City of Detroit Can Save $200 Million Per Year

Does the CofD wan to save $200 million per year of the $1.1 billion budget?

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Some quotes from the article

”Detroit is a big spender. The city's general fund revenue slipped to $1.1 billion last year from $1.4 billion in 2006, but its revenue per resident is $1,560, or 60 percent higher than Milwaukee, 37 percent higher than Atlanta, 29 percent higher than Cleveland and 15 percent higher than St. Louis. Only Pittsburgh's revenue per resident exceeds Detroit — by one dollar.”

“Detroit spends more per capita on police and fire protection than Milwaukee, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Atlanta, even as police and fire officials here labor with sagging morale exacerbated by dilapidated equipment. Police Department costs per officer total $146,603, compared to $90,462 for Milwaukee, $83,716 for Atlanta, $87,198 for Cleveland and less than $66,000 for St. Louis and Pittsburgh.”

“Detroit's fire department costs per firefighter total $158,824, Harris found, more than double Atlanta's costs of $73,096 per firefighter. Measured per capita, Detroit's $267 firefighter expense is 60 percent higher than Atlanta's $167 and 112 percent higher than Milwaukee's $126.”

“If Detroit's costs per capita for police and fire attained the average of the other five cities he studied, Harris estimates the city could save more than $200 million annually — roughly $149 million in savings for police and $55 million for fire.”

So the data says the CofD has a greater revenue source than our peer cities, but [[more importantly) the CofD is a MUCH bigger spender. It is worthwhile reading the entire article and it asks a few nagging questions.

Why are Detroit's expenses to provide police, fire and other municipal services substantially above market rate for roughly similar cities?

Why can't the city more efficiently manage its human and financial resources?

What premium services do residents receive for the premium spent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packman41

Does the CofD wan to save $200 million per year of the $1.1 billion budget?

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Some quotes from the article

”Detroit is a big spender. The city's general fund revenue slipped to $1.1 billion last year from $1.4 billion in 2006, but its revenue per resident is $1,560, or 60 percent higher than Milwaukee, 37 percent higher than Atlanta, 29 percent higher than Cleveland and 15 percent higher than St. Louis. Only Pittsburgh's revenue per resident exceeds Detroit — by one dollar.”

“Detroit spends more per capita on police and fire protection than Milwaukee, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Atlanta, even as police and fire officials here labor with sagging morale exacerbated by dilapidated equipment. Police Department costs per officer total $146,603, compared to $90,462 for Milwaukee, $83,716 for Atlanta, $87,198 for Cleveland and less than $66,000 for St. Louis and Pittsburgh.”

“Detroit's fire department costs per firefighter total $158,824, Harris found, more than double Atlanta's costs of $73,096 per firefighter. Measured per capita, Detroit's $267 firefighter expense is 60 percent higher than Atlanta's $167 and 112 percent higher than Milwaukee's $126.”

“If Detroit's costs per capita for police and fire attained the average of the other five cities he studied, Harris estimates the city could save more than $200 million annually — roughly $149 million in savings for police and $55 million for fire.”

So the data says the CofD has a greater revenue source than our peer cities, but [[more importantly) the CofD is a MUCH bigger spender. It is worthwhile reading the entire article and it asks a few nagging questions.

Why are Detroit's expenses to provide police, fire and other municipal services substantially above market rate for roughly similar cities?

Why can't the city more efficiently manage its human and financial resources?

What premium services do residents receive for the premium spent?

---

Once they finish the new $65 mil Police Station update, then you'll see some crime fighting results.

I don't have even an inkling where to begin to analyze public safety data.

But leading the country in homicides, auto theft and arson has to skew the cash spent on policemen and firefighters upwards.

I doubt that Detroit's pay is out of line with any of those other cities. Detroit obviously isn't spending much on equipment upkeep. So the obvious bubble in the budget is legacy costs [[i.e. retiree benefits). Atlanta being a newer and continually growing city obviously doesn't have this problem so it should probably be removed from the analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brizee

I don't have even an inkling where to begin to analyze public safety data.

But leading the country in homicides, auto theft and arson has to skew the cash spent on policemen and firefighters upwards.

---

One would think so, or @ least in theory. But this is Detroit, The City motto being "Sumus Incompetens", we spend twice as much, and get half the results. "Tax on....."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packman41

Does the CofD wan to save $200 million per year of the $1.1 billion budget?

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Some quotes from the article

”Detroit is a big spender. The city's general fund revenue slipped to $1.1 billion last year from $1.4 billion in 2006, but its revenue per resident is $1,560, or 60 percent higher than Milwaukee, 37 percent higher than Atlanta, 29 percent higher than Cleveland and 15 percent higher than St. Louis. Only Pittsburgh's revenue per resident exceeds Detroit — by one dollar.”

“Detroit spends more per capita on police and fire protection than Milwaukee, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Atlanta, even as police and fire officials here labor with sagging morale exacerbated by dilapidated equipment. Police Department costs per officer total $146,603, compared to $90,462 for Milwaukee, $83,716 for Atlanta, $87,198 for Cleveland and less than $66,000 for St. Louis and Pittsburgh.”

“Detroit's fire department costs per firefighter total $158,824, Harris found, more than double Atlanta's costs of $73,096 per firefighter. Measured per capita, Detroit's $267 firefighter expense is 60 percent higher than Atlanta's $167 and 112 percent higher than Milwaukee's $126.”

“If Detroit's costs per capita for police and fire attained the average of the other five cities he studied, Harris estimates the city could save more than $200 million annually — roughly $149 million in savings for police and $55 million for fire.”

So the data says the CofD has a greater revenue source than our peer cities, but [[more importantly) the CofD is a MUCH bigger spender. It is worthwhile reading the entire article and it asks a few nagging questions.

Why are Detroit's expenses to provide police, fire and other municipal services substantially above market rate for roughly similar cities?

Why can't the city more efficiently manage its human and financial resources?

What premium services do residents receive for the premium spent?

---

...hazard pay?

Seriously - let's take a deep look at legacy costs. I don't know where to start to compare against those other cities, but there has to be some discrepancies there.

Additionally, I wonder what Indianapolis' per cap spending was pre- and post- IMPD consolidation of services.

Quote:

---

Harris, the city's auditor general for 10 years and chief financial officer under interim Mayor Ken Cockrel Jr. ...

---

Another reason why Cockrel would have been a much better mayor than Bing.

I just looked at the 2013-2014 budget summary and for the police department, benefit costs exceed salaries, although only by a few percent. Over 90% of the department budget goes to those two items. I can not tell from that document how much of those benefit costs are legacy costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I doubt that Detroit's pay is out of line with any of those other cities. Detroit obviously isn't spending much on equipment upkeep. So the obvious bubble in the budget is legacy costs [[i.e. retiree benefits). Atlanta being a newer and continually growing city obviously doesn't have this problem so it should probably be removed from the analysis.

---

Detroit isn't doing maintenance perhaps, but they're spending. Look at the DSR thread. DSR's maintenance costs are through the roof. Double other major cities.

As to legacy costs... I agree that Atl and Indy can be tossed. But Milwaukee is very similar to Detroit. Wisconsin was the first state to allow public sector unionization in the 50's, I believe. They are very Union friendly in WI. There's a reason Scott Walker had to take on Unions to balance his budget. The problem can't be just legacy costs.

IMHO this can be tied to the shrinking city factor. The City's infrastructure, area, and residential unit equivalent [[I just made up a new term) is much higher than the 715,000 used to calculate per capita spending. What I mean is that, just because there are only 715,000 people left to pay for it, the PD has a much bigger job than a healthy city of 715,000. The more people move out, the more concentrated the criminal element becomes as they are the ones that stay behind and to a lesser extent move in/swell ranks in areas where homeowners move out.

Now, inefficiency and mismanagement are also a culprits, but I think the compairson with healthier cities is doing our PD and FD a disservice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cramerro

IMHO this can be tied to the shrinking city factor. The City's infrastructure, area, and residential unit equivalent [[I just made up a new term) is much higher than the 715,000 used to calculate per capita spending. What I mean is that, just because there are only 715,000 people left to pay for it, the PD has a much bigger job than a healthy city of 715,000. The more people move out, the more concentrated the criminal element becomes as they are the ones that stay behind and to a lesser extent move in/swell ranks in areas where homeowners move out.

Now, inefficiency and mismanagement are also a culprits, but I think the compairson with healthier cities is doing our PD and FD a disservice.

---

You make a very good point.

Some of the cost figures relate to cost per officer, not cost per resident. These figures by themselves don't say anything except that there's something that needs to be fixed. Detroit residents should not have to carry a burden twice that of other cities for the same service. Why that's the case is unknown. That it needs to be fixed is certain.

How are these peer comparisons? Only Indianapolis is comparable in population and it's a consolidated City/County government. All of these other cities are in the 300,000 - 400,000 population range. You might as well be comparing police costs in Ann Arbor to Novi and wondering why they aren't the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

How are these peer comparisons? Only Indianapolis is comparable in population and it's a consolidated City/County government. All of these other cities are in the 300,000 - 400,000 population range. You might as well be comparing police costs in Ann Arbor to Novi and wondering why they aren't the same.

---

Cost is one factor. The other factor that needs to be considered is outcomes and efficiency. I'd happily pay double for police if every murder and rape was solved, a significant number of property crimes were addresssed, followed up and solved.

My issue, beyond the cost, is that I suspect in addition to costs being disproportionately high I suspect our closure rates and actual arrests/service/follow up lag our peer cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

How are these peer comparisons? Only Indianapolis is comparable in population and it's a consolidated City/County government. All of these other cities are in the 300,000 - 400,000 population range. You might as well be comparing police costs in Ann Arbor to Novi and wondering why they aren't the same.

---

And what might you suggest as better peers? They seem pretty good to me.

An argument could be made for Gary and Camden in terms of social decay. Or perhaps Youngstown for disinvestment?

St. Louis and Milwaukee are both pretty good peers for today's Detroit is many ways.

You gotta use something, even if imperfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

And what might you suggest as better peers? They seem pretty good to me.

St. Louis and Milwaukee are both pretty good peers for today's Detroit is many ways.

---

The comparison cities seem appropriate to me too.

By the way, in an earlier post you mentioned that they only had costs per officer/fireman and not per capita. I would remind you take a look again at the complete article. It specifically said:

“Detroit spends more per capita on police and fire protection than Milwaukee, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Atlanta….”

And

“Harris's analysis attempts to render relative comparison by focusing on costs per capita, per resident and per officer.”

And

“…only Milwaukee fields fewer firefighters per capita [[1.60) than Detroit's 1.68, and only Atlanta carries fewer firefighters per square mile [[7.46) than Detroit's 8.56.

Meanwhile, Detroit takes in more revenue per capita

“[Detroit’s]…revenue per [capita] resident is $1,560, or 60 percent higher than Milwaukee, 37 percent higher than Atlanta, 29 percent higher than Cleveland and 15 percent higher than St. Louis. Only Pittsburgh's revenue per [capita] resident exceeds Detroit — by one dollar.”

And in conclusion

“If Detroit's costs per capita for police and fire attained the average of the other five cities he studied, Harris estimates the city could save more than $200 million annually….”

Folks, that is a lot of cheddar.

"St. Louis and Milwaukee are both pretty good peers for today's Detroit is many ways. "

If you think the level of service or needs are comparable between two cities, one of which is half the population of the other, nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you otherwise. But most people who study these things wouldn't agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

"St. Louis and Milwaukee are both pretty good peers for today's Detroit is many ways. "

If you think the level of service or needs are comparable between two cities, one of which is half the population of the other, nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you otherwise. But most people who study these things wouldn't agree with you.

---

No need to convince me. Am open to a better set of data from better peers. This 'per capita' data, combined with the City of Detroit document posted her about DDOT's per mile maintenance cost being almost triple that of its peers... tells me that Detroit's problems are imaginary and solely caused by our new dictator and his patrons.