Good thing they can tap that rainy day fund. /s

I agree the city used it's rainy day fund irresponsibly with the stadium infrastructure, but using it for a deficit is also a bad idea. Cuts and increased revenue are the only ways to balance a budget. Otherwise you're just kicking the can down the road.

It all goes back to Cranley buying his reelection with reckless raises to police & fire.  That was one of the central points of contention between he and Harry Black.  

10 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I agree the city used it's rainy day fund irresponsibly with the stadium infrastructure, but using it for a deficit is also a bad idea. Cuts and increased revenue are the only ways to balance a budget. Otherwise you're just kicking the can down the road.

Yeah, I totally agree. Just sayin'.

 

The "rainy day fund" would have been a good source for money to fix the Columbia Pkwy. landslide, though.

7 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

It all goes back to Cranley buying his reelection with reckless raises to police & fire.  That was one of the central points of contention between he and Harry Black.   

Don't forget issuing bonds to fill potholes.

Cranley posted his proposed budget.

 

Large PDF link here.

 

For those unfamiliar, this is a starting off point, and council is the one that approves a budget. So there may be a lot of horse trading going on.

 

Interesting things to note in the proposed budget:
 

• Over $900,000 increase in the police budget, which is already 1/3 of the city's operating expenses every year.
• Still not suggesting the increase in city property taxes to the citizen approved amount, and recommend collecting only $29M as always
• Huge increase to the "Economic Inclusion" line item (over $1,000,000) which will be mostly for black owned businesses
• Actually funding the Citizen Complaint Authority fully, which has not happened in the past.
• 25% cut to city planning department
• 10% reduction to buildings and inspections
• 70% cut to economic development
• I believe it completely removes funding for the streetcar operations, and puts the money that was set aside specifically for it to other causes. Which would definitely violate the terms to our federal grants. But now city council will likely have to fund it and Cranley can again say "I tried", despite putting the city at a huge risk for lawsuits from the federal government and other actors.
  
  
   

Protesters: Defund the Police!

 

City Administration: We heard you! Fund more Police!

Cranley will achieve his other nefarious goals by tit-for-tatting with restoration of streetcar operation.  

I just don't understand Cranley's long term plan. People seem to think he's going to run for governor in 2022. But Mike DeWine has unusually high bipartisan support based on his competent handling of the pandemic. Cranley is going to run against him as a "Democrat" whose biggest accomplishments are ... Increasing police funding while the of idea "defund the police" is gaining traction? Shutting down an already built transit system? Accelerating road repayment?

 

Who does he appeal to?

^Bob in Mason, Buzz the Overpaid Boomer, Karen

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

^Bob in Mason, Buzz the Overpaid Boomer, Karen

 

But those people are probably already planing to vote for DeWine.

Oh I see what you're saying. No those people aren't going to turn on DeWine. The Governors' race will be an ill-timed event for Cranley. Those people would vote for Cranley vs. an actual Democrat in the primary though if handed a Democrat ballot but that's all he'd get from them.

I've been comparing the budgets from approved 2016 and proposed 2021 (5 years apart):

Police have enjoyed a 14.94% increase in funding over that time. A $19,841,980 increase

Fire have enjoyed a 22.75% increase in funding. A $22,487,820 increase.

 

All non public safety has decreased by 5.19%. A $6,362,629 decrease.

There are a few caveats. The 2021 proposed budget shows $0 for the health department, but it's really just "transferring out" that money, and the city is still spending it. So I included it in my comparison.

Second, the Emergency Communications Center is added into the City Manager's budget. Does anyone know where that money was allocated before? Was it under another department? Is it a new expenditure?

Third, the Division of Purchasing is moving into the City Manager's budget away from Finance, which is why it is going down as much as it is.

 

A new District 5 headquarters is included in the capital improvements under the Smale Commission group. Cost, $3.5 million

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

I've been comparing the budgets from approved 2016 and proposed 2021 (5 years apart):

Police have enjoyed a 14.94% increase in funding over that time. A $19,841,980 increase

Fire have enjoyed a 22.75% increase in funding. A $22,487,820 increase.

 

All non public safety has decreased by 5.19%. A $6,362,629 decrease.

There are a few caveats. The 2021 proposed budget shows $0 for the health department, but it's really just "transferring out" that money, and the city is still spending it. So I included it in my comparison.

Second, the Emergency Communications Center is added into the City Manager's budget. Does anyone know where that money was allocated before? Was it under another department? Is it a new expenditure?

Third, the Division of Purchasing is moving into the City Manager's budget away from Finance, which is why it is going down as much as it is.

 

 

Who needs parks or a city planning dept when you have a police force rivaling a small army? 

If 2/3rds of your budget is police and fire. what the hell is the point in being incorporated anyways?

Given the fact that the city is facing a nearly $100 million budget deficit and is borrowing money to pay to keep the lights on at city hall, it's pretty absurd that any individual line item would get a funding increase, let alone an increase of over 20% or even over 100%

 

They should start with a clear 25% cut to everything and work backwards from there. Instead, Cincinnati is setting itself up for another Mahogany's situation.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that Laurie Quinliven lost her council seat because she dared to question police spending. 

A speaker at today's public hearing suggested that the city reduce police funding and use it to fund a "municipal marching band."

 

https://twitter.com/ChrisCinciBiz/status/1273711923616526338

1 minute ago, taestell said:

A speaker at today's public hearing suggested that the city reduce police funding and use it to fund a "municipal marching band."

 

https://twitter.com/ChrisCinciBiz/status/1273711923616526338

 

I have had this idea in the past - if I hit the $400 million Powerball - to set aside $4 million in annual income to fund an annual national/international 1-month tour by the Blue Wisp Big Band and a 110-piece marching band that would perform about twice each month.  Everyone would be well-paid.  

 

On 5/9/2019 at 3:34 PM, jmecklenborg said:

It all goes back to Cranley buying his reelection with reckless raises to police & fire.  That was one of the central points of contention between he and Harry Black.  

 

Cranley — once again — is advocating for huge raises for police officers. At a time when people are calling for a reduction in police funding. Truly beyond parody.

 

Twitter thread here.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

Cranley — once again — is advocating for huge raises for police officers. At a time when people are calling for a reduction in police funding. Truly beyond parody.

 

Twitter thread here.

 

Laure Quinliven lost reelection back in 2015 (I think) because she lost the FOP endorsement after questioning the police & fire budgets, however her angle was purely an economic one.  I remember her term "right-size" rather than "defund".  

 

 

 

 

This plan would call for a 5% raise next year, a 4% raise the following year, and a 3% raise the following year. So after those three raises, an officer would be making 12.5% more than they are making today (1×1.05×1.04×1.03=1.12476).

 

Of course Cranley's job is to propose a large raise and take the credit for it. Then he gets to pass it over to City Council for a vote, so if they negotiate it down, they look like the bad guys.

 

Last time this happened, the City Manager negotiated with the FOP and they agreed on a 3% raise. Then Cranley jumped in at the last minute and said, "we're going to make it 5%!" Anyone who pointed out that this was fiscally irresponsible was labeled as anti-cop.

49 minutes ago, taestell said:

This plan would call for a 5% raise next year, a 4% raise the following year, and a 3% raise the following year. So after those three raises, an officer would be making 12.5% more than they are making today (1×1.05×1.04×1.03=1.12476).

 

Of course Cranley's job is to propose a large raise and take the credit for it. Then he gets to pass it over to City Council for a vote, so if they negotiate it down, they look like the bad guys.

 

Last time this happened, the City Manager negotiated with the FOP and they agreed on a 3% raise. Then Cranley jumped in at the last minute and said, "we're going to make it 5%!" Anyone who pointed out that this was fiscally irresponsible was labeled as anti-cop.

 

So, for example, a cop making $70k this year will be making $79k after the raises. 

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

Laure Quinliven lost reelection back in 2015 (I think) because she lost the FOP endorsement after questioning the police & fire budgets, however her angle was purely an economic one.  I remember her term "right-size" rather than "defund".  

 

Greg Harris also did not win re-election after suggesting common sense reforms (mostly related to the fire department, IIRC) that would have saved the city a significant amount of money. For example he questioned the fire department's policy of sending both an ambulance and a fire engine in response to medical emergencies where there was no fire.

20 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Greg Harris also did not win re-election after suggesting common sense reforms (mostly related to the fire department, IIRC) that would have saved the city a significant amount of money. For example he questioned the fire department's policy of sending both an ambulance and a fire engine in response to medical emergencies where there was no fire.

Can we really say the reason why certain candidates did not win re-election in Cincinnati given how voting is done. I think typically, places 1-6 are generally popular across the board and carry with them a pretty broad base of support but places 7-12 pretty much swing wildly every year that it is pretty hard to place the blame on one issue as to why the candidste suffered. I get if PG fell from 1 - 10, you can likely trace that drop to specific positions alienating voters, but someone like Quinliven or Harris who genarally fell in that 7-12 range, a big part of their win and/or losses can be attributed to a coin flip in many cases. 

That's generally true, anything after the top 5 or so slots (which are usually filled by incumbents seeking re-election) are up in the air, but I think Jake is right about Quinlivan. She had a ton of name recognition from being a former TV news reporter and as a council member mainly focused on issues that were not divisive. As soon as she dared to suggest that the police and fire budgets should be cut (in a year when every other city department's budget was also being cut) she was labeled anti-cop and anti-public safety. She lost the endorsement of not just the police and fire unions, but also the entire AFL-CIO. In 2017 she lost the Council race, not just by a little...she got 5,000 fewer votes than 9th place Jeff Pastor.

9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 a big part of their win and/or losses can be attributed to a coin flip in many cases. 

 

Well the FOP and Democrat endorsements are pretty much necessary for any small-money candidate to win a seat.  In order to gain those endorsements you have to toe the party and FOP line.  I spoke with a former candidate last week who said those endorsements are currently good for 8,000 votes, which illustrates the separation between 15,000 and 20,000 votes in the last council cycle.  

From 2014 to 2022, the City of Cincinnati's general fund budget increased by $80m. 

 

98.8% of that increase went to Police and Fire.

 

This section from the budget document regarding FTEs has always stood out to me along a similar vein. I'm not sure there is ever a perfect ratio of public safety to population to other city staff but this is a tough tide to turn. 

Cincinnati income tax projected to be flat for next five years

 

Cincinnati’s earnings tax, which funds the most-vital city services, is expected to be basically flat for the next five years, according to a new forecast from the University of Cincinnati Economics Center.

 

City Council’s budget and finance committee heard from the center as a part of its fiscal year 2024 budget presentation. Council must pass a budget by June 30. The city’s fiscal year 2024 starts on July 1.

 

The center projects the city’s income tax revenue to rise from $391 million in 2023 to $399 million and stay flat through 2025, then fall to $398 million in 2026, $397 in 2027 and $396 million in 2025.

 

The income tax funds nearly $7 out of every $10 in the city's general fund, which pays for police, fire, public works and other major city services.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/06/05/cincinnati-income-tax-projection-flat.html

 

Ohio Supreme Court rules Blue Ash man who worked from home cannot get Cincinnati taxes back

 

Cities do not have to return income tax revenue they collected from non-residents at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.

 

The case, Schaad v. Alder, involves a Blue Ash resident, Josh Schaad, who normally would have worked inside the city of Cincinnati but worked from home during the pandemic. Schaad sued the city and its finance director, Karen Alder, asking to have the taxes he paid refunded.

Proposed Cincinnati budget adds millions for economic development: ‘I wasn’t elected to stand still’

By Chris Wetterich – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

May 24, 2024

Updated May 24, 2024 3:02pm EDT

 

Mayor Aftab Pureval and City Manager Sheryl Long’s budget plan will spend down the rest of the city’s share of pandemic-era rescue funds on one-time expenses after revenue projections came in much better than expected, eliminating a projected $26.4 million budget deficit.

 

Nearly $7.5 million of the remaining funds will go to economic development projects, including a longtime business community priority of acquiring underutilized or vacant property with an eye toward redeveloping it.

 

The city could have spent the money on its general operations and banked the savings for future years, in which the city projects a significant deficit, but Pureval defended the proposed investments Friday.

 

MORE

Not sure where to put this so I'll bring it up here...heard a small unproven rumor that Hughes HS might be moving/relocating out of their current building sometime in the next few years. Anybody heard anything about this?

Edited May 30, 20241 yr by tonyt3524

Cincinnati’s projected budget deficit declines, contrary to predictions

 

Just six weeks ago, the Cincinnati Futures Commission report predicted dire general fund budget deficits for the city totaling $438 million over the next nine fiscal years.

 

But on May 24, when the city’s budget was released, the deficits were markedly less – and manageable by historic standards – than previous city estimates, as well as those of the Futures Commission, a group of business, labor and civic leaders who studied and made a series of recommendations about the city’s fiscal future.

 

Government financial projections are hard to make too far out because of the changing nature of the economy, including whether there will be a recession; and expenses, such as whether labor contracts could set wages at a higher amount than budgeted.

 

Cincinnati’s budget has been running a structural deficit since fiscal year 2021, which began at the height of the pandemic on July 1, 2020. That means expenses consistently exceeded available revenues. Federal funds approved by Congress and both President Donald Trump and Joe Biden erased those deficits and prevented the city from having to permanently lay off a single employee.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/05/31/city-projected-budget-deficit-futures-commission.html