Privatizing city of cincinnati parking

[natininja]

Well, I guess parking ticket revenue went to the general fund. But the situation is not as you described it.

Though I am noticing the money is now going to the capital fund. The pension system may be part of the operating budget. I'm not sure. Either way, the plan frees up revenue which was previously tied down by state law, and that shouldn't be overlooked.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by natininja

That is not true, because parking revenue is restricted by state law. It couldn't be used to pay for pensions. So, in reality, if the $3mil+ annual revenue prediction is correct, the city gained $3mil annually which could theoretically be added to the pension fund.

First of all, I don't see the difference between the City collecting the parking revenue directly and being paid for the leasing out of the parking revenue, as it is still parking revenue. Further, whatever the parking revenue is permitted to be spent on by state law reduces revenue requirements from other sources such as the general fund freeing it up to be applied to the pension fund.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by goyguy

One of the realities Cincinnati has yet to wake up to is that city parking is insanely, INSANELY, cheap there. Here in Beantown it's far from unheard of to drop $20 for Red Sox game parking in an open off-street lot. You've kissed goodbye to ten bucks the instant your vehicle enters a garage at the airport. Downtown lots and "structures," as well as those in eastern Cambridge and other areas with high workplace concentrations, pitch $8/hour as if it's the deal of a lifetime. (And yes, nearly every city and town in eastern Massachusetts has its parking revenues, tickets, etc handled by one private contractor or another.) We also have the Mass. Turnpike and several bridges that have to have coins/bills kept at the ready for.
If this looming parking "nightmare" (which is far from that) compels a few hundred people to think the unthinkable - support and maybe even USE mass transit - then so much the better. Perhaps all of a sudden the streetcar isn't such a bad idea after all.

Population and salaries are also much higher in Boston. I doubt Cincinnati could withstand such high rates. it's all relative in the end.

Originally Posted by natininja

Hopefully, three years from now there is a noticeably larger tax base, and there is a noticeably smaller city payroll (through attrition). Add in a new governor who restores local funds, and the budget for 2016 might not look so bad.

One can hope.

Doubt a different governor is going to restore the LGF without raising taxes and raising taxes isn't going to sit well with the electorate.

Originally Posted by kjbrill

The above appears the idea to reduce the pension fund shortfall went out the window somewhere. While it was never expected to solve the pension fund problem, I thought it would at least put a sizable dent in it. If it is going to do nothing for the pension fund then that anchor is still lurking out there, but the City has negotiated away part of its long term income to be able to address that or other expenses. Anybody else think this could be a little short-sighted?

Yes, it appears quite myopic which is the crux of my post in opposition to selling the parking revenue asset.

Originally Posted by natininja

That is not true, because parking revenue is restricted by state law. It couldn't be used to pay for pensions. So, in reality, if the $3mil+ annual revenue prediction is correct, the city gained $3mil annually which could theoretically be added to the pension fund.

There is some merit to this but as you know money is fungible. If the city is getting parking revenue in one bucket that frees up another bucket to be applied to things like the underfunded pension.

By the way, does anyone know if the City has plans to terminate access to the pension for new employees and switch to a defined contribution plan? In the very least why not participate in the Ohio PERS and shift the burden to the state level?