Will Edmond voters turn down a new public safety center?

Interesting points made by Mr Rice. Personally, I’ve been against the idea of paying for this facility by an increase in property taxes, but hadn’t actually considered the location and the effects of that location as deeply. Thanks for posting these up to get our wheels turning.

I totally agree with Mr. Rice edmond doesn’t need a 31 million dollar police station. It’s a waste of tax dollars. Why the fitness center and the luxury office for a retired FBI agent?

I live in the neighborhood in which the new facility will be built and object to City’s decision at this location for several reasons:

There are many children in my neighborhood, including and Elementary school a few blocks away.
This will place jail and police activities across the street from Chitwood park and in one of our neighborhoods.
Additional traffic on side streets where children play and travel to and from school.
Loss of sports field which has been used for several generations.

Vote NO on November 4.
Excess noise day and night.

I just read this facility will be one year in the design phase – cha ching, cha ching, cha ching! Two years to build. What a traffic mess on Kelley. More traffic on First and Main. Why do our kids have to play dodge the traffic when coming and going to school, playing after school, or just going to a friend’s house?

I have talked with many folks around Edmond and most don’t know about the police station, the proposed location, or even that they will be voting on a property tax on November 4.

I am not totally against a new facility, just the location. I object to using Barnett Field which, contrary to many, is used a lot by children and adults and has for many, many years.

It’s time the other side of the story was told.

I am not against a new facility, but again, why this location? Seems I continually read the new growth in Edmond is east, so why build a facility on the west side of town? Also, if we are spending all of this money to vitalize the downtown area (streetscapes, updated facades, “bridge for no one”) why on earth would we NOT build a Public Safety Center in the downtown area?

Does the $31.5 million price tag include interest rate charges? Will this cover expenses for furniture, equipment, etc. for the new facility or is it just contruction and land expenses? What is the difference in interest rate cost of an ad valorem loan vs. a sales tax loan? Will the published rate of $3.66 per $100,000 accessed value per month for ten years cover all expenses?

Also, if the center were built at Main and Kelly, how do you suppose prisioners would be transported to/from the courthouse? Do you really believe anytime someone has to go from the courthouse or safety center or vice versa they will use Second/Edmond Road over to Kelly? Or, just shoot stright through on Main or First Streets?

Points to ponder.

I am so glad I found this blog, there is more mis-information here than one can possibly imagine and I will try to correct that. I am the project coordinator for the project and the deputy chief of police. I will start with Mr. Rice’s letter.
There are not 6 acres of “green” park space there are 4 acres of under utilized un-maintained surplus property that the YMCA uses as practice field, with no scheduled games there. Go to http://edmondok.com/home/features/publicsafetycenterfaq

for a video that shows this property, there are also 2 acres of surplus property that houses some abandoned buidings that used to be street department buildings.

This project has been studyed and re studyed, watch tthe video on the link, you will see that.

3 million dollar fitness center, that’s ridiculous. Our architect said it would cost 116,000.00. Mind you this is not a spa, but a strength fitness center so our officers can be in good shape so they can protect themselves and to protect you. Buying cops gym memberships, they really don’t like working out next to the guy they arrested last week, and neither would you.

100,000.00 for a Chiefs office, there again intentional mis-information. It will cost 16,000 and will be 100 square feet smaller than his current office.

In the last few years the city has added 130 acres of new park land! The council is also committed to replacing these 2 dilapadated ball fields.

I have read the master plan, the only thing it says about the police department is that it is currently downtown. Police Departments do nothing for the economic growth of a downtown, they deter from it. No one has ever jumped up on a Sat. morning and said “Come on kids, I saw where Edmond Downtown just built a new police station, let’s go see it!”

I don’t know how big a Wal-Mart is, but Edmond does need a 83,000 sq foot public safety center, unless you just want to build for todays needs and not plan for the future again, and have a space need 2 years after you occupy the building, that is just poor planning.

Speaking of Planning, the project will go to planning when it’s approved by the voters and designed, just like all other projects, same with site plan review.

The city is following the same proceedures everyone else is.

If you used 15 million you would get a project that would not meet the need, just like the project we are in now.

Waiting would not save, waiting would cost. Constructions figures are escalating at about 6% per year.

Property tax Vs. sales tax? Because the average tax payer will pay less, the city will also get a much better rate on the bond or loan because the property tax is much more stable. If the city used sales tax it would take longer to pay off and it would cost about 5 million more in the life of the bond. The average cost will be 3.66 increase per month in every 100,000 value in property.

There is not a planned 19,000,000 public safety center

The city does not have plenty of land downtown for this project, unless we tore down city hall or the other occupied city service buildings, talk about abandoning downtown!

The figure used of 266.00 per year on the average home…. That would be the cost on a 600,000.00 home, which I don’t think is average….

OK now to some of the other comments:

Carol, Research shows that when police facilities move to neighborhoods, crime reduces. Police departments do that intentionally in high crime areas as a strategy. I am a life long Edmondite, I am very familar with Barnett Field and it served it’s purpose at one time, I used to play organized ball there. It’s not being utilized any longer for anything other than practice. As you know Chitwood park is directly across the street and it one of our finest parks.

Everything is included in the 31.5, I think I already answered some of your other questions here. If we build at Main and Kelly prisoners will be arraigned by video, therefore will not need to be transported to the court.

As far as noise, our officers, unlike fire fighters, respond from inside thier district not from the police station, generally.

We will not shoot down Main Street. In an emergency response, that would be the least effective and safe travel mode, unless of course we are responding to inside that neighborhood.

Please don’t hesitate to ask any other questions, go watch the video and the COPS Community council will be hosting a town hall mtg on the subject Oct 20th @ 6:30 in the Downtown Community Center.

Bottom line, this is about Edmond’s Public Safety, you will see that if you watch the video
http://edmondok.com/home/features/publicsafetycenterfaq

Hey folks.. FYI: Barry is just upset because the city WON’T be buying any of HIS downtown property to build on. No money for him.. also property tax is the way to go. Now everyone will pay their FAIR share…not just collecting YOUR sales tax and sending it in .. but what they owe for the same protection. Don’t let a handful of people dupe you into doing what’s best for them and not Edmond!!

Some of these comments go to show that people do not read nor understand the facts behind what is really going on. People are swayed by the manure that Mr. Rice spews out without taking the time to fully understand the true nature of the project. Yes Edmond is growing and needs a new police station. Have any of you toured the police department? If you have then you can see the kind of quarters the officers are dealing with and understand it is not adequate. Have you seen the city of Edmond’s 911 center or its Emergency Operations Center? Once again competely inadequate. Hopefully Edmond will never need the services of the EOC but geographically where we are located it is a distinct possibility. City leaders currently would not be able to command such a mission in the current EOC and it would be nice to know with a new center that in the event of a disaster, that the city leaders and emergency personnel would have the proper spacing and equipment to handle it. The 911 center floods being located below the court house in a basement and currently houses very expensive dispatching and radio equipment that is the basis of public saftey. This is how emergency responders are alerted to the needs of the citizens of this city and the 911 operaters should be a first priority to have adequate space and a safer environment. I am a concerned citizen and only want the best for first responders, because myself and possibly YOU may need their help someday. VOTE YES!!!

A comment on Mr. Rice’s opinion of the new Public Safety Center.
The 60’s, you are confusing the process now and the one where the downtown business people were able to control which businesses came into our fair city and their wishes were always granted by the council. This process will, at least, allow the public to decide on whether our officers and support staff work in their current conditions, or move into the 21st century with most other cities.
The “retired FBI agent”(another reader’s comment) is an attorney by education, we don’t hold that against him, and a fine leader of the men and women who do their best to protect you, your homes and businesses. While the location is not the central hub or our city, 2nd and Coltrane has that honor, it offers less cost in construction by having a relatively flat piece of ground to start with.
The fitness center for the officers already exists in a discarded city building that was thankfully refurbished for their use. It too will be lost in the expansion of the “downtown” area when the bridge over 2nd street is built, at least the secure parking portion of it anyway.
The logical readers of Mr. Rice’s letter should understand that his numbers for the office and fitness center are a little skewed to shock the average person, as is the figure for the tax increase. Maybe his home will increase that much, but mine would be about $90.00 a year.
I think if there was property in the “downtown” area that was of the adequate size and price, the Council would have strongly recommended that property, and the center would have been built on it. Some will oppose the construction of the Public Safety Center, it’s a lot of money for something they don’t get to enjoy. The only time they will visit, is if they have been wronged or are in trouble. This is not something that is a tourist attraction, but a necessary addition to our community and it’s public servants.

You all do realize that Mr Rice has a personal stake in this as he wants the City to purchase his property in the downtown? If he is making such a stink about not picking downtown, maybe he should offer some incentive and donate some land there. Also, if you are so worried about the price keep it low and select the Kelly location. Has anyone thought to ask about he price difference between the two locations before deciding or are you all just accepting what others tell you? The downtown land would lock the PD in with NO room for further development, increase the cost, and hamper response with the increased traffic.

What I’m saying is look at ALL the facts, not just those that some want you to see.

John said, “Hopefully Edmond will never need the services of the EOC…”. The fact is, Edmond has needed the Emergency Operations Center, or EOC, and usually opens, or activates the EOC in emergency situations several times a year. During one recent event, an approaching tornado, I activated the EOC and directed the operations; positioned storm spotters and took their live reports, positioned emergency response resources, activated the sirens, reported “situation summaries” to city leadership and conducted the damage assessment. It can be loud and hectic, especially when you lack space and have to share limited technical resources.

The needs for a larger, more modern police facility, a larger and more robust 911 dispatching center and a bigger, more effecient Emergency Operations Center are well documented, and urgent. To delay wouldn’t be prudent. To delay would be doing the ones we work for and protect, our citizens, a disservice.

Here’s my thoughts. I know some of you might not agree with me, but be sure you get CORRECT information before you make up your mind which way to vote!

Remember – “certain” people who are against the new Center location own the downtown property located near the current location of the Police Department. The City would have to purchase the property at what seems to me to be an inflated value. There is NOT enough room to build in the current location without purchasing additional land (have you seen the small footprint of the current station?) and definitely not enough parking. The City already owns the property on Kelly and it is NOT a park area, virtually just an unused practice field. And what “urban improvement” does a police station provide? Wouldn’t you rather have more parking for downtown shopping than a big building towering over everything else and the police cars taking up all the parking that shoppers could be using while spending their MONEY downtown????? And honestly, how many of you have visited the PD in the current location? Nobody really wants to, right?

The property tax increase will be $3.66 PER $100,000 VALUE of your home per month. Average 3-bedroom home value in Edmond is about $156,000 (based on information at ). That means your ACTUAL increase per year would be about $68.52 (if I’ve done my math right!). Obviously, yours might be a bit more or less. I think it’s better than adding a percent to my sales tax, since I’m proud of the fact that Edmond has one of the lowest sales tax in the area. I know that’s why I make most of my purchases in Edmond, and I’m sure you do, too. If you don’t, shame on you!

There are NO fancy gyms or offices planned. The PD already has a weight room in another old building the City owns, but rumor is they may be losing this location. The dispatchers are located in another building (under water sometimes, but that’s another story). Wouldn’t it be smart to put the Police Department back together again in one location?

As to the noise factor: The officers do not run “hot” out of their current location (located on Main Street), so why would they begin to do so from the new location?

I could go on and on, but it’s simple – shouldn’t this community be proud of their community buildings, within reason? Don’t we want the best thing for the people who lay down their lives every single day for us, within reason? Waiting will only cost us more. What really makes the most sense?

Mr. Rice is trying to cry that the City is wanting to be irresponsible for the money on the building. I see it as the City looking out for the citizens. What Mr. Rice is hoping to rely on is misleading the public with his mis-information campagin.

The City wants to do an ad valorem so everyone pays for the building. The ad valorem will also pay for the building much quicker than a sales tax. It is projected that if the City were to seek a temporary sales tax that it could take up to 22 years to pay for the building. The city also looked at several options for the new building location.

They looked at the Downtown Community Center, but a lot of the citizens were not happy with that idea of tearing down the old Baptist church. So now the City had to resort to another plan. The City looked at several options before the current location. All of the options were going to have require the City to buy land and the tear down an exisiting building. Well, Mr. Rice sorry that you are not going to get your millions of dollars for the over priced property you wanted to sell to the city. The city also decided that they had land that they owned and was not being used as well as it needed to be.

I think people should focus on the issues at hand and not suspected motives by the opposition as to why they are opposing this measure.

The main issue is funding. I know it will “only” cost the homeowner an average of $3.66 per month in property taxes. But all of those “only” costs are adding up! When does the time come to say enough is enough….? The last time I heard “it will only cost you X-$ per month” was from a car salesman. There are alot of people these days who are making do with what they have. I think the City of Edmond should also make do, especially in these uncertain economic times. Anyway, it’s my understanding that Mr Rice owns a small office adjacent to the current police station, how much could that be worth?

I would like to give our Police anything and everything to fight crime in a more efficient manner. But this proposal seems like a golden egg to me. Is paying $380 a square foot being good stewards of the taxpayers money? There has to be a more efficient option. I know that the proponents of the new police station will point to the fact that an independent study recommended that a new facility be built. I can also pay a consulting firm a $75,000 fee, or whatever the cost is that the City usually pays for an “independent study”, to show that my family of six living in a my three bedroom home is going to result in crowded living conditions. But we make do with what we have and make the necessary adjustments to make our situation liveable.

There is another underlying issue that is indirectly related to this issue and your tax dollars. What is going to happen with the lawsuit that is on-going between the Police Officers and the City? (refer to http://www.oscn.net ) I don’t understand how the City believes they can win an issue where they are not paying Officers for time worked, which is being alledged by the Officers. Are we going to be stuck with another property tax increase for this multi million dollar blunder? The judgement will be paid by the citizens of Edmond with an increase in property taxes, which is the only way it can be paid. So far it doesn’t look good for the City, who is now in the process of appealing the initial judgement to a higher court. Are we are looking at another major expense?

The City needs to present some more cost effective options and let the voters consider how to spend their tax dollars. The option that is on the table right now gets at least one “NO” vote from me.

That the police department needs a new facility is a known fact. The issue is how it’s to be paid for and to its location. A prominent City councilman told me recently that in 20 years the center of Edmond would be located at Covell and I-35, which is not hard to believe seeing the development of that area in the last 10 years and the plans for the future. I find it strange that we would erect a 31 million dollar state of the art police facility in an area that has fallen stagnant with development. Besides I voted for a public safety tax some years ago and was left with the impression that a new police facility would be constructed from this new tax. The fire department spent millions from this public safety tax to construct a multi million dollar facility and training center and of all places Covell and I-35, where the city still owns plenty of land. Now we are to vote on another new tax during a time that our economy and financial institutions are failing. What about our future president whom ever that might be. What new financial burden will he saddle us with? What’s the rush, I think it’s a time to wait before jumping into a future dilemma before knowing the outcome.

This is mainly to respond to Bill. Are you really trying to compare your city elected officials with a car salesman? Auto salesmen sell something to get paid. The only person that I have read about that is profiting off this issue (for or against) is Mr. Rice.

I am also fairly sure that if Bill was going to add around 10% to the people in his house every year than he would have a different view on how big his house would be. I guess we could stop adding police officers to our city, but now lets talk about costs. We could save a few hundred dollars in property tax, but we would start to see a rise in crime that I personally would rather not have.

The current police station is way overcrowded. Try driving through the parking lot at 3pm. There are over 110 police officers that have to pack into a building that was designed for about 60% of that. As Steve mentioned above, we need to plan for the future. We will continue to grow as a city and we will continue to grow as a department. Do you want to buy a building that will need to be replaced within the first few years of its existence?

Bill, you have also got to understand that the $389/ square foot (if that is an accurate figure) covers much more than a building. There is a lot of technology that goes with that. It furnishes that building, provides strength and conditioning equipment, technical equipment, and other things that Edmond will benefit from as the police use it to watch for, prevent, and respond to crime.

You also spoke of the lawsuit that will potentially need funding from another tax issue, and then you also say that you would give the police what they need. The police need a place to expand if Edmond would like to continue to enjoy the per capita force they currently have. Residents are added every day, even in this economic tribulation. Builders are building houses, and people come to Edmond because its safe here.

I will say one more thing and then quit. Has anyone thought about how a sales tax would only allow the consumer to pay for the building while the property tax draws money from the big businesses? Wal Mart, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, and the other monster businesses own land in Edmond. I personally think they should have to pay for the protection they get from the police too.

Thanks for the comments Derick,

Let me clarify a few of the points:

No, I do not think the City leaders are car salesmen. However, the pitch they are using sure sounds similar to what I’ve heard when buying a car. And quite frankly I’m tired of being nickled and dimed. I think that the supporters of this issue are naive in thinking that if this measure is approved, construction will probably not start for another 3-5 years. Do the math on that based upon Steve’s 6% inflation per year, and then factor in an unknown dollar amount for cost over runs, which are undoubtedly going to happen. We could very easily have a $40+ million project when it is all said and done. Why not start at a cost amount that is more feasible?

City leaders are saying they want this project to serve the needs of the department and City for the next 50+ years. The location that has been selected will absolutely NOT accomplish this goal. The new City Complex at Covell and I-35 would be a much more strategic place to put the new station, and it would provide much better access for the Officers to respond to calls. Given the two locations, and then comparing the scenario of a response from either location, Covell and I-35 would be the winner in the long run. Covell and I-35 is virtually the geographic center of the City, and will become the hub in the next 20 years.

I am a big proponent of seeing the Officers that protect me and my family have everything they need to keep us safe. I am also very interested in seeing that the City spend my money wisely during the process of equipping the Officers. The possibility of being saddled with two huge tax burdens (police station and lawsuit) at the same time, when one or both could be resolved or revised, is not very appealing to me. We as taxpayers don’t have control over the lawsuit. The damages are going to be what they are, but the cost and location of the new police station can and should be revised.

Derick, its apparent to me that you drive throught the parking lot of the police station at 3pm everyday, which would indicate that you are a Police Officer. I thank you for your service to this community.

I think the plan is a fantastic idea, do people seriously think that the department has not put thought into this. The Men and Women that have put this plan together are also the people that have made Edmond one of the safest in the US not just the state. As Edmond continues to grow you must make investments to insure your way of life, I know that adding taxes to a time that we all need our money most may be difficult but in a time of economic struggles crimes rate may also go up, so what is the cost of your safety? how much are you willing to spend to insure you and your families safety. Now i could undestand your concern if it was for something that didnt affect everyone in the community but i think that public safety should not be a subject where we cut corners. I sure like to think that my life as well as my families life is worth more than a couple hundred dollars then again there are those that would rather profit than protect this citizens of Edmond. Just a little food for thought.

Let’s not cut any corners and add a couple of helicopters to the fleet. Edmond Police need helicopters. While we have an open checkbook, get some planes so we can catch speeders (in all reality that could be an option to get the new police station paid for). The Lake Arcadia patrol needs a Coast Guard Cutter, anything less would be cutting corners.

Here are the facts. They are public records, check them out.

I own property in downtown Edmond.
My property is not for sale.
I was born and raised in Edmond.
I served on the Edmond Parks and Recreation Board for over 7 years. I was on the Edmond City Council for 8 years.
My law practice has been in Downtown Edmond for 102 years.
I do not live in Edmond now but will soon have a home in Downtown Edmond.
My propery values would increase if it was built Downtown as would all downtown property owners.
Now the rest of the story:
$31,500,000 does not include inflation, overruns, road improvements or land cost. Park land is not free land.
Cost per square foot with land included will be over $400.00 per square foot.
Police Chief’s office is 295 square feet, the fitness center is 8,802 square feet, the facility will be 83,000 square feet, more or less, you do the math on what these will cost. It is a public record.
On Sept. 30 there were 40 children practicing on Barnett Field.
It is a park and is utilized. It cannot be replaced.
The City Council is not following its own master plans, check it out.
The City Council did not follow the same process you would have to follow to build anything in Edmond.
The City is the largest land owner in Downtown. There is land avaiable for this facility. Check it out.
The City never zoned Barnett Field for use as a Public Safety Center.
The City Planning Commission was not consulted.
No notice was provided to the neighbors as the City requires in all zoning matters.
A site plan was never presented for public input as the City requires of you and me.
A plan was in place for a Downtown Police Department at far less cost.
Even if the park is under utilized it is green space which cannot be replaced.
A facility on the park would increase the City’s carbon footprint.
We need to preserve parks and green space, not lose it.
Call the Edmond City Treasurer to know what your increase in property tax will be. There have been so many figures thrown around you should check it out for yourself.
A vibrant downtown makes a vibrant city.
Check out http://www.newurbanism.org
The 2005 Police Department Needs Assessment study says “…a downtown presence for the Police Department is felt to be highly desirable.”
The 1998 Downtown Master Plan says” The concentration of civic, institutional, and public uses in the Downtown…is a definite strength and valuable asset that the City should strive to preserve.”
The City’s own Urban Development Board recommends that the Public Safety Center be built downtown.
Our Police Department is one of the finest around and we do need a new public safety center.
Not a $32,000,000 one, not built on a City park, not with a property tax and not in these economic times.
These are the facts, check them out.
Please find out all the facts before you vote. When you do, you will vote no.

The rest of the square footage was asked by Mr. Rice. Well Mr. Rice again your not telling the whole story. The rest of the building will go to, 911 dispatch who currently work in a dungeon. Also anytime it rains ,thanks to poor past planing, it floods down there. That concerns me becuase all the electrical equipment, computers, and radios. They recently had a sewer line break which made conditions horrible in dispatch. Dispatch just can’t temporarily get up and move out they have to stay down there.

Also, there will be a new Emergency Operations Center. This is the area that when, God help us if it ever happens again, a large tornado were to destroy the City a Central Command post would be. Mr. Rice if you want to talk about look at the facts lets do. Lets look at the amount of arrest that have increased in the last ten years in Edmond. Lets look at how may people go through our jail during a month, a week, and a day. Yes a lot of the new facility will go to adding a larger jail.
We are running out of room for property. The larger the city grows the more property will have to be booked in. Officers do not have any private victim rooms to interview victims of crimes. Right now patrol officers have limited space to interview and write reports.

Would it be nice to have the new Police station in the current downtown area of Edmond, Yes. Again, it was looked at and tried but it was shot down. The study that Mr. Rice is refering to is correct, but what he is not mentioning is another study that was sent out by the Mayor and the Council . This study asked tax payers did they want to pay more for acquiring land to build the complex. Did the citizens want to pay more money to tear something down to rebuild. The citizens spoke and that is why we are in the current situation. Yes the city does own land, but a lot of that land is parking. Yes free parking for the citizens.

I encourage any citizen reading this to ask to have a tour of our current facilites. Not just the police department but the 911 center and the Emergency Operations Center. Watching it on television will not do it justice you must see it in person.

As was said in a previous post above. The city owes its officers millions of dollars because they are requiring them to work an extra 15minutes per day with no pay. The courts have already ruled that the money is owed to its officers yet the city files ANOTHER appeal to drag it out longer. Ive even heard that the officers were willing to work 10 hours shifts to fix that problem and the city won’t do it. They would rather keep ignoring the problem and hope that it goes away and keep robbing the cops of that 15 minutes every work day.
When they antie up and pay those officers all the money that they are owed than I might supprt a new station.

Does Edmond need a new safety center? Yes. Is consolidation of police, 911, and emergency operations a good idea? No doubt about it. Should police officers have a safe place to work? Definitely. Is there a need to get City employees and equipment out of the basement? Unquestionably. Would you sacrifice your neighborhood?

The location (Main and Kelly) proposed for the new safety center is in one of the older communities in Edmond – a quiet and peaceful place. You can hear children’s laughter and neighbors go out of their way to help each other. There is an elementary school, park, sports field, and several churches in the immediate area–much like your neighborhood.

Unlike most neighborhoods, Main and First Streets have no stop signs from Kelly to Fretz and Second Street has one stop sign. So a lot of folks use our neighborhood streets to bypass the heavy traffic on the main arteries. Many disregard the 25 mph posted speed limit. There are people who even go around buses while the illuminated stop sign is active. Some disregard street stop signs completely, endangering residents and themselves as well.

We believe building the new center at this location will increase traffic through our neighborhood with people going and coming from work and simply avoiding the already congested traffic flow on Kelly and Edmond Road. And, this situation will worsen when the large shopping complex and town homes are completed at the corner of Edmond Road and Kelly.

The City states, “Optimal egress and ingress as well as easy access to both east and west sides of the railroad tracks.” Have you ever tried to get across the tracks when trains are stopped? Or, travel East on Edmond Road? Just the other day, it took 20 minutes to travel from Fretz to Wal-Mart market on Second at 7:30 p.m. on a Thursday evening – that’s less than a mile. Most who live in the area don’t even try turning South on Kelly from Second, First, or Main Streets.

It was recently stated, “Research shows that when police facilities move to neighborhoods, crime reduces. Police departments do that intentionally in high crime areas as a strategy.” First, we did not know we lived in a high crime area. Secondly, the current facility is less than 1/2 mile away from our neighborhood. How is the proposed location anymore of a deterrent?

According to the City’s own projections, by the year 2011, there will be 3,567 jail bookings per year (297 per month). We believe Chitwood Park will become a waiting ground for an undesirable element of society. Is this acceptable for Edmond’s children in any neighborhood setting?

As for Barnett field, city official quote, “I am a life long Edmondite, I am very familiar with Barnett Field and it served it’s purpose at one time, I used to play organized ball there. It’s not being utilized any longer for anything other than practice.” While there are claims to be underutilized, it is still viable and is used frequently, providing space for thousands of team hours in sports activities every year. Did you know the area was recently upgraded with sidewalks and grass?

Are you aware that many of the downtown business owners want to keep a Safety Center in the downtown area? It just makes sense to keep municipal functions in one area. This facility is much better suited downtown in the planned municipal campus. Studies and plans have already been bought and paid for to make that happen.

What’s the cost to Edmond property owners? The proposition is a total of $31.5 million for 83,000 square feet. To pay for the center, the City proposes an ad valorem (property) tax of $3.66 per $100,000 accessed value per month for 10 years—2009 until 2019. As published in the Edmond Sun, “The median price of a home in Edmond is $234,000. The bond would increase taxes on a median-size home by $179 a year for 10 years.” Will voters be as willing to pass additional property taxes when our school system needs additional funding? Which, by the way, will occur the very next month.

Now that you know the rest of the story,
– vote no to protect our children (traffic hazard).
– vote no to save our park and sports field (green space).
– vote no to increased traffic (Kelly and Main).
– vote no to preserve our downtown area (keep it progressive).
– vote no to higher property taxes (school is priority).

There are better choices. Let’s do it right!

Vote NO to Proposition 1

I would like to know more about this lawsuit that has been brought in several of the postings. What is the financial impact on the taxpayers going to be? I would like to see our blog host look into that issue and report it in one of his columns. CNA brings up a good point also, the schools are going to be asking for more money through our property taxes. When does it end? When will our public entities be more responsible with our tax dollars, and plan for these needs based upon what they are able to pay for?

I have noticed a minor trend in the people that are trying to sway voters to vote against the new station. Most if not all people that talk about the problem include two things. The property tax is too expensive and they want the building in downtown. To be plainly honest, I do not really have an opinion where they build it, but many people are really debating on the downtown/somewhere else problem. I wonder how Mr. Rice plans to solve the problem. How do you build a building in downtown, not raise taxes, and spend less than it would cost to build the same structure just 1/2 mile away?

I am confused by “another no” and his/her idea of voting no because the City has not addressed the other lawsuit. The police are the people that are waiting on their due monies, the police are the ones that are having to cram into the over used and under sized building at 1st and Littler, and by that frame of mind the police have to loose the building idea because of a mistake that other people made to begin with. Kinda’ hard to swallow that one.

personally my tax would increase about $100 per year for 10 years. I spend more than $100 at Arby’s in a year. What does Mr. Rice propose as a solution to the property tax. Is a sales tax better? I can see that having people from Guthrie, OKC, and Deer Creek that buy goods in Edmond being a benefit, but personally I like that Wal Mart, Lowes, and other property owners would be paying large ammounts of the tax along with joe citizen.

Of course it is hard to swalllow. The city is the one that is pushing for the new police station. I have asked a couple of officers what they would get as a benefit from a new stataion. I was told all they care about is the jail. The officer’s that actually get out and patrol our streets will only benefit by having a new jail that will hold more jailees. They dont get any offices. There offices are their cars, most of which have 100,000 miles or more. I say until the city meets its obligation to pay the officer’s what it owes them then I will vote no. What is hard to swallow about all of this?

Another NO you are right as an officer my office is my car, but the jail is not the only thing that we will benifit from. As said by others in the blog, go by the station at 3pm (shift change) and look at the parking in the area. Go inside the station and look to see how many available computer’s are for officers. Look at the property area. Yes we work out of our car and that is our office, but we use the Station just as much as we use the patrol cars.

I have a hard time putting a new station as a #1 issue. Yes, it would be nice to have a new station with more computers and a bigger jail. The problem I have is that the people that will benefit the most from a new station “new offices” are the ones who haven’t supported the offiicers in the past. Patrol Officers have been asking to work 10 hour shifts for 5+ years. They always get some excuse why it can’t be done even though 90% of other department work 10 hour shifts. 10 hours shifts means working fewer days per week allowing more time with family. Cops have a higher divorce rate than the general public and most of the family issues are becuase of the working schedule.

Also, along with the fire department we have also been pushing for insurance for retirees, but the city doesn’t support it. We have people that should be retired, but they can’t becuase of insurance costs.
The city wants us to push to get the citizens to join us to support the station, but I say lets get the citizens to support us in 10 hours shifts and retireee insurance. If the city realy cares about the police department lets put people before buildings.

I absolutely agree with people before building! The people that will benefit the most also get all the NEW cars when they come in while the regular patrolman have to drive the junk high mileage cars.

I am another police officer who agrees with people before buildings and I agree both.

The only ones who will benefit from the new station are the ones already at the station. The police administration, including supervisors, all have new cars and they get more new cars while patrol officers (the officers who really answer calls for service) drive old Fords in excess of 100,000 miles. There are a couple of stars that are allowed to have new cars, but most have to deal with old cars. Officers are not allowed to come to the station. They are called in to change over shifts and if caught at the station, an officer is treated like a child without a hall pass.

I live in Edmond and I do not want my property taxes to go up to pay for the new station/center. However, I am not able to say that out loud at the station for fear of ridicule. We have been instructed to get everyone on board for this project. The only benefit I can see is for those who already have offices at the station. The patrol division could use a new jail, but that is better remedied by expanding the current one rather than starting a new one for 31 million that we all know will go up by the time it is finished.

After reading all these comments, I thought I would offer my two cents on the whole proposal. There are several here that have brought up legitimate concerns: 1.) the pending lawsuit with the city regarding the 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after. Right now we are currently required to be present (or face disciplinary action) 15 minutes prior to our shift starting. In order to be present at exactly 15 minutes prior, many officers start rolling in around 15 minutes prior to the start of line up. So in actuality all officers are there prior to the start of shift between 15 to 30 minutes prior. It has been suggested , but ignored, that this time honored practice of briefings could simply be eliminated. The city has spent millions of dollars on a 3G laptop computer system for our cars that has car to car communications and a GPS system pinpointing the location of the vehicles they are installed in. There is rarely anything that warrants meeting at the station that could not simply be put out over the laptops as the start and end of shifts. Officers could easily go active for duty from the field (from their homes) with the use of the laptops. In fact, lower tier supervisors actually began allowing officers to go active and inactive from the field but it was squashed by upper management. Why you might ask? Not really sure except it has been perceived as a control issue by the upper management. By allowing officers to go active and inactive from the field it would eliminate two problems: lack of parking spaces for vehicles at the station, and the required 15 minutes before and after shift that the city is requiring without reimbursing.
Concern 2: retiree health insurance. If the city can find money for this project, why can’t they find money for medical insurance for the retirees? This is a huge issue for a retiring police officer. In order for an officer to keep the same family insurance plan that they had prior to retiring, it costs that officer roughly 900.00/month. That is 900 dollars that is coming straight out of that officer’s retirement monies.
Concern 3: 8 on 6 off, and 4 on 3 off have been suggested to upper management. Despite the majority of the department wanting to do this, upper management has refused to go forward with it. Why would this be a benefit to the community and the city? It would provide an overlap of shifts. This in turn would eliminate the need to pay ( or not…currently ) officers the 15 min before and after their shifts.
Concern 4: Patrol will benefit from more jail space and private interview rooms. Without question, these two things are greatly needed. As far as patrol benefiting else where, I don’t see the actual officers benefiting. Officers are told to stay away from the police station unless there is official business. if an officer goes to the station because he wants to get out of his car for a few minutes (instead of drive around for the full 8.5 hour shift) that officer could face disciplinary action (or at least confronted and talked to about it.) Yes it like being a child having to duck the hall monitors. The “child” being the grown adult officer.
Concern 5: I feel that what “another one” wrote regarding ridicule is accurate. It is not uncommon for staff within the police department to be ridiculed, talked about, and labeled if their opinion differs from upper management. We were all told to promote this plan. Some within the department who have spoken their views or opinions questioning the plan have even been labeled as being “malcontents” It is ironic that everyone is discussing what is the best thing for the police department when no police officers that I am aware of were even consulted. It is possible that some officers were consulted, however, but I would almost guarantee that those that were are considered “yes men” by upper management. It is obvious that some officers have expressed their own opinions here on this forum. It should be clear that by doing so, those officers do risk ridicule, and negative effect to their careers if detected. I think that instead these comments and opinions being looked at as being malcontent, they should be looked at as real concerns and issues that everyone should have the right to express openly.

I am very dissapointed that our police chief has allowed the moral of our police officers to get so low that they don’t feel they can express their views publicly without being targeted by the upper management. I highly respect the men and women who go out on the streets day after day and keep our community safe. I truely feel that their opions about where money for public safety should be sent needs to be listened to. The men and women who sit in an office all day looking at stats and numbers should value the patrolmans opinions.

Supporter of people…….that was a great response. You hit it right on and I wish that more officers would leave comments. I know for a fact that if you speak to the average officer at the department he/she feels the same way.
Jennifer…you are right also. Moral is very low and it is hurting the people of Edmond. I know of 2 great Edmond officers that are leaving Edmond becuase of the things mentioned above. These 2 guys are some of the best officers Edmond has. They work hard and probaly make the more drug arrests than any other officers in the department. When Edmond can’t keep good officers it directly affects the public.

All the vote yes signs say “Vote Yes..Keep Edmond Safe”
The building does not affect the safety of Edmond as much as the officers do. When we don’t have the top pay/benefits/work schedule, then we won’t have the top officers. When the officers feel that their wants and needs doesn’t matter to the admin, then it affects the moral.
I have live in Edmond, and I know that the people of Edmond want the best, but the department is short changing them by short changing the officers.
As supporter mentioned, we need 10 hour shifts. WIth 10 hour shifts that would over lap, there would be times during the day when the city has 2x as many officers than usual. RIght now, during shift change there are very few offiicers on the street. The shift that has been working is in front of a computer trying to finish up paperwork. The shift that is coming to work is at the station waiting for supervisors approval instead of going strait to the streets to patrol.

A lot of peolple think they have a set time to do paperwork, but they don’t. They are suposed to write reports and be able to stop and take calls and then come back and finish reports. During a busy shift they don’t get their paperwork done and they are all at the station trying to get it done at the end of a shift. 10 hour shifts would fix that becuse the shift coming to work would take the calls while the shift about to leave could work on reports.
I agree that officers are not speaking up about this due to fear of trouble from the admin.

I am about sick and tired of the Police Administration hiding behind their ranks, pretending to be “good, upstanding” people, and then two facing their subordinates. Lets drop the shift issue, and the fact that we are working 30 minutes a day for free, and the fairness on how they treat one Officer versus another. Lets look at how they are trying to sell this proposal by saying this new BUILDING will keep us safe – Wth? Lets talk about how the new location will give us better access to the city with two underpasses- Wha…? Isn’t one side as good as the other? Lets discuss the fact that at a recent Police Staff Meeting, the administration was beside themselves – disappointed because the “malcontent” Officers who are not for this proposal will not come forward or sign their name to a blog post or newspaper ad. Talk about the fairness of the funding and only property owners being taxed to build the building – NOT FAIR. Lets stay on topic and stop airing the dirty laundry…… Except for the stuff I did earlier in this post, that’s it….. no more…. Unless you have something really good!

Officer says no- you sound like you know what is going on there, so you should also know that no “dirty laundry” has even been discussed. Not that there isn’t plenty of it.