Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum, left, looks at a plaster sculpture of a handshake presented to him Monday morning at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. Commissioners said the sculpture is meant to signify the commissioners’ friendship and bonding with the new mayor. The county commissioners, left to right, are Ron Peters, Karen Keith and John Smaligo. KEVIN CANFIELD/The Frontier
If good intentions count for anything, the city of Tulsa and Tulsa County are in for a smooth, productive relationship over the next four years.
Take Monday, for example. During their regular weekly meeting, commissioners presented new Mayor G.T. Bynum with a sculpture of a handshake — a gift intended to signify the county’s hope for better relationships between the city and county.
“In medieval Europe, kings and knights would grasp hands together with each other demonstrating that they did not conceal any weapons and intended no harm for the other,” said Commissioner Karen Keith. “In modern culture, the gesture has become a welcoming sign of friendship, hospitality, good faith, peace and trust.
“The handshake has become a symbol of bonding between people, and today, as a symbol of Tulsa County’s friendship and bonding with you, as the mayor of the city of Tulsa, we want to present you with this expression of our congratulations and best wishes for your success, because your success is success for all of us.”
Bynum, who was sworn in as the city’s 40th mayor a week ago, told commissioners he plans to make good on that promise.
“I feel like there was a mandate in our mayoral election to have a better working relationship between the city and the county, and I appreciate all the help you’ve given me in the transition,” he said.
Now comes the hard part. Bynum has said he expects to get a new jail deal with the county completed early in his administration. That would be a noteworthy accomplishment, and a sure sign that city-county relations are on the mend.
The city and county have been operating without a signed jail agreement since June 2014, and that issue – more than any other – strained relationships between county officials and former Mayor Dewey Bartlett.
It won’t be an easy problem to fix. For nearly a decade, the city and county have disagreed over whether the city should have to pay a direct fee to hold its inmates in the Tulsa Jail, and if so, how much the city should pay.
Today, the city pays the county $69 per inmate per day to hold its municipal inmates in the Tulsa Jail. That amounted to $809,163 in fiscal year 2016. County officials believe the city should be paying more.
This is where discussions have always broken down, and here’s why: County officials argue that the Tulsa Jail serves as the city of Tulsa’s municipal jail, and as such the city should have to pay the county for all the services — including booking and transportation — that the county provides, not simply a housing fee.
Complicating the issue is the definition of “municipal inmate.” As currently defined by the parties, a municipal inmate is a person held in the Tulsa Jail solely on municipal charges.
County officials have previously argued that the city should also be paying for inmates who are being held on mixed charges – meaning a municipal charge, and a state or federal charge.
They note that in surrounding communities with their own jails, an inmate facing mixed charges – a municipal charge and a state charge, for example — would be held in the local jail until such time as the municipal charge is adjudicated. At that point, the inmate is sent to the county jail, where he or she is held on the state charge, and the state picks up the tab.
Since the Tulsa Jail serves as the city of Tulsa’s municipal jail, county officials have argued the city should be paying for those jail services just as residents of Broken Arrow or Sand Springs pay to operate their jails.
Changing the definition of municipal inmate to include inmates held on mixed charges would cost the city a lot of money. According to figures provided by Tulsa County, the city of Tulsa’s annual bill to hold inmates in the jail would essentially double — from $1,022,511 to $2,041,497 — if the change in definition were made.
The figures are based on fiscal year 2014 and 2015 inmate counts and a per diem housing rate of $69 a day.
Above is a list of what the city of Tulsa has paid Tulsa County since 2009 to hold inmates in the Tulsa Jail, according to county records. The city began paying a direct fee to hold municipal inmates in the Tulsa Jail in 2009. The rate has changed several times since the fee was first applied. Graphic by Kassie McClung
And that’s just one possible cost estimate. Commissioner John Smaligo at one point suggested that the county would be within its rights to charge the city as much as $3.8 million to $6 million a year to house city inmates in the jail.
The city doesn’t have that kind of money lying around. Tulsa’s sales tax and use tax collections, which provide most of the city’s operating revenue, are 1 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, below budget estimates so far this fiscal year, according to the city.
Previous city administrations, meanwhile, have said the city already pays its fair share. Bartlett and former Mayor Kathy Taylor have each noted that as part of the county’s 1995 sales tax package that funded the construction and operation of a new jail, city officials were promised that Tulsans would not be asked to pay a daily inmate fee.
As it is, Tulsans pay the vast majority of the sales tax, Taylor and Bartlett have argued.
But Bynum said during his campaign for mayor that he had been convinced by county officials that the city should be paying more to house its inmates in the Tulsa Jail.
Where will the money come from? When would such a deal take effect? Would the City Council, which would have to approve any increase in jail fees, go along with what Bynum and the county come up with?
Those questions remain unanswered. Bynum said Monday that he and his staff are working to put a proposal together that both parties can live with. Which, it’s worth noting again, would be quite an accomplishment given the long and tumultuous history between the city and county on the issue.
