Cost Savings for City of Greensboro

The proposed 2008-09 Greensboro city budget is under consideration: a new budget must be approved by City Council for adoption by June 30. The Council has named its priorities for a new budget and does not want a tax increase. The city manager has responded with a proposed budget that maintains the current .635 tax rate, but in the process much needed services are not being addressed.

It is apparent from reading the draft budget document that the city manager is robbing Peter to pay Paul to make the budget work to the Council's wishes. Over the past five years total city expenditures have grown 34% while revenues from all sources have grown only 18%. The state treasurer's office reports that Greensboro's average available general fund balance has declined steadily over the past five years, while the statewide average has increased slightly and other cities that compare to Greensboro have held steady. Over the same period our population growth has remained dormant. Clearly these are not the kind of trends we want to see.

The manager's budget message points to the diversion of gasoline tax proceeds (Powell Bill) from road resurfacing projects to other eligible costs in the General Fund. Street resurfacing is falling years behind schedule, and will only get worse. Unless something changes, we can look forward to the prospect of potholes as a way of life in the future. Bridge maintenance and repair can only be accomplished on a case-by-case basis when an emergency arises. While most bridges are in relatively good shape, ongoing maintenance is required to keep them that way. Simply put, we need to sustain our streets investment through ongoing maintenance and repair; otherwise, the costs will multiply and be passed to the next generation. We should be adding more to annual street capital projects, not taking it away. Even with new bond financing, we would still be years behind in our paving and maintenance schedules.

It is time to begin weighing needs and wants. In a bountiful economic situation new programs are approved and funding is available for a range of new projects; some more want than need. We must continue to focus on delivery of core municipal services - public safety, waste collection, transportation, and parks and recreational services - at a cost that matches taxpayer ability and willingness to pay. We talk a lot about loss of jobs in the Greensboro economy, but we also need to realize that much of the corporate ownership and managerial expertise is no longer with us: instead it resides somewhere in China or India. Instead of talking about a no-tax-increase budget, maybe we need to talk about actual tax decrease budgeting and consider shredding program expenditures that are wanted but not necessary to a functioning city government. Until things turn around that would be fair to a lot of hard working taxpayers who are seeing their standard of living slip away to rising fuel and food prices.

There are a number of ways the city can cut costs. The following are some cost saving ideas for the city to consider:

Transportation:
Create on-time, direct non-stop GTA service from outlying collection points to specific downtown stops to handle commuting traffic. Consider the construction of parking decks or lots at the outlying collection locations. The objective: to reduce twice-a-day traffic loads to and from the inner city; conserve street and bridge infrastructure; and help drivers realize sizeable fuel cost savings.

Repave major intersections such as Market & Holden with concrete rather than asphalt. This should promote better wear in the long-term and eliminate the necessity of frequent asphalt repaving. The ride will be less bumpy than is now the case. It should be noted that concrete paving on Lee Street performed well for many years, as has the concrete surface at the Alamance Church Road intersection with U. S. 421.

Competitive contracting:
When the city seeks outside contract bids for city work, require the affected city departments to submit their own competitive bid to do the work, using city resources. If the department lacks training or equipment for a particular job, invest in an investigation of work efficiencies to determine whether a properly staffed and equipped city department can do certain jobs at equal quality but less cost than outside contractors. Check with other cities with a similar policy for their experience. It’s hard to believe a lot of work presently contracted to outsiders can not be done more economically by city staff, with equally good results.

Work day:
Departments using a large number of vehicles – water, sewer, transportation and recreation – should consider shifting to four (4) ten (10) hour work days. The fuel savings could be sizeable.

Traffic flow:
Convert the Lawndale, Westover Terrace, Battleground interchange into a giant roundabout. This has the potential of smoothing traffic flow and should lead to less stopping and starting, and less gasoline consumption. A possible side benefit might be to allow Plaza and Lawndale Shopping Centers a chance to expand parking spaces outward, if the owners had the opportunity (an incentive for some long-time small business citizens).

Eliminate stop lights that fall in the wants rather than needs category. This will promote smoother traffic flow. Make sure all stop lights from streets bearing light traffic are set with no more than four (4) second green. Uninterrupted traffic flow on main arteries should be a top priority of city traffic engineering.

Landfill:
Revisit the White Street Landfill issue. The proven savings are far too much to ignore to keep it closed to household collections. Cash payment options for residents might overcome objections to reopening the landfill to household trash. In addition to high cost, the transfer option exposes the city to the risk of closure at the out-of-county site. (Note: this issue should be addressed by the next City Council if the current one does not).

Coliseum:
Make the booking of a greater number of events a top priority for the coliseum staff. As it now stands (2007 fiscal year), coliseum parking revenue exceeds its direct events revenue. Further, the coliseum’s bottom line loss (excluding bond repayment) is greater than its top line direct event revenue. We pay 1.6 million dollars annually to park at the coliseum and another 2 million dollars to subsidize the loss. Let’s stop glossing over the fact the coliseum loses money. It is a great asset for the city, but only if it shows better financial results than has been the case for the past fifteen years. Its cumulative operating losses since the early nineties approach $30 million dollars.

Internal Audit:
Require all audits conducted by the city internal audit department to be posted on the city website upon completion and approval by the director of audit. Accountability by departments and agencies using city money will be improved and beyond outside interference and public awareness will be enhanced.