If you are like me and you look at the city’s Connected Communities process; the 2023 “Green Cincinnati Plan;” as well as, the “Financial Freedom Blueprint,” you must be wondering how much it cost in staff time and resources to produce these elaborate government plans. They obviously cost a lot. For example, there was a report in the Columbus Dispatch where someone reported that the Columbus version of Connected Communities, caled “Zone-In,” cost $3 million, so far. So, I submitted a records request seeking cost information for Connected Communities and the Green Cincinnati Plan.

The city responded with their standard legalistic denial but I got the impression that they truly did not know what I was talking about.

It is hard to believe that the city manager is making decisions without a process for capturing the costs of various projects.  I wound up sending a letter to the city attempting to explain the value of a cost accounting system.

The letter also notified them that based on the response to my records request, I was going to report that the city does not know how much Connected Communities and the Green Cincinnati Plan cost the taxpayers. Believe me, it was a lot of money.

Zinser cost accounting letter to council 6.4.25

The Regional Economic Development Initiative (REDI) is a “leveraged support” partner. It is one of 40 or so external organizations that receives funding from the city. For each of the the past several years, REDI has received $250,000 from the city.

In 2025, REDI underwent a contract compliance audit by the city’s Internal Audit Manager.  REDI flunked the audit.

The report does not use this terminology but according to the audit report, REDI was essentially unauditable. For example, one of its findings was, “The payroll journals contain insufficient information to determine whether contractual terms are upheld.” That is no small finding. Approximately 90% of the city’s grant is used for payroll. In other words. the auditor could not audit the use of 90% of the grant funds based on the payroll journals.

I also thought the facts indicated a possible contract mischarging, which means that Cincinnati may have been getting billed for labor on projects other than Cincinnati projects. The audit also found a lack of supporting documentation for appx. $14,000 in expenses over a two year period.

My letter to the city council recommended that the city withhold funding for REDI until the audit findings were corrected; clawback $14,000 in unsupported claims that had been paid; and commission an outside audit, at REDI’s expense, to look into the issue of mischarging and the $14,000 shortage. None of that happened.

In the 2026/2027 budget, REDI received $245000 from the city. Some might view that as a breach of fiduciary obligations by the city council.

Letter to city council about the city’s audit of the Regional Economic Development lnitiative 5.28.25

REDI Cincinnati Contract Compliance Audit

Transparency Agenda for Cincinnati

You can never be too demanding when it comes to government transparency. It is just the nature of the beast for the government to keep as much information “non-public” (i.e., secret) as possible. Cincinnati seems  to be particularly bad but I do not have a frame of reference at this point except the federal government.

The Ohio Open Records law is very different from the federal Freedom of Information Act. And the city’s practices for administering the open records law is more substandard than anything I experienced in the federal government. So, reforming the way the city handles records requests is at the top of the “Transparency Agenda.”

At the outset of the budget process, when members of city council submitted their individual “Budget Recommendations,” I decided to submit my own budget recommendation.  At the April 7, 2025 meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee, I claimed my “2 minutes” of the public comment period to read my transparency agenda into the record. I considered it a budget recomemendation because any government reform requires money.

I followed up by sending the agenda to the mayor and city council via email. I did not receive a response from anyone.

I also discuss the transparency agenda in Episode 20 of the podcast.

The Hyde Park Square issue has the potential to change the way the city does business when it comes to engaging the neighborhoods on proposed zoning ordinances. Hours and hours of public input with the planning staff conferences; the Planning Commission; and finally with the city council, were essentailly ignored by the majority of the council.  If you attended the planning commission meeting, it definitely seemed that the fix was in. Three of the members of the commission didn’t even show up for the meeting.

Fortunately, Vice-mayor  Kearney and Councilmember Johnson listened and heard the citizen voices that came, not just from Hyde Park residents, but also neighborhoods from across the city. So, at least two members had respect for the voices of the neighborhood residents.

The reason the issue has the potential to change how the city does business is because after council approved the zoning change, 18,000 Cincinnati voters, more than twice the number of signatures required, signed a petition to put the issue on the ballot for the November 2025 election.  The voters of  Cincinnati will decide. If Cincinnati voters overturn the zone change, it will send the strongest message possible to future city councils that voices of the neighborhoods require respect.

Zinser Letter re Hyde Park Square 3.8.25