[Stardust]

Struggling financially nationally, the U.S. Postal Service is looking at possibly closing Northern Kentucky branches in Fort Thomas and Kenton County.

The agency, which lost $8 billion last year, said Tuesday it will study 3,653 local offices, branches and stations for possible closing, including the ones along Fort

Thomas Avenue and Decoursey Pike in southern Kenton County. An office in College Hill in Cincinnati was also listed.

• Follow NKY news on Twitter ... and on Facebook

Many of those might be replaced by village post offices in which postal services are offered in stores, libraries or government offices.

In May, the USPS announced plans to close its Spence Station in Newport and another location in Dayton, Ky.

“It’s no secret that the postal service is looking to change the way we do a lot of things,” Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said at a briefing. The USPS operates 31,871 retail outlets across the country, down from 38,000 a decade ago, but in recent years business has declined sharply as email has become more popular. Also, the recession resulted in a decline in advertising mail.

Most of the offices that face review are in rural areas and have low volumes of business. As many as 3,000 post offices have only two hours of business a day even though they are open longer, said USPS Vice President Dean Granholm.

Coming under review doesn’t necessarily mean an office will close. The post office announced in January it was reviewing 1,400 offices for closing. So far, 280 have been closed and 200 have finished the review process and will remain open.

Once an office is selected for a review, people served by that office will have 60 days to file their comments. If an office is to be closed, they will be able to appeal to the independent Postal Regulatory Commission.

Don Martin, Fort Thomas city administrator, said the city would hate to see its post office close because it is convenient for residents, especially the elderly.

“If it were to close, residents would have to drive to Newport to the nearest post office, which would be a great inconvenience,” Martin said.

Ryland Heights Mayor Bob Miller said there are two post offices located along Decoursey Pike in southern Kenton County.

He said one of the post offices is about seven miles south of Ryland Heights and the other is about 15 miles south of the city.

In addition to Ryland Heights residents, Miller said people who live in areas including Fairfview, Kenton Station, Morningview and other areas rely on the post offices.

Miller said the closure of either post office would be an inconvenience for the area.
“We’re in a rural area and those post offices are the only places where we have secure mail delivery to and from,” Miller said.

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/201...|FRONTPAGE

[Stardust]

The USPS is under major financial constraint. They lost over $8B, B as in BILLION, in 2010 and have hinted that they may run out of cash before the fiscal year ends. The USPS does not receive a penny from taxes. It is the ONLY self-supported government agency that is forced to make 100% of it's revenue. They are aggressively looking at cutting local post offices as well as going from 6 days of delivery to only five.

They were a company with close to 900K employees and now getting close to 500K. The number of pieces they deliver to each house have been cut in half over the last 10 years, yet the delivery points increase every year. The USPS mandated by Congress to provide Universal Service to every American, thus they have to provide a delivery service of some kind.

I realize that we are fully into the electronic age and there is no need for all types of mail, but the Mailing Industry is supported by over 13M employees across the US. If everything goes away, where do these jobs go? I know everyone's first comment will be a joke about not delivering bills, but really, has everyone disciplined themselves enough electronically to do 100% of your financial business in this way? Is Junk mail really just Junk mail? I know I'm happy to not get 10 pieces a week of "You have qualified for a new Credit Card" in my mailbox. But looking in my mail box each day, it sure is nice to get my Baseball Express or Eastbay Catalog occasionally instead of just bills.

Does anyone care if they close your local post office?

Does anyone care if they eliminate Saturday delivery?

Does anyone care if they stop home delivery and replace that with Cluster boxes located centrally?

[Hoot Gibson]

I am fully in favor of the federal government selling USPS and allowing private companies to use existing mailboxes. The jobs, at least the ones that are necessary to deliver the mail, will go to private companies that must turn a profit to remain in business.

Although the Postal Service does not rely on taxes, they have been free to increase the prices that they charge consumers, which is a luxury of operating in a monopoly. The laws need to be rewritten to either force the USPS to compete for business or privatize the organization.

[Stardust]

I am fully in favor of the federal government selling USPS and allowing private companies to use existing mailboxes. The jobs, at least the ones that are necessary to deliver the mail, will go to private companies that must turn a profit to remain in business.

Although the Postal Service does not rely on taxes, they have been free to increase the prices that they charge consumers, which is a luxury of operating in a monopoly. The laws need to be rewritten to either force the USPS to compete for business or privatize the organization.

Hoot, what has happened in other countries is that Universal service has been eliminated. You are 100% correct, selling off the USPS will put it into private hands that requires those companies to make a profit. Which means, companies will focus on business only in the major metropolitan's. That leaves the rural ares where no one will touch. Even UPS now no longer delivers into several locations across the country. UPS now uses the USPS to deliver to those areas, which is a perfect example of how it will work.

As for the USPS being able to freely increase prices, that is not correct. The USPS can only increase postage based on CPI-U. In 1996, Congress past Postal Reform that regulated the USPS pricing model to the CPI. Why has there not been postage increases in the last two years??? CPI was at or below zero in both instances.

So, if you take the monopoly away from the USPS but you continue to mandate Universal Service, you force them to compete with companies that will only delivery to Urban areas, leaving the USPS with the tremendously more costly Rural responsibilities.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, what has happened in other countries is that Universal service has been eliminated. You are 100% correct, selling off the USPS will put it into private hands that requires those companies to make a profit. Which means, companies will focus on business only in the major metropolitan's. That leaves the rural ares where no one will touch. Even UPS now no longer delivers into several locations across the country. UPS now uses the USPS to deliver to those areas, which is a perfect example of how it will work.

As for the USPS being able to freely increase prices, that is not correct. The USPS can only increase postage based on CPI-U. In 1996, Congress past Postal Reform that regulated the USPS pricing model to the CPI. Why has there not been postage increases in the last two years??? CPI was at or below zero in both instances.

So, if you take the monopoly away from the USPS but you continue to mandate Universal Service, you force them to compete with companies that will only delivery to Urban areas, leaving the USPS with the tremendously more costly Rural responsibilities.

In the past, when the USPS has run large deficits, Congress has stepped in to authorize rate increases. Whether they do that this time or not, the comfort of having Uncle Sam behind them has undoubtedly has contributed heavily to its current situation. In many parts of the country, the USPS has been nothing but a social laboratory where workers have been hired based on little more than skin color.

I don't think that it would be necessary or good business for a company to end universal service but customers who live in isolated areas need to pay a premium if they want mail delivered to their door. Otherwise, people who live on mountain tops can make a weekly or monthly trip to town to pick up their mail. The business model of charging a flat rate for postage, regardless of the delivery cost has never made any sense.

[Stardust]

^ Unless it was in the 1800's, I don't think Congress has ever had anything to do with authorizing rate increases. In 1970 the Postal Rate Commission was created to review rate increases. The PRC was renamed to the Postal Regulatory Commission, but the premise has stated the same.

As for the rates being based on where you live would be extremely difficult to create. It's not the recipient, but the sender that would have to pay the higher fee. Why should the sender have to pay a premium to send the mailpiece?

The USPS is wanting to compete as a business today. It's why postage is only .44 cents. Since the are a non-profit entity, then it is fair to say that postage should be increased to cover cost. If it's a dollar, then it's a dollar. But that model has to be robust enough to change to a higher cost quickly. To increase postage expense will drive even more mail from the system. Today, Congress requires certain types of communications to be given to citizens. Unless the citizen opts for an electronic medium, then it must be in hardcopy form. Should Congress also dictate that citizens must be in a position to accept required mailings be accepted in electronic fashion?

[Hoot Gibson]

^ Unless it was in the 1800's, I don't think Congress has ever had anything to do with authorizing rate increases. In 1970 the Postal Rate Commission was created to review rate increases. The PRC was renamed to the Postal Regulatory Commission, but the premise has stated the same.

As for the rates being based on where you live would be extremely difficult to create. It's not the recipient, but the sender that would have to pay the higher fee. Why should the sender have to pay a premium to send the mailpiece?

The USPS is wanting to compete as a business today. It's why postage is only .44 cents. Since the are a non-profit entity, then it is fair to say that postage should be increased to cover cost. If it's a dollar, then it's a dollar. But that model has to be robust enough to change to a higher cost quickly. To increase postage expense will drive even more mail from the system. Today, Congress requires certain types of communications to be given to citizens. Unless the citizen opts for an electronic medium, then it must be in hardcopy form. Should Congress also dictate that citizens must be in a position to accept required mailings be accepted in electronic fashion?

I stand corrected, but the Postal Regulatory Commission is part of the federal government and politicians are not going to for the USPS to toe the line on costs. Everything that the federal government has its hand in costs more than it should.

You ask why the sender of a piece of mail should pay more money based on the destination. My answer is because I should not have to pay more than it costs to send a letter to a recipient a few blocks away. My example of a person living on a mountain top was not a good one. Whoever delivers the mail to such a person should have the right to refuse because of the cost involved.

Obviously, the recipient should not pay for receiving unsolicited mail but they could pay a premium to have items that are delivered to their home at their request.

The amount of mail delivered by the USPS will continue to decline, as it should. There is no reason to ignore the efficiency and costs that can be saved through electronic delivery. I agree with you that laws would need to be changed in many cases to allow certain types of mail to be delivered by an organization other that the USPS, but those laws should have been changed years ago.

I sympathize with the postal workers who would lose their jobs through privatization but competition works and right now, the USPS has no competition in some key areas and it needs some.

[Hoot Gibson]

This may be the next "crisis" facing Congress when they return from their recess. Will Congress bailout the USPS or put it out of its misery? My bet is that taxpayers need to get out their wallets again. Life under the Democrat governance consists of one crisis after another. The problems of our post offices should have been addressed years ago with something more than a bandaid.

[INDENT]

USPS posts $3.1 billion loss in Q3, warns of default

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Postal Service posted a net loss of $3.1 billion in its third quarter and warned again it would default on payments to the federal government if Congress did not step in.

Total mail volume for the quarter that ended June 30 fell to 39.8 billion pieces, a 2.6 percent drop from the same period a year earlier, as consumers turn to email and pay bills online.

The mail carrier, which does not get taxpayer funds, has struggled to overhaul its business as mail volumes fall. It has said personnel costs weigh heavily and is facing a massive retiree health benefit prepayment next month.

"We are experiencing a severe cash crisis and are unable to continue to maintain the aggressive prepayment schedule," Joseph Corbett, the agency's chief financial officer, said in a statement.

"Without changes in the law, the Postal Service will be unable to make the $5.5 billion mandated prepayment due in September."

[/INDENT]

[TheRealVille]

Online bill pay is what's killing them. I very seldom use the USPS, because I pay my bills online. I'd say most people do the same.

[Hoot Gibson]

Online bill pay is what's killing them. I very seldom use the USPS, because I pay my bills online. I'd say most people do the same.

I agree to some extent, but my experience is that large post offices are often very overstaffed and from what I understand, their pension plans are very generous compared to private carriers performing the same type of work. There is nothing more frustrating than to be standing at the end of a long line while you can see two or three people behind the counter who are apparently on a break.

Like you, I rarely use the USPS for anything. I cannot even remember the last time that I sent anything that required a stamp.

[Stardust]

Guy's, it's not online Bill pay that is killing the USPS. Consumer mail play very little in the revenue stream for the USPS. It's First Class business Mail that has been the life blood of the USPS. That is the volume that is declining at a rapid rate by either electronic suppression or business practice changes. While First Class for years subsidized classes of mail that could not support themselves, that cash cow is gone. Advertising mail is back on the rise, but it is being mailed at the Standard Class rate, which is close to half that of Fist Class. This volume shift is where 50% of the problem lies.

The other 50% is the mandatory pre-funding of Health and Retirement that the USPS is held to. The USPS must completely pre-fund the entire cost of all of theire employees, even the 18 year-old that starts off the street and is expected to work the next 50 years. The USPS has to completely fund that individuals retirement and H&W. Sounds like a great idea, but your companies do not do that nor does any other branch of the Federal Government. The GAO (Governement Accounting Office) is who did the math and determined how much the USPS has to pay annually into the fund. Last year, an audit was performed and deemed that the USPS has OVERPAYED what is needed by $75B, yes BILLION dollars. So, there is a fund sitting out there with $75B sitting in it that is not needed! This is not the first time this has happened. In 2000, it was discovered that the USPS had overfunded by $35B and the GAO had to go back to the drawing board to recalculate the fund amount. Obviously, this is the same accounting office that determines what our schools should be funded as well. Looks like they have things backwards.

Anyhow, that money can only be reallocated back to the USPS by Congress. It took until 2004 before Congress acted on behalf of the USPS the last time. Congress has not touched the most recent finding, and with our current economy in the shape that it is in, Congress has more worries than the reallocation of funding back to the USPS for it's current overpayment. If it takes until 2014 for congress to act, the USPS will be defunct!

[Stardust]

^ Throw in the fact that the USPS has no ability to just shut down a retail facility if it is losing money. What other business would do that? There are 3700 retail offices that it costs more to run the utilities than it brings in revenue. That's not even counting the employee costs for those offices. Yet, when the USPS proposes closure, either 70 year-old Aunt Minnie or 40 year-old Virgil, bithces to their congressman that they can't walk the 2 blocks to the post office to collect their Social Security or Welfare check, they would have to catch the bus for 8 blocks to the next USPS office and that is just too hard on them to do! Thus, that congressman votes "NO"!

[Hoot Gibson]

^You are making some great arguments in favor of our federal government running only what they absolutely must run. The USPS will never be competitive with Fed Ex and UPS as long as they are hamstrung by federal red tape and not operated on a for-profit basis.

[Stardust]

Agreed - but the government does not run the USPS, only restricts it

[Hoot Gibson]

Agreed - but the government does not run the USPS, only restricts it

It is pretty much the same thing and maybe even worse. The USPS is bleeding cash while it waits for Congress to return from recess and bail it out. Any infusion of federal funds comes with lots of strings attached. Federal agencies and heavily regulated quasi-government entities like the USPS can never be as agile and efficient as private corporations like UPS. It's the same reason that private schools are, on average, able to deliver a much better education for a lower price per pupil than government schools.