was not part of the city's budget.... or that you are opposed that we are getting a grant to higher fire fighters and i'm sure you won't like that we most likely will get 75 mil or so from the FTA for transit ...

the federal money is going to go somewhere .. it might as well come to oklahoma city

metro
02-24-2011, 01:27 PM
Maybe the FOP can quiet down a little and let progress continue

Mikemarsh51
02-24-2011, 01:33 PM
What I have a problem with is the city has a dedicated sales tax to fund the fire department plus general fund allocations. Its already paid for! How is it right to bill the feds for smoke detectors that were given to the fire dept.? SAFER Grants are for small deptartments to get equipment to run the department. Not to fund large metro departments who are playing funny with the numbers so they can claim they are in bad financial footing.

Pennyquilts, it's most likely 1-3 years.

barnold
02-24-2011, 02:15 PM
Good news for the FD.
Betts for Council. I like your ideas.

bornhere
02-24-2011, 04:27 PM
It would also include a permanent 1 cent sales tax increase, with .75% going to schools and .25% going to public safety for personnel, structures and equipment. Luckily, I don't have to win an election with that platform, as I probably wouldn't.

I don't know that I would go for a one cent permanent increase, but I would go for half that. And I might quibble with the distribution.

Here's why it won't happen.

Anyone can campaign against a tax increase or bond issue, but the city is forbidden by law to campaign for them. It uses proxies to do its campaigning. The FOP and IAFF used to be among those proxies, but obviously that doesn't happen much anymore. Among those who do campaign in support of city revenue proposals are the Chamber of Commerce and the contractors' association.

Every one of these groups expects to get, in exchange for its support, the lion's share of the revenue. And if you want to buy at least the FOP's and IAFF's silence, you have to promise them the lion's share as well. So, by the time you've bought the support of everyone whose support you need, there's no money left for the things you actually want to fund.

It's pretty much hopeless, IMO.

kevinpate
02-24-2011, 04:47 PM
I'm unclear. Who applied for the federal grant that churns mikemarsh's tummy, the city or the union itself?
It sounds like a good deal for the firefolk, and thus the folk they protect and serve. It sounds like a not so good deal for the folk in podunk or loneprarie hamlets who are told, sorry your cheese got cut and and sent as feed for the big city mice.

Mikemarsh51
02-24-2011, 09:05 PM
Pate, it is a good deal. But we don't need it. The city has the revenues to fund the FD where it needs to be. The really odd thing is the city manager refused to apply for the grant.

barnold
02-24-2011, 09:19 PM
I believe the point that mikemarsh is making is that the FD staff went an applied for the grant without the support of the City Manager who could give a Rats A@#$ whether or not the additional 29 FF's positions were filled. Even though census shows that total population for OKC is up and that total call volume has more than tripled in the past 15 years; the CM and Mayor would just as soon see PS and other departments cut. The city has the money for these positions, HAS had the money for these positions and continues to play the "whoa is me" card to those ignorant citizens that continue to drink the koolaid.

Cue- RC and his lawnmower management perspective from his lake side plot.

Steve
02-24-2011, 09:50 PM
Steve steps up to plate. Steve prepares to ask a REALLY annoying question. He expects Mike, Barnold and others to get REEEEEEEEALLLLLLYYYYY mad at him...
Nah, never mind. It wouldn't be a constructive move. And Tuesday will be over soon enough.
Good night guys. Politics aside, thanks for keeping us safe.

rcjunkie
02-25-2011, 03:38 AM
I believe the point that mikemarsh is making is that the FD staff went an applied for the grant without the support of the City Manager who could give a Rats A@#$ whether or not the additional 29 FF's positions were filled. Even though census shows that total population for OKC is up and that total call volume has more than tripled in the past 15 years; the CM and Mayor would just as soon see PS and other departments cut. The city has the money for these positions, HAS had the money for these positions and continues to play the "whoa is me" card to those ignorant citizens that continue to drink the koolaid.

Cue- RC and his lawnmower management perspective from his lake side plot.

Fire fighters not happy because MAPS3 contained nothing for them, Federal Grant applied for and approved for additional fire fighters approved and they are still not happy, you guys must have inhaled too much smoke.

Cue--barnold and his pole sliding, greased hands perspective, PS--don't be sliding on any dry poles.

rcjunkie
02-25-2011, 03:42 AM
What I have a problem with is the city has a dedicated sales tax to fund the fire department plus general fund allocations. Its already paid for! How is it right to bill the feds for smoke detectors that were given to the fire dept.? SAFER Grants are for small deptartments to get equipment to run the department. Not to fund large metro departments who are playing funny with the numbers so they can claim they are in bad financial footing.

Pennyquilts, it's most likely 1-3 years.

While I support most Public Safety issues, what I and most others have a problem with is the fact the Fire Dept. has a dedicated sales tax, general fund allocation, and they still bitch and complain, and want more more more.

Easy180
02-25-2011, 04:26 AM
If only they had a church music director that could somehow help them out

bornhere
02-25-2011, 05:52 AM
Where is this money hidden that you say the city has?

Kerry
02-25-2011, 07:38 AM
You'll end up footing the bill.

PQ - we have a $14 trillion national debt and $120 trillion in unfunded mandates and the Dems are going to shut down the government in 2 weeks over $60 billion in cuts (0.43% of the total we need to cut just to break even). The idea that we will even come close to paying that off is pure fiction perpetuated by people selling bonds.

bornhere
02-25-2011, 09:39 AM
The really odd thing is the city manager refused to apply for the grant.

Has the City Manager's office ever applied for a grant? I thought that was done by the department that would receive the funding.

rcjunkie
02-25-2011, 08:01 PM
Has the City Manager's office ever applied for a grant? I thought that was done by the department that would receive the funding.

bornhere, please don't confuse them with facts.

barnold
02-25-2011, 08:16 PM
Bornhere- No the city manager's office did not apply for the SAFTER grant to fund 29 firefighters positions for the next two years, the Fire Dept. applied for it.

bornhere
02-25-2011, 08:54 PM
I understand that. What I'm asking is whether that's actually the norm... that the department receiving the funding, not the CM's office, applies for grants.

barnold
02-25-2011, 08:56 PM
Did anyone catch the Fire Chief on the news tonight? He stated that OKC did indeed obtain a grant to hire 29 firefighters and that these positions would be funded for the next two years and replace retirements that come up over that time.

And the Shell game goes on...............
Step 1- Pass MAPS3 with the promise from the MAYOR; and with No objections on the council, that they will not cut public safety but actually help it.
Step 2- Cut 29 positions from the budget and eliminate those positions. Pass language in the council meeting two weeks ago which allows the City Manager to move money from the city budget where ever he likes and report it to the council quarterly. In the past he had to ask permission before moving funds, now he's his own little dictator with all of the cities money at his disposal. Makes it more difficult to see where all the money is moved around to in the end run. Wonder how much the Chamber gets next year?
Step 3- Fire Chief busts his hump to get a SAFER grant to hire back the lost 29 positions to bring staffing back to 948 uniformed personnel. Not the Mayor, not the City Manager, not the city council, it was the fire chief.
Step 4- City Manager tells Fire Chief -that the grant isn't to re-hire those positions they cut. Those positions will stay cut and we'll use the free money from Uncle Sugar to save us from having to hire more firefighters as they retire. Brilliant!

So while were happy that the city is going to hire 29 more firefighters, it doesn't mean we will be back to original staffing numbers from before. In fact we are down many more than just the 29 positions cut since we have had retirements happening all year long as well. Our personnel numbers are down, but the total number of incidents we make each year just keeps going up. The cities leaders logic is more work means cut staffing. Makes no sense.

rcjunkie
02-25-2011, 08:57 PM
I understand that. What I'm asking is whether that's actually the norm... that the department receiving the funding, not the CM's office, applies for grants.

They are prepared by the Department Heads, but not sent without the CM's approval.

Kerry
02-25-2011, 09:01 PM
So in two years when the free money runs out the City won't be on the hook to either fund 29 firefighters or lay them off. If more cities and states were that smart they wouldn't be having the troubles they have now.

barnold
02-25-2011, 09:39 PM
Except it won't take two years for 29 more firefighters to retire and the city will still be grossly understaffed. I wish I could be tickled that the Feds were paying for these positions Kerry, but as you pointed out earlier the Feds are broke too and it's still coming out of our pocket. And if that's how you want to run business, remind me to never come work with you. That approach has been done by several municipalities with grave consequences. Why not plan for the future and be fiscally responsible with what you already have? Maybe it's Disney World there in FLorida, but that fantasy land doesn't exist here in Okc with our leadership.

The citizens of OKC still lost PS positions and they will not be brought back unless leadership in Okc changes and quits the lying.

mugofbeer
02-25-2011, 09:43 PM
So in two years when the free money runs out the City won't be on the hook to either fund 29 firefighters or lay them off. If more cities and states were that smart they wouldn't be having the troubles they have now.

I have to agree with Kerry on this one. I'm happy if the city has better fire protection but this is like the city funding a pay increase with a bond issue. Its not the smartest use of funds unless the funding source will continue annually.

barnold
02-25-2011, 09:58 PM
mug- it doesn't make the fire protection better, in fact it doesn't bring staffing back to even last years levels. Better fire protection = manpower, fire stations, apparatus, water systems, training.
The funding is for two years and then is gone. So as Kerry so adequately pointed out, they would be laid off or eliminated thru attrition.

mugofbeer
02-25-2011, 10:17 PM
Yeaaaaahhhh.....I think that was my point where I said I agreed with him. And yes, Barnold, having more adequate manpower coverage in our stations certainly CAN mean better fire protection. Hire 29 goofballs and it won't help. They're not just going to stick 29 people right off the street in the stations.

Kerry
02-25-2011, 10:27 PM
I'm happy if the city has better fire protection but this is like the city funding a pay increase with a bond issue.

It is more like paying firefighters with lottery winnings. Unless you plan on winning the lottery every two years you can't commit to paying expenses that last longer than the winning do. This is where so many states and local government got in trouble with the stimulus money. Instead of using the money to easy the loss in revenue, they spent it and many times creating new positions to spend the money on.

When the money is gone so is the job and nothing gets solved, only delayed. Now place like Providence, RI are having to layoff all the teachers hired with stimulus funds PLUS the teachers that should have been laid-off two years ago.

Larry OKC
02-26-2011, 12:50 AM
Where is this money hidden that you say the city has?

Not sure if hidden is the right word, but the City has a contingency (rainy day type) fund that they recently boosted by a significant amount. The City has 40 some different funds (not sure of the breakdown between dedicated and non-dedicated). But even the dedicated funds aren't necessarily so either. For the past several years, in every City budget that is available from OKC.gov, they have transferred "dedicated" money from the Fire/Police funds to the General Fund. To the tune of nearly $20M per year.

For last budget year the amount had gradually increased:
"Fire Sales Tax to General Fund" = $11,263,377
"Police Sales Tax to General Fund" = $8,417,092

This years budget shows the first decline in the amount transfered from the dedicated fund (but still nearly $15M):
"Transfers from Fire Sales Tax Fund" = $8,259,771
"Transfers from Police Sales Tax Fund" = $6,700,167

In previous years, it stated they were transfers "to General Fund", now that particular language has been dropped. So is it still going to the General Fund or somewhere else? But it may just be a case of eliminating wordiness as these numbers are in tables above the "Total General Fund" amount.

bornhere
02-26-2011, 03:15 AM
Thanks for the answer, Larry OKC. I thought there had been a court decision back in the eighties that prevented use of the police/fire fund to offset the general fund.

barnold
02-26-2011, 08:13 AM
Mug- Yes hiring the 29 goofballs will help. They will spend approx. 4 months being trained to an entry level position. But you aren't seeing the city math here.

Lets have you in charge of a single small department in the city.
ie. It took 10 people to do a specific job last year and it was your busiest year. Now the city says it needs to cut 4 of these people and you must do the same job with 6. You also know that this year will be busier than last and you feel it will take 12 people to get the job done. Protest to city leaders all you want but they cut your department to 6. Add into this that in the next couple of months you will lose another 3 people due to retirements which would take your department down to 3.
After going back and forth for months with your bosses, the city says "Merry Christmas" we are hiring back 4 people to help you, but when those 3 retire you can't replace them. End result is your department will try and do more work with less people and at the end of the year you will have a total of 7 people to try and do the work that 12 could barely handle.

While simplified, that's the logic of our City Leadership right now.

rcjunkie
02-26-2011, 08:25 AM
Mug- Yes hiring the 29 goofballs will help. They will spend approx. 4 months being trained to an entry level position. But you aren't seeing the city math here.

Lets have you in charge of a single small department in the city.
ie. It took 10 people to do a specific job last year and it was your busiest year. Now the city says it needs to cut 4 of these people and you must do the same job with 6. You also know that this year will be busier than last and you feel it will take 12 people to get the job done. Protest to city leaders all you want but they cut your department to 6. Add into this that in the next couple of months you will lose another 3 people due to retirements which would take your department down to 3.
After going back and forth for months with your bosses, the city says "Merry Christmas" we are hiring back 4 people to help you, but when those 3 retire you can't replace them. End result is your department will try and do more work with less people and at the end of the year you will have a total of 7 people to try and do the work that 12 could barely handle.

While simplified, that's the logic of our City Leadership right now.

At least you can see (even though you disagree) what every department except Public Safety has done for the past few years. I, like most, agree it's about time PS shares in budget cutting process.

barnold
02-26-2011, 08:44 AM
RC- I have the same empathy for the other departments and believe it's their members responsibility to fight for what they need. I will support them wherever I can FF's can't fight all the other departments battles. But as you have used in several of your other arguments in this forum; PS has a dedicated sales tax, which IMO is being used and manipulated for other than what voters intended for it to be used. This is the monetary shell game that the CM and Mayor play constantly.

rcjunkie
02-26-2011, 09:41 AM
RC- I have the same empathy for the other departments and believe it's their members responsibility to fight for what they need. I will support them wherever I can FF's can't fight all the other departments battles. But as you have used in several of your other arguments in this forum; PS has a dedicated sales tax, which IMO is being used and manipulated for other than what voters intended for it to be used. This is the monetary shell game that the CM and Mayor play constantly.

That's always been my complaint, when every department was being cut in past years, where was Public Safety support NOWHERE, when the cuts hit PS, they scream and holler about unfair treatment, woe is me, we need more.

I have my opinon, you have yours, truth be told is somewhere in the middle.

Wambo36
02-26-2011, 09:42 AM
Oops, double post

Wambo36
02-26-2011, 09:49 AM
That's always been my complaint, when every department was being cut in past years, where was Public Safety support NOWHERE, when the cuts hit PS, they scream and holler about unfair treatment, woe is me, we need more.

I have my opinon, you have yours, truth be told is somewhere in the middle.
Where was Public Safety?????? Where the hell were YOU?!?!?! You've got to stand up for yourself FIRST and then ask for help! I can promise they would have been there. The problem is you can't spend years, as a supervisor in one of those departments, beating down AFSCME for your own purposes and then expect them to be able to stand up for themselves when the time comes to do it.

So, your dislike of the PS unions is because they wouldn't come and fight your battle when you and your employees wouldn't even stand up and fight it yourselves? That explains alot.

PS: I bolded what I consider to be the biggest problem the other departments had when it came time to stand up for themeselves.

Wambo36
02-26-2011, 09:57 AM
Thanks for the answer, Larry OKC. I thought there had been a court decision back in the eighties that prevented use of the police/fire fund to offset the general fund.
As with everything that appears to bind the hands of government, there always seems to be a loophole. They spent years poking and prodding until they think they have the way around it without recourse. It doesn't help when the department head at the time, who should have been standing up and making sure the right thing was done, instead was asisting them in their endeavor to get around the law. Actually when Gary Marrs was the FC (late 90's or so) the city manager trotted him out to the firestations to explain to us how there were no more funds to be had out of the 3/4 cent sales tax and that the citys obligation was fulfilled. Funny thing though, when he was pressed for an explanation as to why the citys general fund obligation to the FD was shrinking and why he was allowing it, he packed up his dry erase board and his voodoo math presentation to hightail it out of there. Seems like his future political aspirations were more important than actually running his department.

rcjunkie
02-26-2011, 05:09 PM
Where was Public Safety?????? Where the hell were YOU?!?!?! You've got to stand up for yourself FIRST and then ask for help! I can promise they would have been there. The problem is you can't spend years, as a supervisor in one of those departments, beating down AFSCME for your own purposes and then expect them to be able to stand up for themselves when the time comes to do it.

So, your dislike of the PS unions is because they wouldn't come and fight your battle when you and your employees wouldn't even stand up and fight it yourselves? That explains alot.

PS: I bolded what I consider to be the biggest problem the other departments had when it came time to stand up for themeselves.

Where was I, working with co-workers (management and AFSCME) to find the means to continue to provide the Citizens of OKC with quality parks, public land and recreation centers, doing more with less because unlike some, we understood that if the money wasn't there, it wasn't there.

I never beat down any employees, I had an excellant working partnership with all of my employees, know William Bryles very well and consider him a friend.

My problem with Public Safety is that a majority of them feel as they are "it", that they should be left alone and the other departments should suffer the cuts. (your President, Mr. Sipe, was quoted as saying such in the paper and on TV).

Wambo36
02-26-2011, 05:55 PM
Where was I, working with co-workers (management and AFSCME) to find the means to continue to provide the Citizens of OKC with quality parks, public land and recreation centers, doing more with less because unlike some, we understood that if the money wasn't there, it wasn't there.

I never beat down any employees, I had an excellant working partnership with all of my employees, know William Bryles very well and consider him a friend.

My problem with Public Safety is that a majority of them feel as they are "it", that they should be left alone and the other departments should suffer the cuts. (your President, Mr. Sipe, was quoted as saying such in the paper and on TV).
Nice dodge, but that's not what you said.
You said "That's always been my complaint, when every department was being cut in past years where was public safety support NOWHERE." Once again, there has to be something to support. There was nothing. I'm not sure what it was you wanted us to support. You've got to stand up for yourself, just a little bit, before anyone can lend you any support.
I boldened the biggest problem that AFSCME employees, who I know, complain about. Management and union leadership that just takes what the city manager tells them and never has that WTF moment when the story their being fed and what they can see with their own eyes (if they would bother to look) don't add up. Yeah, you were part of that.
Please show me the quote from Phil, either in the paper or on the news, where he said that. I must have missed it.

betts
02-26-2011, 06:36 PM
It would be a little easier to just be happy for the fact that there's money to hire more people if there weren't a drive by the firefighters to support people running for city council who are anti-MAPS and seemingly anti-city. When you are working in a manner antithetical to the hopes of most of the posters here for our city, it brings out a lot of ill will. It continues to seem like a tit for tat response: You won't give us money for jobs, so we will again try to take away the MAPS projects that are so important to all of you. Did anyone in the union go to the other candidates and try to find someone who would support your goals in the city council? It's hard to believe you couldn't find someone with higher ideals, someone a bit more moderate to support you. It was bad enough that you all campaigned against MAPS. Supporting these two candidates, in addition to your prior anti-MAPS stance, basically strips away much of the residual good will you've earned over the years. You are again taking a very public stance against things that are important to many people here. We're not buying the pothole line either.

Wambo36
02-26-2011, 07:30 PM
We're not buying the pothole line either.
What pothole line are we talking about?

betts
02-26-2011, 08:01 PM
I'm talking about the faux issue of roads being used by these two candidates. They're using that as a campaign issue, when we haven't begun to see the impact of the late 2007 bond issue. I have yet to see a tea partier want to spend more goverment money than has already been generated. So, it's rather disingenuous of them to pretend that there isn't a solution for our road issues in place. I'm not even sure what road issues they're talking about anyway. Roads fall into disrepair and have to be repaired. It happens everywhere, and this city is not unique. Perhaps if we had a few less cars driving around the city, we might need less frequent road repairs. But, God forbid we consider using taxpayer funds for mass transit. I'm sure there's something in the Bible that addresses the evil inherent in busses and streetcars too.

Mikemarsh51
02-26-2011, 10:48 PM
Betts, I don't see that as any different than David Greenwell listing his 3rd priority being public safety staffing. It is wording that is design to appeal to people. As much as you don't want it to be true, there are people who are fed up with the direction this city government has gone. They may want momentum to take a slightly different direction! Well see Tuesday.

betts
02-26-2011, 11:03 PM
So Greenwell's third priority isn't public safety staffing? Your example would only be comparable if the city had already fully funded public safety and he was talking about it as if it hadn't happened. Which would either be deliberate deception or ignorance. I think it's a gross understatent to call it a "slightly" different direction. I'm not sure populating city council with right wing zealots qualifies as slight.

Mikemarsh51
02-27-2011, 07:30 AM
My point was that "Public Safety" is a buzz word to make people think that it is a priority. Brian Walters is considered the only friend Public Safety has on the council. I don't think Greenwell can be a bigger supporter than Walters is.

warreng88
02-27-2011, 07:57 AM
I just read this article and I guess I am a little confused:

Good year expected financially for Oklahoma City
Published: Jan 25, 2011

The city can't count on a similar storm happening this year, so projections for fiscal year 2011-12 are more conservative. The city expects an increase of about 6.5 percent in revenue.

Much of that increase will go toward plugging funding holes caused last year, when departments were asked to cut 12 percent from their budgets.

The city used millions of dollars in one-time funds to save 30 police and fire jobs.

http://www.newsok.com/article/3535410

Are we talking about the same jobs?

rcjunkie
02-27-2011, 07:57 AM
My point was that "Public Safety" is a buzz word to make people think that it is a priority. Brian Walters is considered the only friend Public Safety has on the council. I don't think Greenwell can be a bigger supporter than Walters is.

Only in the eyes of PS Workers. Just because the majority of the council has taken a different approach, becoming frugal with departmental budgets and making EVERY DEPARTMENT share in the the required/needed budget cuts, does not mean they are not friends of PS.

barnold
02-27-2011, 08:37 AM
They are not friends of the PS or any other city department other than management.

After they eliminated 29 positions this year, they said that additional FF positions needed to be funded as well and "whoa is me" where do we get the money. They are posturing to try and make it look like they need to cut additional positions next year which is why the CM didn't want the SAFER grant to go through.

The DOK and there "fair and impartial, tough journalistic reporting?" Not even gonna go there, thats and entirely different thread.

Larry OKC
02-27-2011, 09:16 PM
I just read this article and I guess I am a little confused:

Good year expected financially for Oklahoma City
Published: Jan 25, 2011

The city can't count on a similar storm happening this year, so projections for fiscal year 2011-12 are more conservative. The city expects an increase of about 6.5 percent in revenue.

Much of that increase will go toward plugging funding holes caused last year, when departments were asked to cut 12 percent from their budgets.

The city used millions of dollars in one-time funds to save 30 police and fire jobs.

http://www.newsok.com/article/3535410

Are we talking about the same jobs?

Think those are different from the ones from the grant. The previous 30 were "saved" by using some of the MAPS 3 Use Tax money (but of a limited duration). After that, I think they were supposed to be merged into the General Fund. Instead of not cutting any positions (if MAPS 3 Use Tax money was used), they avoided an additional 30 being cut.

Mikemarsh51
02-27-2011, 09:31 PM
Larry that doesn't sound right at all.