A good thread to start since I can't seem to find one about it.

 

Seriously, Kindles? A great "out of the box" idea, but a Kindle doesn't support HTML and DjVu files. You would be better off bringing in a laptop and reading your files -- which can be submitted via e-mail or some other method, than wasting money at a time when the city is projected to run a huge deficit. Most of the expected cost savings are never realized, and it is far more politically popular to say: "We will be charging for each print made." That puts money back into the city to paper and printer maintenance and supplies, and it makes the city look more fiscally responsible.

 

City council trims plan to buy Kindle e-readers

By Jane Prendergast, Cincinnati Enquirer, January 10, 2010

 

Cincinnati won't buy Kindle e-readers for all its elected officials after all - backlash over the new technology appears to have killed the idea a majority of council approved last month.

 

Among the budget cuts voted for by five members of council after contentious budget talks was $22,662 in annual savings found by canceling hundreds of copies of council documents. Buying the Kindle DXs for document reading would have cost $7,200 instead. Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls, who already has a Kindle, pitched the idea as a saver of money and copying time.

I've worked in several cities and have tried to work with city councils, planning commissions, and other review boards on this very matter and laptops are much trickier than what they appear.  As a result I can see the benefit of a more mobile device like a Kindle (which I'll admit I'm not real familiar with), but I've heard from others that there are other devices that many be better suited for such a job with the capabilities that you stated are lacking with Kindles.

 

But now the interesting thing is that while this idea might not have been perfect, it looked like a solid idea that would have saved money over time.  What has happened as a result of all this public grandstanding about said wasteful spending is that nothing will change and we will continue to print off hundreds of pages of documents every week for City Council members.  Yet another example where grandstanding gets you nowhere.

They are going to start charging for each page that is printed, so much of the wasteful spending will be curbed by that alone. At the University of Kentucky, I recall a time when we didn't charge for prints. By instituting a 10 cent per page fee for B&W and 25 cent per page fee for color, UK reduced its paper usage by over 60% in just three years (that was something they repeatedly toted as part of their 'green' campaign -- it was really a campaign to save finances when we were getting cuts from the state). Saying that you are going to charge per print is an easier way of saving money and building better PR than purchasing Kindles.

 

A Kindle would be useful if it was just B&W pages. But many of the reports that they get have some sort of graphic -- pie charts, for instance, that would render horribly on a Kindle. The idea is solid, but the price needs to fall and there needs to be colored variants (CES this year proved that both could happen within a year).

They are going to start charging for each page that is printed, so much of the wasteful spending will be curbed by that alone.

 

The charges are going to come out of the individual council member's office budgets, so they are just shifting the cost.  But having a fee in the first place will probably reduce number of print outs.

Which will hopefully entice them to cut back on printing, because instead of a blank check they were basically given, they now come from these individual budgets that need to be monitored.

Yeah, we will now be able to see who's abusing printing.  I know that every office I've ever worked at, printing was reserved for stuff that absolutely had to be printed.  If you could project documents at a meeting, you did that.  Laptops at a meeting are tricky, but I don't see how a Kindle would be better, although I've never used one and only have ever even seen a handful of people on the subway in NYC using them.  Most things that are printed where I've worked were for the reason of making notes and markups on them.  I don't think the Kindle lets you do that, unlike Acrobat which allows you to markup PDF's pretty easily. 

 

One office recorded every single print and charged each sheet of paper to the client, so you had to be extremely particular about what you printed.  You of course get the added benefit of not wasting paper and ink/toner (the real hidden waste, as paper is often recycled). 

The budget is 100s of pages and is revised often.  I would say that the majority of usage comes from the actual need for hard copies rather than City Council staff abuse...and once again, I'm basing this off of my professional experience working with city councils, planning commissions and other boards that require this documentation.  I just don't see a significant reduction of paper usage happening just because a nominal charge is introduced.

http://cincinnati.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-ghiz-end-toys-for-leis-program.html

heh, and the related article: http://bosssexycincy.blogspot.com/2010/01/you-cant-buy-kindle-for-winburn-and-you.html

$7,200/9 = $800 each???

The budget is 100s of pages and is revised often. I would say that the majority of usage comes from the actual need for hard copies rather than City Council staff abuse...and once again, I'm basing this off of my professional experience working with city councils, planning commissions and other boards that require this documentation. I just don't see a significant reduction of paper usage happening just because a nominal charge is introduced.

 

The private firms I've worked at have to turn a profit in order to continue operating, so they seem to operate on the day-to-day functions more efficiently.  Printing is one of those many small costs that add up and ultimately become a large chunk of a budget.  The city could take a few hints from private companies in order to be more efficient during this budget problem, one of which is keeping draft copies of things digital and printing hard copies selectively.  A few thousand a month of small measure like that could add up.

Could add up to a half block of streetcar track

I think your confusing your operating and capital budges ;)

The private firms I've worked at have to turn a profit in order to continue operating, so they seem to operate on the day-to-day functions more efficiently.  Printing is one of those many small costs that add up and ultimately become a large chunk of a budget.  The city could take a few hints from private companies in order to be more efficient during this budget problem, one of which is keeping draft copies of things digital and printing hard copies selectively.  A few thousand a month of small measure like that could add up.

 

The difference is that local government is subject to sunshine laws and is forced to have their meetings in public sessions.  Private companies can do what they want and don't have to conduct their business in public with public comment sessions where their board members might want to recall information so that they don't say something inaccurate while being on the record.

^----"Could build a half a block of streetcar track."

        "I think you're confusing your operating and capital budgets."

 

    Budgets are an accounting issue. Officially, the capital and opating budgets do mix, and they are each funded from different sources and are used for different things. In reality, there is a bit of mixing, depending on the person administering the budget. Is a new photocopier an operating or capital expense? How about a new roof on an existing building? Emergency infrastructure repairs? Many items can go either way depending on policy and the judgement of the administrator.

 

    Often, city employees will work around the rules to get the job done. The numbers that get to the accounting department have already been adjusted.

 

    If both budgets have healthy funding, there is no problem. If one budget is healthy and one is not, funding will be shifted from one to the other, officially or not. If both budgets are lacking, the city is in trouble.

 

  There is really only one budget, and in Cincinnati, that budget is in trouble. The City of Cincinnati is facing a shortage of funds this year, and is projecting an even bigger shortage next year. The operation budget is getting the attention because of job losses, but they don't have an extra $100 million for the streetcar laying around either.

 

    Sure, printing costs add up, but printing is a small amount of the budget. Cincinnati needs to make massive cuts to get in line.

 

 

This year Detroit has a $300 million shortfall, 6x's ours.  I am talking about the same Detroit that has three new casinos.   

The private firms I've worked at have to turn a profit in order to continue operating, so they seem to operate on the day-to-day functions more efficiently. Printing is one of those many small costs that add up and ultimately become a large chunk of a budget. The city could take a few hints from private companies in order to be more efficient during this budget problem, one of which is keeping draft copies of things digital and printing hard copies selectively. A few thousand a month of small measure like that could add up.

 

The difference is that local government is subject to sunshine laws and is forced to have their meetings in public sessions. Private companies can do what they want and don't have to conduct their business in public with public comment sessions where their board members might want to recall information so that they don't say something inaccurate while being on the record.

 

But having a projector with someone driving it, going to the exact page for whats being discussed so everyone can see would work in the same manner.  Or they could look things up on their laptops.  Granted it would only be a tiny percentage of the budget, and isn't worth much arguing.

 

Aside from saving money on prints, I just think it's easier as a personal preference.  I had to respond to thousands of RFI's and found it much easier to hit "control + F" in a PDF than flip through the 300 page contract to find the answer, but then again I've been raised on computers and always have had to pay for my own printing.  Maybe some people will make the move to digital now that each member will see exactly how much they're printing.  I don't think it could hurt.

 

Anyways, I think we should move on to something that is much more costly, like pens vs. pencils, or the type of toilet paper stocked in City Hall.

 

  As an analogy, the federal government spends 80% of it's budget on 4 things: defense, social security, medicare, and medicaid.

 

  Suppose that the decision is made to cut the budget by 25%. Easy targets are foreign aid, funding for the arts, Amtrak, the National Parks, and so on. However, if we were to cut 100% of everything except those 4 big things, you aren't going to get to 75%.

 

    Printing is a realitively small cost. The city has to lay off hundreds of people to balance the budget. Printing just isn't going to do it.

But having a projector with someone driving it, going to the exact page for whats being discussed so everyone can see would work in the same manner.  Or they could look things up on their laptops.  Granted it would only be a tiny percentage of the budget, and isn't worth much arguing.

 

This works in small meeting spaces with a small group, and even at that it isn't the best.  Physical copies are great for marking up changes, so a digital device that allows markups in such a manner would be ideal.  I don't know if that's a Kindle or what, but the long-term cost savings seem very clear even with the upfront cost.

This year Detroit has a $300 million shortfall, 6x's ours. I am talking about the same Detroit that has three new casinos.

 

it really isn't fair to compare Detroit to any other american city

^--- Why not? What's so special about Detroit?

 

People riot when The Tigers when the championship.

 

Police on segways. 

7k each.  I have no clue how many they got.

How much is a police bicycle? Maybe $500

Give me a break.

Exactly. Segways are nothing more than PR machines that are an incredible waste of money. I laughed my ass off when I saw the Mayor Mark Mallory re-election fliers that were being passed out. On it were cops ... on SEGWAYS. Not fit and trim cops, but ones that were overweight. Gee thanks, good way to say that our cops are lazy and can't walk or bike the beat.

 

A typical Trek Police Bike (like what they use here at Xavier) costs around $1,000.

http://bikereviews.com/mountain-bikes/trek/2010-trek/trek-police-bike-mountain-bike

^--- Why not? What's so special about Detroit?

 

 

Detroit has a huge footprint with a very small population.  That means that public services have to operate at a capacity for 2+ million people while only having a tax base of 800,000 or so.  Plus, much of that tax base is at a smaller income level than when it was at 2 million.  I'm not sure any city in this country faces the challenges of Detroit.

Police on segways. 

7k each.  I have no clue how many they got.

How much is a police bicycle? Maybe $500

Give me a break.

 

I don't know about every single Segway patrol the City has, but I know that the Segways used in Westwood were paid for by Target.

 

But it should also be noted that with public safety, public relations is part of the gig.  Having good public relations helps to stem childhood offenders and offset other potential trust problems that often occur.  This can be accomplished through foot, bicycle, or Segway patrols and I'm guessing each have their own unique impact.

Don't forget mounted patrols.  I would say that is a PR thing as well.

These costs are irrelevant when compared to salaries and retirements. 

 

    ...and entitlement social programs.

Ahhh yes, the good ol' grenade lob at "entitlement" programs.  How unrelated to the current discussion about public safety spending.

 

  Who said this thread was limited to public safety spending? I see the title says "Wasteful Spending at City Hall."

 

    One man's wasteful spending is another man's salary, retirement, or entitlement. It's easy to nitpick about polishing the handrails at city hall, buying computer equipment, minimizing paper or whatever, but those are the little numbers. The big numbers are salaries, retirement, and entitlements. The current system is unsustainable, and city government has to get these items under control if it is to remain viable.

Well, as noted in another thread, if the city doesn't get its shit together with its pensions, overspending and entitlements, the city will be diving deeper into the red. Capital projects such as the streetcar will surely not receive any city funding, and its contributions to Metro and elsewhere could decrease. It's a serious issue. The federal government can run deficits, but state and city governments cannot. And they can't hold their hands out and ask for bailouts.

Well, as noted in another thread, if the city doesn't get its sh!t together with its pensions, overspending and entitlements, the city will be diving deeper into the red. Capital projects such as the streetcar will surely not receive any city funding, and its contributions to Metro and elsewhere could decrease. It's a serious issue. The federal government can run deficits, but state and city governments cannot. And they can't hold their hands out and ask for bailouts.

 

Sherman, can capital funds legally be used to fund the pension? The pension is funded by the non-deparmental portion of the opertating budget.

 

And METRO's funds are earmarked by city charter. The 0.3% income tax can only be used for transit purposes funds METRO.

I believe you mean earnings tax. 

 

No, but capital funds can be curtailed. Remember that all of the funding comes from one big pot at the beginning, and if the city cannot keep itself out of the red, guess what will be cut? Besides entitlements (not to say all entitlements are bad), capital expenditures will be slashed. Happens to every major city. If it didn't, we'd be stuck without Medicare and Medicaid, but have the best transportation system available, if you want to look at it on the Federal level.

 

As for METRO, the city charter can always be modified. If there is vocal support for a modification of the city charter to reduce the earnings tax contribution -- say, a COAST-led effort, then that can be slashed and taxpayers would pay that much less. It was only voted upon 40 some years ago, and can always be modified or overturned.

 

If people see the city going into the red, they will demand that services be reduced, and they will demand that non-mandatory expenditures be stopped. That includes the streetcar, any sort of planning for light-rail, and other projects that require city contributions. It doesn't matter if it is from the operating budget or capital budget -- we are all aware of that, but broad-based cuts will need to be made to keep this city afloat. It's not doing well right now, and now Dusty just reported that sales tax figures for December were down 3.56% from last year, and for just the 2 months of 2010, they are down 4.22%.

 

Now, that crimps the stadium funding. Who will bail out the stadium fund? They skated by it this fiscal year, but it is another pressing matter that needs to be dealt with soon (and I'm being more broad on it here).

So Sherman, what exactly do you suggest be cut?  You keep saying "we're going to have to make cuts", so what are they, exactly?  Are you suggesting the metro's budget be slashed and half of our buses sold to pay the stadium fund?

 

 

 

 

 

What would you suggest? Or what would you suggest that would be politically correct?

 

We all know that the pensions is one of the single biggest drains on the taxpayers right now. I'm not debating that the city should not reascend on their promise to the hard-working officers, firefighters and the like, but at what point do you draw the line and say, "Look, this city is going bankrupt because of you?" And what can they do, sans political suicide, to curtail the runaway costs? I supposed that they envisioned the pensioners dying off at a much earlier age.

 

There is no real good solution. Cuts have to be made everywhere -- and not just reducing paper expenses or driving less. It is systemwide cuts that are deep. Maybe the city will use the Duke streetlighting money to plug a few holes. Or perhaps the city will withdraw its money from various service organizations. Maybe the Park System will stop picking up trash as frequently, or stop all together. Who knows. If the state has to make huge cuts, then this city can (and should) to get itself back into the black.

It really bugs me that "political suicide" is considered to be such a third rail. You have to do what you're elected to do. Do it!

 

If politicians took more risks, the political culture might become more friendly towards making bold, principled moves. Politicians playing it safe, trying to be everything to everyone, is what's gotten our country into such a sh!thole. You can't have all kinds of toys (medicare, medicaid, social security, never-ending wars, pensions, segways) without paying for them (taxes).

 

I wish council would do something like this: look at how far in the red we are. Make any easy, obvious tweaks to make things more cost-effective. Then make up for the rest, half in spending cuts and half in taxes. Cut every program, every salary, etc., across the board, by whatever percentage it takes to make up for half the shortfall. Then raise all taxes so that an equal amount is raised from each different type (sales, property, etc.) to make up for the other half of the shortfall.

 

I know it probably can't work so simply, but use that as a base and make it doable. Then make your case to the public as strongly and as frequently as you can: "Yes, it hurts. But in times of crisis, we all need to do our part in bearing the burden. I believe this is as objective and fair a way as possible to do it."

 

I know it won't happen, but one can dream. It will be interesting to see how it does happen, though. Unfortunately, I think this selling-off-property deal to make up for pension budget shortfall is a sample of the "solutions" that will be arrived at. While I can get behind doing this for a fraction of the burden, using this as the sole, or majority, solution is absurd. It just offsets the problems for another day.

I believe you mean earnings tax.

 

 

I did, thank you.

It really bugs me that "political suicide" is considered to be such a third rail. You have to do what you're elected to do. Do it!

 

If politicians took more risks, the political culture might become more friendly towards making bold, principled moves. Politicians playing it safe, trying to be everything to everyone, is what's gotten our country into such a sh!thole. You can't have all kinds of toys (medicare, medicaid, social security, never-ending wars, pensions, segways) without paying for them (taxes).

 

I wish council would do something like this: look at how far in the red we are. Make any easy, obvious tweaks to make things more cost-effective. Then make up for the rest, half in spending cuts and half in taxes. Cut every program, every salary, etc., across the board, by whatever percentage it takes to make up for half the shortfall. Then raise all taxes so that an equal amount is raised from each different type (sales, property, etc.) to make up for the other half of the shortfall.

 

Well, when the same politicians get reelected regardless of the policies they pursue, is it any wonder they don't take risks?

 

Also, in their defense, most people aren't big risk-takers (and that includes businessmen).  People like to think of themselves as such, but most folks play it safe.

 

A big risk I was thinking they might take is a structured Chapter 9 bankruptcy.  I'm not a lawyer, but the City couple boldly run away from old obligations in the pension by trying to do something like that.  Also the County could consider something like that to get out of the stadium leases.  Obviously I don't have the technical understanding about how to do it.  But if Sam Zell can borrow billions to by the Tribune Co. and force it into bankruptcy six months later and walk away smelling like roses, we should be able to figure something out.

But the Federal government can run deficits, but by law, city and state entities must balance their books each fiscal year. Vallejo, California declared Chapter 9 in 2008 and allowed it to freeze its debt while maintaining city services. Of course, the city fire and police were furious, because it meant that their overly-inflated salaries (much higher than state average) were on the line to be cut -- because in Chapter 9, I assume that many contracts could be better negotiated or voided? But Chapter 9 is a last resort, and shouldn't be done because it screws over your bondholders and investors.

 

Muni Threat: Cities Weigh Chapter 9

By Ianthe Jeanne Dugan and Kris Maher, Wall-Street Journal, Thursday, February 18, 2010

^Typically bondholders get precedence over pension obligations, equity holders (what I'm assuming you mean by investors) and current City workers salaries.  That's one of the things that was noticeably different about the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, was that the unions got paid before the bond-holders who held out.

If it weren't that way, bonds would have a lower rate of return, which means nobody would buy them, and municipalities wouldn't have a way to borrow large sums of money for capital projects.

 

Municipalities typically can borrow money for cheaper than can companies because no city or county's tax revenues drop from, say, $100 million to zero the next year whereas that can actually happen to a company. This is why Cincinnati used its credit to build the Southern Railroad. 

 

Municipalities typically can borrow money for cheaper than can companies because no city or county's tax revenues drop from, say, $100 million to zero the next year whereas that can actually happen to a company. This is why Cincinnati used its credit to build the Southern Railroad.

 

My understanding though was that there is a pending suit or threat of a suit by municipalities against the ratings agencies because they were being rated much more stringently than a lot of these companies who later went bankrupt.  Not sure what's happening with that.

 

What would you suggest? Or what would you suggest that would be politically correct?...

 

There is no real good solution. Cuts have to be made everywhere -- and not just reducing paper expenses or driving less. It is systemwide cuts that are deep. Maybe the city will use the Duke streetlighting money to plug a few holes. Or perhaps the city will withdraw its money from various service organizations. Maybe the Park System will stop picking up trash as frequently, or stop all together. Who knows. If the state has to make huge cuts, then this city can (and should) to get itself back into the black.

 

The good solution is 1) focus on income- where is the area for potential growth, and grow that market; and keep whatever sustainable revenue sources you have. 2) Develop a plan that addresses your liabilities. 3) Implement the plan so that it doesn't effect your income.  No program is inviolate.  But unfortunately there are too many decision-makers who would rather sell assets in a down market to cover shortfalls.

sounds a lot like the GO*Cincinnati plan

^ You can focus on new income, but you also need to cut spending.

 

Many private companies, when in the red, cut employee pay across the board.  It's a shame unions stand in the way of this practice in so many places.

Lets be clear here on something: the stadium debt is a Hamilton County issue NOT a City of Cincinnati issue.  While the two may be related, they are not directly connected.

 

Also I agree that more major cuts need to be made beyond the reduction of paper and gasoline usage, but those are cuts that also need to be made.  If you make a bunch of these smaller cuts that result in long-term year after year savings then you can reduce the need to make such extreme cuts elsewhere.

 

For Cincinnati, and all local governments, the OVERWHELMING majority of the budget is spent on public safety (police and fire).  While public safety is a primary function of government, many of these costs are way out of control because local politicians refuse to say no to police and fire departments for just about anything (additional equipment, personnel, or other resources).  The capital costs in public safety are astronomically higher than any other department (sans public works).

 

With that said, Cincinnati has been making cuts to virtually every department with the exception of public safety, and in fact, public safety has actually grown to a certain extent over recent years while the rest of government shrinks.

 

If you want to make major and substantive cuts to local government without resulting to dramatic measures like turning off streetlights or removing trash cans then you have to cut public safety spending.

Why is it always the programs that most people claiming to be fiscal conservatives refuse to have cut that are the most expensive? It truly blows my freaking mind.

^ You can focus on new income, but you also need to cut spending.

 

Many private companies, when in the red, cut employee pay across the board. It's a shame unions stand in the way of this practice in so many places.

 

I'm curious if you have any examples of companies that actually did this.  It's generally pretty hard for companies to cut wages as well, since an experienced employee is much more likely to leave for another company if he finds his pay slashed.

 

Also, the government deficits of this past year are a direct result of massive declines in tax revenue.  That's not a clear-cut case that the problem is on the income side of the ledger.

 

For Cincinnati, and all local governments, the OVERWHELMING majority of the budget is spent on public safety (police and fire). While public safety is a primary function of government, many of these costs are way out of control because local politicians refuse to say no to police and fire departments for just about anything (additional equipment, personnel, or other resources). The capital costs in public safety are astronomically higher than any other department (sans public works).

 

While it's certainly true that public safety is the largest area of local public spending, it seems to me that this is a symptom of the City's gradually decreasing share of regional, state and national income rather than its cause.  No cost-cutting measure is really going to address the cause unless it directly addresses or is neutral towards effects on income.  The City has older buildings, older infrastructure and a poorer population than many of its neighbors.  It's not surprise that the expenditure has increased while income hasn't.

 

^ You can focus on new income, but you also need to cut spending.

 

Many private companies, when in the red, cut employee pay across the board. It's a shame unions stand in the way of this practice in so many places.

 

I'm curious if you have any examples of companies that actually did this. It's generally pretty hard for companies to cut wages as well, since an experienced employee is much more likely to leave for another company if he finds his pay slashed.

 

I don't know of examples of a pay cut, but some companies have frozen salaries and eliminated bonuses.  That could be seen as a pay cut.  I do know a few people that have mandatory furloughs.