City Budget Cost-Cutting Ideas

[ryan_mcgreal]

Okay, SSP, put on your thinking caps: I'm looking for practical ideas the city can use to cut its municipal budget while actually improving overall service.

The idea could involve delivering a service more efficiently or in a different way, or in a manner that is more socially or environmentally constructive, but you're not allowed to just stop doing something the city currently does.

Here's a boring idea from me to get things started: continue to collect recycling and green waste once a week, but start collecting garbage only once every two weeks. This accomplishes a few goals:

1. Reduce operating cost to collect garbage.
2. Spur higher level of waste diversion through passive incentive of people not wanting garbage to sit around for two weeks.
3. Less heavy-handed and authoritarian than enforcing bag limits.

This has proven to be successful in other cities at achieving very high diversion rates.

[oldcoote]

:previous:

no brainer imo

Our garbage has been reduced significantly since the green cart was introduced. We're at about two small kitchen bags a week for a family of 5.

[oldcoote]

How about adding to the responsibilities of the "parking enforcement officers"?

They could also serve as by-law enforcement officers, especially in terms of property maintenance. After all, they do walk the hood all day. :whip:

[crhayes]

This isn't a cost-cutting idea, but increase the number of speed traps (yeah it costs more money) but also increase safety and revenue through more tickets!

[adam]

As I understand, any new roads in new subdivisions are constructed at the cost of the developer and then once property taxes start being collected, become responsibility of the city immediately.

Lets change this to: the city assumes responsibility of the roads servicing the new subdivision after 5 years, at which point each road must pass a city certification. If the roads do not pass the certification, they must be repaired by the developer at that time after which responsibility is assumed by the city.

[crhayes]

Oh and this is one that I firmly believe in! Although, city workers would probably hate it (unless they had other work to do).

But...I think that the people who are on social assistance and are capable of working (but don't) should have to do some sort of community service, such as picking up garbage or other maintenance jobs. There are plenty of people on social assistance that just leech of the system (and I am not talking about single mothers, or people with major disabilities, just to set the record straight).

[SteelTown]

I rather see Merulla's idea of 4 days a week work rather than close City Hall.

[MsMe]

And what about a 5% pay decrease from the city hall employees. They already make a fairly descent wage. I bet most of them make wages we only dream about having.

[SteelTown]

^ Ain't gonna happen with a large union that could shut down the entire city.

[FairHamilton]

Instead of approving study after study, that cost tens, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. How about the councillors do some of their own research and homework into an idea/proposal, have a discussion to see other point of views, make a business decision and then vote.

http://thespec.com/article/468800

That was the view of members of the city's economic development and planning committee who voted yesterday to pay $150,000 to study city involvement in creating an arts space to "serve as an international example of creativity within the urban environment of the city."

[highwater]

Instead of approving study after study, that cost tens, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. How about the councillors do some of their own research and homework into an idea/proposal, have a discussion to see other point of views, make a business decision and then vote.

http://thespec.com/article/468800

I actually think this is some of the best news I've heard in a long time. Council is investing in the arts sector - a sector that is a proven economic engine. You really want the likes of Lloyd Ferguson and Dave Mitchell doing their own "research and homework" on the arts in this city? We need more Jeremy Freiburgers in this town, and I am glad to see council recognize the expertise of citizens like him, instead of arrogantly assuming they know what's best.

[FairHamilton]

I actually think this is some of the best news I've heard in a long time. Council is investing in the arts sector - a sector that is a proven economic engine. You really want the likes of Lloyd Ferguson and Dave Mitchell doing their own "research and homework" on the arts in this city? We need more Jeremy Freibergs in this town, and I am glad to see council recognize the expertise of citizens like him, instead of arrogantly assuming they know what's best.

I'm in agreement that investing in the arts is a good idea. And it's an investment in a study, not an investment in arts at this point.

I think I've always been a big booster of the local art scene on this board, and in my everyday life. My goal in suggesting the cancellation of the study was not to cancel the investment in arts, but to save the money from the study.

My point was to make decisions based on analysis of the facts on hand, not the commission of another study where we already know what's going to be suggested, i.e. Arts are a good investment.

Heck, I'll write the study for $75K. Or pay me $150K and I'll give $100K back directly to local arts groups. Actually, maybe that's an idea. To write a shadow study and see how closely it mirrors the actual one. That way we could evaluate if the city got any value for it's $150K.

If Lloyd and Dave can only make decisions based on studies and are unable or incapable to do proper research themselves, can we be sure they even read the results of the studies? If we have councillors who can't make decisions without consistently needing the backing of studies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars then perhaps we need different councillors. Besides they are only 2 on council and maybe when they are forced to work for answers the answers they come up with will be better?

I stand by my assertion a cost cutting move would be to limit the number of studies that are required. Run the city more like a business and make decisions based on the facts at hand.

Off the top of my head, with my preditions;
1. Arts Study - $150K, The result = Arts are a good investment
2. Lead Study in Lower City Children - $250K, The result = Lead in children under 6 is present in a greater % than expected and needs to be addressed. Zero % should be the goal. BTW, the $250K could have replaced the lead service pipes for approx. 170 - 200 lower income families with children under 6. Sorry to those children, their families and social service agencies.

[SteelTown]

They should limit the number of studies per year. It's such a waste of money. Like a study on reducing the transit fares when you know council won't support it. Another study on increasing property tax so the city can plow your sidewalk.

Instead let councillors do the homework and submit it to council for approval instead of getting staff or a private company to do the study.

[BrianE]

Here's the 2008 budget summary.

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E9EFA194-B905-4CAD-985D-DF88818D205B/0/2008TaxOperatingBudget.pdf

Finance and budgeting is very very very very very very complicated.

Page 11 breaks expenses down into broad categories. Top 4 Categories are:

1. Employee Related Expenses (50% of total budget)
2. Agencies and Support Payments
3. Contractual (Not sure what that is)
4. Capital Financing

Usualy when budget cuts need to be made, Capital Financing gets the biggest axe. Then new hirings are put off and possible layoffs if need be.

FairHamilton, note on page 11 that Consulting Fees are down almost 20% from 2007. So they have cut back significantly on useless studies. I think they could still do better in this department as well. It's an even bigger waste of money when council does not even follow the suggestions given by studies that were ordered by council.

I think the City should consider selling Maccassa and Wentworth Lodges. They could be set up like St. Peters Hospital, it is a successful buisness model as far as I can see. There's $10 Million right there.

[realcity]

as I understand... then entire budget is $1 billion -- give or take

80% of the budget is spent..... fixed costs, library, fire, police, road/sewer maintenance, wages etc. and the discretionary dollars, something like $50 million is all they claim to be able to cut from. That includes capital investment money. The City always chips away at the capital budget, so we end up with you get what you pay for capital projects.

They should attack the 80%. That would be a cut every year.

Start by auditing the large fixed costs.

Police Services: Unpopular I know, and for some reason we're afraid to mess with this sacred cow. They are City employees and the HPS asks for a 5-6% increase every year. with nothing to show. They claim the City has lower crime, but it has more to do with demographics then better policing.

Parks and Rec: They do a wonderful job and Burlington, Oakville even Mississauga can barely compare to the services available for the price. But I think it could be trimmed without effecting services. Not the buildings, but I would be looking at the administration, staff (not frontline) but 'management' staff, and their spending budgets. Stop spraying the fields for dandelions and clover (a waste of money). Allow road medians and large portions of open fields to grow indigenous plants. What's the point in planting 'sub tropical' plants in a temperate climate? Stop referring to plants that grow here naturally as 'weeds'.

Library: again our libraries are top shelf. But the admin side could probably be more accountable and find savings.

Roads: The contracts always go to Dufferin Construction and they run over budget and always miss deadlines. Demand more from the contracts, penalties and try to use a local firm that pays taxes directly back into the City.

Outsourcing: Wherever possible, use local companies. In RFP checklists should give top marks from a company that pays local taxes.

Don't just ask their own staff to try to be objective when finding cost-cutting. What senior manager is going to cut down his/her car allowance, trips expense, seminar/learning, bonus? Non. They'll cut down one or two part timers and report they made cuts. Use an outside (real objective) auditor and make sure they table a report that says the entire budget MUST be cut by a sustainable 6%. Non of this internal crap asking for top-down cuts, because the best savings can be found from the top.

Increase Revenue:
Absolutely this is possible. No more free rides for bylaw violations. Increase fines, no more "warnings", enforce anti-idling, mobile signs, more speed traps, 10X more Red Light Cameras (these have already been proved they pay for themselves in one year, after that they require very little maintenance and provide a good revenue stream and make roads safer and penalize only people whom deserve to be). Off-leash dogs, noise violators, polluters, littering, speeding, not complete stopping at stop signs (this alone would solve the problem) or not stopping red light (right turns).... everything fined... on the spot. It's not totalitarian, they passed the by-laws so enforce them or do away with it. It's that simple.

Stop sprawl immediately. If we have trouble paying for what we have now, how does making 'more' of what we can't pay for make sense?

Finally, demand that the fixed-cost departments provide good value for the money. Public companies are ALWAYS more wasteful then private. So operate more efficiently.

[astroblaster]

They should limit the number of studies per year. It's such a waste of money. Like a study on reducing the transit fares when you know council won't support it. Another study on increasing property tax so the city can plow your sidewalk.

Instead let councillors do the homework and submit it to council for approval instead of getting staff or a private company to do the study.

perhaps the city can commission a study to determine the usefulness of these studies.

[raisethehammer]

perhaps the city can commission a study to determine the usefulness of these studies.

I would happily do it for them. :tup:

[highwater]

I'm in agreement that investing in the arts is a good idea. And it's an investment in a study, not an investment in arts at this point.

I think I've always been a big booster of the local art scene on this board, and in my everyday life. My goal in suggesting the cancellation of the study was not to cancel the investment in arts, but to save the money from the study.

My point was to make decisions based on analysis of the facts on hand, not the commission of another study where we already know what's going to be suggested, i.e. Arts are a good investment.

Not to belabour this particular study, but this isn't just about some generic study about the arts being a good thing, it's a feasability study for a specific project that the city is considering partnering on, in other words, it's exactly the sort of "analysis of the facts on hand" that you would like to see decisions based on.

If Lloyd and Dave can only make decisions based on studies and are unable or incapable to do proper research themselves, can we be sure they even read the results of the studies? If we have councillors who can't make decisions without consistently needing the backing of studies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars then perhaps we need different councillors. Besides they are only 2 on council and maybe when they are forced to work for answers the answers they come up with will be better?

We would probably have better government if councillors listened to expert advice more often. So lets ensure that the studies that are done, aren't simply shelved.

I've had the privilege of working with my councillor on a couple of issues. I've got a pretty good sense of his schedule and workload. He often does do his own 'homework' and put together proposals, but it's just not realistic to expect councillors to do this consistently on every issue, without the help of staff reports and outside experts. Not if you also want your councillor to return your calls once in a while.

I stand by my assertion a cost cutting move would be to limit the number of studies that are required. Run the city more like a business and make decisions based on the facts at hand.

How do you get the facts at hand if you don't do a proper analysis? Businesses do research and draw up business plans before they make decisions. You may be right that some of the studies are unnecessary but I think it's an oversimplification, and unrealistic to think that councillors can make up for all the hard work and expertise that goes into these studies with a little bit of 'homework'.

Off the top of my head, with my preditions;
1. Arts Study - $150K, The result = Arts are a good investment

Again, I think this is a really unfair characterization of this particular study. Sorry. :)

[realcity]

the studies are a waste. They hand them out to their 'consulting' buddies. then do nothing with them, except release them to The Spec.

[FairHamilton]

How do you get the facts at hand if you don't do a proper analysis? Businesses do research and draw up business plans before they make decisions. You may be right that some of the studies are unnecessary but I think it's an oversimplification, and unrealistic to think that councillors can make up for all the hard work and expertise that goes into these studies with a little bit of 'homework'.

I agree, in business we write business plans all the time in business. But in my experience have never relied on outside consultants to do it for us. We create our own drawn from the information we can gather ourselves from various sources including suppliers, our co-workers, contacts and peers and the internet.

Google Search 1 = http://ruralarts.museum.msu.edu/resources/delaney_guide.pdf

From that document:
http://www.torpedofactory.org/
http://www.avalontheatre.com/
http://www.nwacartists.com/

The above coupled with a few calls/emails to contacts and peers in those areas, and I'm betting anyone will have a pretty good foundation of business plan. Not one as grandiose as one from a $150K study, but one that would closely mirror it's findings.


Again, I think this is a really unfair characterization of this particular study. Sorry. :)

You are obviously close this this particular proposal, and I'll agree that my statement was overly simplistic.

But, I'm betting we'll see at least some of the following finding from the $150K study.
- Art projects attact visitors from outside the area
- Provide an engine for local urban renewal
- Improve cultural heritage
- Adds to the areas social fabric
- Is a positive without negatives

Along with someways to go about implementing the project.

[markbarbera]

Realcity is bang-on about focusing on increasing revenue, particularly by enforcement of fines for bylaw violations. And how about toughening up on deadbeat taxpayers?

Another focus for revenue generation would be a more realistic development fee structure. The Spec had an article on this today:

Developers balk at fee hike plan
City looks at lightening taxpayers' load

November 19, 2008
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator

The city wants to double and triple some of its planning fees so developers, rather than taxpayers, pick up more of the tab.

"We're substantially behind," said Tim McCabe, general manager of planning and economic development. "(This is) really trying to have developers pay more and more of the city's costs."

A consultant found planning and engineering fees lag behind other municipalities. In Hamilton, a routine zoning application costs $2,870 -- nearly a quarter of the fees charged in Burlington, Brampton or Waterloo. The consultant suggested a hike to $5,585, still putting Hamilton 50 per cent below average.

Other fees, such as those for subdivision plans and condo conversions, would also see dramatic increases under the proposal. The fees are intended to recover the city's costs for processing applications.

Councillor Terry Whitehead agrees with the increases in principle, but worries the hike couldn't come at a worse time.

"I want to keep people employed and keep development moving forward," he said, suggesting a phase-in might be more appropriate.

Steve Spicer, president of the Hamilton-Halton Home Builders' Association, said the increases would be difficult to absorb when profit margins are already tight.

"We were shocked at the magnitude of the increases," he said.

But he added the association does agree "growth should pay its way."

A meeting with local developers is planned before council votes on the increases. The changes could bring in an extra $300,000 a year.

IMO all infrastructure costs related to a new development should be charged back directly to the developer. The developer fees don't even come close to covering the cost of the infrastructure. Local developers have been given an easy ride for far too long. I acknowledge the increased cost to the developers will be reflected in an increase in the purchase price of new construction, but local real estate is already priced significantly lower than than surrounding markets and can absorb the cost increase.

[BrianE]

It's never a good time to increase fees.

"You can't charge me more development fees now! The economy is just starting to heat up again!"

"You can't charge me more developement fee now! The economy is just starting to cool down again!"

Also, just because development fees are 4x higher over in Halton, don't assume that they are covering their costs either. From what I understand development charges don't cover the full cost of services provided by the Region of Halton or the Cites in Halton either.

Kind of gives you an idea of the free ride developoment companies get in this town.

[FairHamilton]

It's never a good time to increase fees.

"You can't charge me more development fees now! The economy is just starting to heat up again!"

"You can't charge me more developement fee now! The economy is just starting to cool down again!"

You forgot, "You can't charge me more development fees now! The market is going great, and increased fees will end the great times!"

[raisethehammer]

jack up the rates.
We've subsidized these guys for too long.

[ryan_mcgreal]

My point was to make decisions based on analysis of the facts on hand, not the commission of another study

This just isn't parsing for me. A study is an analysis of the facts at hand. It reminds me of the old saw (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp), "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

Without studying the issue, all we have to go on is what a gaggle of Councillors happen to think about it, which as we have seen is often riddled with bias, hasty assumptions and misinformation.

Granted, a study is only as good as a) the parameters and scope of the request and b) the actual work that went into preparing it, but there's simply no way around that.

For example, the recent staff recommendation to raise transit fares by 10 cents was based on the assumption that raising transit tax assessments or (gasp!) eliminating area rating is simply not an option. The alternative was: raise fares or reduce service. Given that false alternative, staff recommended raising fares. That study drew a logical conclusion from an unreasonable premise.

Actually, maybe that's an idea. To write a shadow study and see how closely it mirrors the actual one. That way we could evaluate if the city got any value for it's $150K.

That's a very interesting idea for citizens to pursue. It could either a) give some new consultants a chance to compete or b) give the city some leverage to negotiate better rates with existing consultants.

Essentially, we did this with Hamilton Light Rail, studying the issue and publishing reports which the city eventually duplicated - and came to pretty much the same conclusions. (Metrolinx, in turn, will have to conduct its own independent assessment on whether the city's studies were conducted fairly, objectively and accurately.)

There are differences, of course, between our studies and the city's:

1. We did it for free on our own time, while the city will have spent $500,000 by year's end (though that includes public outreach, etc.).

2. Our studies were conducted by amateurs and have no official standing, while the city studies were conducted by trained staff and are considered valid by senior staff and Council for decision-making purposes.

If Lloyd and Dave can only make decisions based on studies and are unable or incapable to do proper research themselves, can we be sure they even read the results of the studies?

That's also an endemic problem, but eliminating studies is definitely not the way to address the problem of Councillors not reading studies. That would just enable them to continue making decisions from ideology and parochialism rather than from evidence.

Also, the job of a Councillor is to not, arguably, to do independent research; and having seen the way many of them do research (remember Councillor Whitehead citing 60 year old studies to defend his opposition to two-way street conversion?), the thought of them making decisions based on their own research fills me with horror.

If anything, I'd love to see Council pass some kind of resolution that commits them to acting on studies that they request.

Here's a poignant example: in 2004, Council hired Peter Ormond to prepare a study on Hamilton's vulnerability to climate change (http://www.vision2020.hamilton.ca/NewVision2020pdf/Background-Study-Final.pdf) (PDF). The study identified risk areas and made several recommendations on how the city can a) reduce Hamilton's GHG production and b) protect its infrastructure. Since then, Council has utterly ignored the study and its recommendations in every decision it has made that falls under the scope of the study.

The same is true of Richard Gilbert's famous study Hamilton: The Electric City (http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/144F4643-22C1-4D97-9BBA-639D2D2FA70C/0/Apr28CM06012PeakOil.pdf) (PDF). Not only has Council totally ignored the study's recommendations, but staff have delayed preparing a follow-up report requested by Council for some two and a half years.

In fact, the framework Hamilton should use for its planning decisions is remarkably consistent (http://raisethehammer.org/blog/282) across a wide variety of studies, yet Council continues to fall back on status-quo thinking when it comes time to make decisions.

If we have councillors who can't make decisions without consistently needing the backing of studies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars then perhaps we need different councillors.

I disagree emphatically. The problem is that councillors make decisions without the backing of - or often in direct opposition to - those studies. Generally, the only studies Council listens to are studies that tell Council to do what they were planning to do already. There are notable exceptions, of course, to the list of which we must include, for example, Council's decision this summer to approve the Downtown Transportation Plan that they had previously rejected.

Again, the solution is not to eliminate the studies, but somehow to force Council to pay attention to the city's own analysis. That only happens when groups of citizens get organized and advocate (http://raisethehammer.org/article/792/).

Run the city more like a business and make decisions based on the facts at hand.

Businesses run studies. Successful businesses:

1. Study the right things;

2. Make business decisions based on the results of their studies;

3. Follow through on those business decisions; and

4. Change their business plans when the facts change.

[realcity]

Toll the Red Hill

[ryan_mcgreal]

Course Correction:

Ideas for generating revenue have merit, but for this discussion I'm really interested in ideas that reduce the expenditure side of the budget.

[adam]

"Councillor Terry Whitehead agrees with the increases in principle, but worries the hike couldn't come at a worse time."


Poor old Whitehead - outdated and always crying the blues. Everything that's good for the city is always so inconvenient for him.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Poor old Whitehead - outdated and always crying the blues. Everything that's good for the city is always so inconvenient for him.

In his defence, he is willing to change his mind when confronted with strong evidence.