|
The Cincinnati Beacon
Dusty Rhodes to County Commissioners: Cost-Saving Ideas
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
 Photo courtesy of here.
As the argument over the need for a new jail hits a frenzied pitch, we will hear about how the matter impacts the County budget. Critics oppose spending almost a billion dollars of taxpayer money for a big jail, while Pepper and Portune say we lose for each month we don’t start construction. But what does the Hamilton County Auditor say about any of this? Here is a recent letter from Dusty Rhodes to the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners.
August 9, 2007
Board of Commissioners
Hamilton County
138 East Court Street, #603
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Honorable Board:
While it seems to be a bit early in the budget process to be hearing from elected officials rather than waiting for the administration’s recommended budget and then reacting to that, I appreciate the opportunity to participate at this point.
You have asked for my reaction to several lists of possible cost-saving ideas. I can respond to some of them, but not all.
The easiest way to cut costs is to stop doing the things you are not required to do. Development of the City of Cincinnati’s riverfront, providing free police service to selected areas and purchasing emergency sirens for selected communities immediately leap to mind.
There is nothing in Ohio law that requires counties to underwrite big city developer’s business risk. Taxpayers agreed to fund the two sports stadiums, being promised a property tax reduction and that our “investment” would “jump start” the development of the city’s riverfront. The only thing it appears to have “jump started” is demands for even more taxpayer’s money.
Additionally and perhaps related to the above issues, there is an incredible amount of money being spent by the County on outside lawyers. For example, over the last six years, one outside law firm – just one firm - has received $12,879, 783.34 in payments from Hamilton County.
As I have indicated previously, I favor eliminating the tuition reimbursement program. We train our employees in matters dealing with their jobs – period.
Someone has proposed a two percent (2%) non-personnel spending reduction across the board. We can probably handle that. I don’t understand the meaning of “the absorption of increase in non-personnel expenditures by county agencies” which, it is suggested, would save $3.1 million a year.
If represented staff receives a pay increase, the non-represented staff should as well. Otherwise, every possible county employee will become “represented” – and we can hire more lawyers to negotiate employment contracts and terms.
I also don’t understand a supposed $100,000 saving from “Managed Competition – Fleet Services”. And if you are going to impose vacancy rates, they should be the same for every agency.
Since taking office in 1991, I have reduced our staff by over 40 percent with a consistent program of cross-training and not automatically replacing employees who left. Had the County done the same, you would have about 3,000 employees today, instead of over 6,000. The current budget problems may well offer the opportunity to reverse the growth of County government and provide the best reason to disengage from feel-good projects which the County and taxpayers are not required to underwrite or support.
Sincerely,
Dusty Rhodes
|