Tight Times, Tough Choices -- St. Dominic's School (2/12/09)

In small working groups, citizens reviewed list of budget cuts and revenue options the PPCE constructed from the city’s budget scenarios.  Working first as individuals, then as a group, citizens prioritized ways to close the budget gap by placing them into four "buckets" — Low-Hanging Fruit, No Ways No Hows, Shared Pain, and Gut Wrenchers. “Low-Hanging Fruit” means those options that are immediate "winners", that generate a quick consensus. “No Ways No Hows” represent the immediate "losers", or those choices citizens believe to be off the table. “The Shared Pain” bucket contains those options that are unpleasant and unpopular, but that they feel would be acceptable. “Gut Wrenchers” are those choices that no one wants to make but they recognize as what needs to be done to help the city as a whole.

Below you will find links to each group's moderator report, which includes the four buckets and the discussion that led citizens to make those choices, as well as memorable quotes or creative ideas that came up during the process.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6

Groups 7-11 and M

Group 1

Moderators: Hope, Rebecca Subar and Ed Battle

Group Overview:

Group I had 16 members, evenly divided between women and men, with Anna Wallace as the city representative. The mood of the group was mixed, and people expressed concurrently: 1) Wishing to voice their opinions and to make choices on how to close the budget gap. 2) A willingness to go along with the process as outlined by moderators. 3) Skepticism and caution about the process. Base on comments, one could infer the group was composed of city retirees, current city employees, a teacher, community volunteers, interested citizens and other retirees. No dissenting work sheets were filed, but the moderators forgot to ask for them.

Low Hanging Fruit: (75 percent or more of the group voted for these choices.)

  • Amusement - 4 points
  • Parking - 2 points
  • Wage/Commuter - 5 points
  • Eagles - 2 points
  • Fleet Vehicles - 6 points

No Ways, No Hows: (75 percent or more of the group voted for these choices.)

  • Police
  • Fire
  • Library
  • Public Health

Shared Pain: (50 percent or more of the group voted for this choice).

  • Prison - 21 points

Gut Wrenchers:

  • Group didn't get this far. We ran out of time.
Total points: 40

The group didn't get to Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals.

Memorable comments:
  • "Budget workshops are a sham." "This is BS." "These numbers aren't real." "How can we chose if we can't trust what's in front of us." (These references are to missing choices and some point values that appear to have no factual basis.)
  • Tax abatements need to be added to the list of choices that could be used to close the budget gap.
  • Ending tax abatements is a strongly felt sentiment held by a majority of the group.
  • Amusement - increase ticket price by 7 percent. All amusement should go up to $2 per ticket. Consider raising amusement fees for sports only.
  • Tax parking lots more by applying a land value tax.
  • Raise parking lot rates or fees. Definitely include multi-leveled garages.
  • Eagles -A majority of the group strongly stressed that the city should push to (collect) the $8 million plus Eagles debt in court or drop it (the choice) from the budget.
  • "Emergency medics should be contracted out."
  • Cut down on sending fire trucks in advance of fire rescue.
  • Computers should be put in recreation centers. Kids are there, and there's lots of space.
  • "Not OK to re-hire officials who have already left (city government)," e.g. Anna Verna.
  • DROP - It makes no sense to give input on DROP given that the city finance director said that the $7 million was from 2002, and we (the city) don't know yet the dollar savings. A is study is in the works.
  • Look at DROP and evaluate it based on the original concept ... it was for police and fire fighters.
  • Chemistry department needs car.
  • No mural art on buildings until the budget gap is closed.
  • "City Council spending too much."
  • "Unions shouldn't hold the city hostage."
  • "Arts and façade cleaning ... where're the dollars coming from?"
  • "Appreciate reductions, but no changes to police, fire, CLIP (Community Life Improvement Program)."
  • "Put Participant Post-Forum Survey form on the Web."
Observations of moderators:

More time was needed. It took time for the group to get into the rhythm of the work. Many of the participants wanted to express their views and did so. Moderators needed to go slow given the heart-felt seriousness of the evening's deliberations.

top

Group 2

Moderators: Kiki Bolender, Benjamin Cromie, and Peter Lafferty

City Staff: Patrick Morgan (throughout) with visits from Everett Gillson, Donald Schwarz, and Steve Agostini.

Group Overview:

Group 2 started with 16 participants, plus moderators and city staff. Three of the initial 16 citizens left before the session had concluded. The group included 10 male and six female participants. In terms of ethnicity, there were 15 Caucasians and one African American. About half of the group appeared to be more than 40 years of age.

Low Hanging Fruit: (In the order they were selected.)

  • No. 1. Administrative: Cut budget by 20 percent - 5 points
    • One citizen suggested changing the points from 5 to 6 to preserve revenue collection and procurement, but that idea did not receive enough votes to pass.
    • What do consultants (particularly DHS consultants) do for the city and how much do they cost?
  • No. 16. Vehicle Fleet: Reduce budget by 20 percent - 6 points
    • The city should cut back significantly on take-home cars.
    • This should affect administrative staff, including high-ranking fire officials, but not patrol cars or fire trucks.
    • Would leasing or PhillyCarShare/ZipCar be a better deal than owning so many vehicles?
  • No. 17. Amusement: Raise the Amusement Tax from 5 percent to 6 percent - 2 points
    • Required very little discussion.
  • No. 20. Eagles: Require the Eagles to pay back rent on Veterans Stadium - 2 points
    • Also required little discussion.
    • There may be money lost in the court battle, but it is worth it.
    • The city is not making money from concessions anymore. Can this be renegotiated?
  • No. 9. Law: Reduce budget by 30 percent - 2 points
    • The lone dissenter suggested that the city could be vulnerable to law suits and could lose money in the long run.
  • No. 26. Wage Tax/Commuter: Increase 0.1 percent to 3.5097 percent - 5 points
  • No. 25. Wage Tax/Resident: Increase 0.1 percent to 4.0396 percent - 12 points
    • Was added very suddenly to the vote for 26. Wage Tax/Commuter and both passed in a single vote with a large majority.
    • One member of the group advocated for progressive taxation.

The following ideas were mentioned, but not chosen, either because they did not receive enough votes, or they were not in the menu of options and therefore, had no point value.

  • City Council:
    • Should reduce its budget more.
    • Not included because they have a separate budget.
  • Tax Abatement:
    • Wealthy developers in Center City should pay their fair share.

  • Drop Program:
    • Was met initially with general agreement.
    • One person questioned whether the city actually saves any money if they cut the program.
  • City Comptroller:
    • Use ideas for cost saving.

Renegotiate:

  • The city should renegotiate insurance payments for ambulances.

No Way, No How:

  • No. 5. Fire: Both cuts (10 percent and 20 percent) - 20 points
    • Required little discussion
  • No. 11. Police: Both cuts (10 percent and 20 percent) - 52 points
    • Participants were concerned that crime could go up during the recession.

  • No. 6. Free Library: both cuts (10 percent and 20 percent) - 3 points

Comments:

    • Some are day-care centers/dumbed-down.
    • It would be painful to lose the (Flagship) Central Library.
    • It is unfair that Center City libraries are untouched.
  • No. 4. Fairmount Park: Both cuts (20 percent and 30 percent) and No. 14. Recreation: All cuts (10 percent, 20 percent and 30 percent) - 7 points
    • Both votes taken together.
    • Concern with library cuts; children would have nowhere to go. The group was reminded by another attendee that the libraries had not yet been cut.
    • Believed to be too small to be consequential.
    • Could be budget generators - receive money from the state for services that would be lost.
  • No. 13. Public Health: Both cuts (10 percent and 20 percent) - 7 points
    • There was some debate as to whether the nursing home was closed already; it is not.
    • One member asserted that the city does not take co-pays, but should.
    • Change the computer program for insurance reimbursement - it was believed to be the reason the city does not collect co-pays. (With help from city staff, we determined that the city does, in fact, take co-pays.)
    • A few citizens advocated for federal universal health care.

The following ideas were mentioned, but not chosen, either because they did not receive enough votes, or they were not in the menu of options and therefore, had no point value.

  • Mayor's Office of Sustainability: Is important and can save money in the long run.

Shared Pain:

  • No. 15. Streets: Revenue option, levy fee for commercial collections - 2 points
    • There was considerable debate about whether to choose the "pay-as-you-throw" revenue option. There were concerns about enforcement, particularly in condominiums.
    • There was passion from one attendee (and agreement from others) behind the concern about how people throw away too much garbage(!)

The following ideas were mentioned, but not chosen, either because they did not receive enough votes, or they were not in the menu of options and therefore, had no point value.

  • No. 13. Prisons:
    • Sixty percent of inmates are awaiting trial.
    • The group wanted to know: How many are nonviolent?
    • What are alternative sentencing options (including rehabilitative/positive options) for nonviolent offenders?
    • One citizen stated that arresting people for drug crimes is not good for society or the person arrested.
  • PILOT — Payment in Lieu of Taxes
    • Nonprofits should pay more for services.

Gut Wrenchers:

The group did not get to "Gut Wrenchers."

Total Points: 34
Summary:

It appears that the group was in general agreement that, with unemployment rising, public safety may be a big concern in the coming year. The group split, however, with one group favoring prevention (and sought to preserve parks, recreation and libraries) and another group preferring enforcement (preserving prisons and police).

An additional theme was a general skepticism about the value and motives of administrative personnel, which prompted cuts in the following areas: Administrative, Law and Vehicle Fleet. At one point, a participant challenged our city staffer as misrepresenting the facts.

A number of participants were also skeptical of the process and were disappointed in the limited menu of options from which to choose. One, and possibly two, of the three participants who left before we finished seemed to be frustrated by the process.

Memorable Quote (Paraphrased):

Is there a crisis looming? It seems so. What do we need? Cops — fire? I think so. Libraries? Maybe not — I'm not saying definitely not, but we need shared sacrifice.

Other Concerns from the Group:
  • Do all department heads understand the 10 percent — 20 percent — 30 percent cut options? Some think the 20 percent and 30 percent are for future budgets.
  • What is the difference in the cost between the best offer for a contract and the offer selected from a minority-owned business?

top

Group 3

Moderators: Bryan McHale and Joan Davis

Group Overview:

This group had 26 participants, including several city workers from Fire, Human Services, Public Health, and other departments. It took a bit of time to understand the process and their charge. A few had process concerns, principally about making decisions without supporting facts and that the Actions list might present a filtered view of choices. After some initial frustration at not being able to evaluate new suggestions, the group set to work. They are to be congratulated for their thoughtful input as described in this report, resulting in decisions that could close the budget gap roughly $116 million. Topics are presented in the order they were raised.

Low Hanging Fruit

  • No. 21 Parking Garage/Lot Fee Increase
    • The group unanimously supported this revenue source, hoping to supplant some job cuts elsewhere. One objection raised was a concern for the safety of people forced to choose street parking over a garage because the cost became prohibitive.
  • No. 16 Vehicle Fleet Reduction
    • The group unanimously supported fleet reductions, citing the use of new cars by city officials. However, there was a stipulation that the standard for reductions not impact public safety; police and emergency services vehicles should remain intact.
  • No. 20 Eagles
    • The group unanimously agreed that the Eagles should be made to pay up. End of discussion.
  • No. 1 Administrative Reduction
    • The group regarded administrative staffing as high and unanimously supported this reduction. City Council overstaffing was specifically mentioned; however, Councilman Green shared that Council budget is outside the mayor's control.
  • No. 17 Amusement Tax Increase
    • The group agreed to some willingness to pay more, but standards were recommended to make the impact selective. The city should ensure that those in need are not affected, and a progressive increase was suggested; for example, high-end tickets ($50+) should incur a greater tax burden. With this condition, the increase passed unanimously.
  • No. 10 Licenses & Inspections Reduction
    • Participants unanimously called for "getting rid of L&I."

Several options were discussed as "Low Hanging Fruit" but could not gain the 75 percent support needed and were tabled for later consideration. These rejected options included:

  • No. 22 Real Estate Tax Increase
    • Members of the group expressed concern for the impact to the RE market in Philadelphia (willingness of new homeowners to buy into that tax burden) and the inability of low-income homeowners to comply. Wanting to first examine the other potential cuts first, this topic was tabled, with only three votes in favor of an across the board increase.
  • No. 19 Business Privilege Tax Increase — Net Income
    • Discussion touched on making banks and other financial institutions that are currently exempt pay BPT before a general increase. Concern for the impact to Philadelphia's business climate led to the unanimous rejection of this option.
  • No. 1 Administrative Revenue Option — Increase Recording Fees
    • Concern over the impact to low-income constituents resulted in the initial rejection of this option, with only three votes in favor. The subject was raised again and later passed as a "Shared Pain" item.
  • No. 23 Real Estate Transfer Tax Increase
    • Members of the group felt that this option would make a bad situation worse, noting that the city is leaking residents now. A standard was suggested to exempt the elderly, but there were still only four supporting votes.
  • No. 3 DROP Program Elimination
    • Discussion covered the original intent of DROP for just police and fire as a pension plan, offsetting their exclusion from Social Security benefits; the program was later expanded to all city employees. There was agreement that DROP should no longer be available to elected officials, but retained for police and fire workers. There was limited support for eliminating the program across the board, with only two votes.

No Way, No How:

  • No. 8 Human Services Reduction
    • The group voted unanimously to remove this from consideration, citing we would pay later if we reduce child protective services now.
  • No. 6 Free Library Reduction
    • Concern for children with no other access to computers, and the elimination of after-school programs convinced all but two participants to take this off the table.
  • No. 5 Fire Department Reduction
    • One participant cited the roles were already reduced by 148 fire personnel. The majority agreed that further reductions would make adequate coverage impossible. Twenty participants voted against any further reductions, suggesting that other operations costs be considered that don't involve employee cuts. Our fireman was right when he said, "You don't want to see me, but you want to know I'm there."
  • No. 7 Housing Reduction
    • The group unanimously agreed that the situation is dire now and no further reductions should be made. Note: There was confusion about the connection of vacant lot greening to this budget item.
  • No. 15 Streets Revenue Option - "Pay-as-You-Throw"
    • Discussion assumed many would not comply at a cost, resulting in rampant dumping, rats, and public health issues. The group voted unanimously that this was a bad idea in Philadelphia.
  • No. 9 Law Department Reduction
    • Participants begrudgingly admitted a dependence on the city's lawyers to keep the city's costs [liabilities] down, and recognized the positive impact this department has on efficiencies elsewhere in City Hall. Assuming outside counsel would no longer be used, the group rejected the proposed reduction.

One additional topic was discussed for placement in the "No Way, No How" bucket, but it did not have the required 75 percent support:

  • No. 11 Police Reduction
    • An extended conversation took place regarding the state of crime and crime prevention in Philadelphia, as well as the link to item No. 12 - Prisons. Recognizing the potential savings with cuts in this service area, some felt the opportunity was too big to ignore, stating, "We can't get there without reductions in police." The group rejected taking this off the table, with only two vote supporting "No Way, No How." The topic was considered again during the "Shared Pain" dialogue but rejected there as well.

Shared Pain:

  • No. 13 Public Health Revenue Option — Co-Pays and Fees
    • One participant cited that health centers are prepared to collect payments and would be able to apply fees on a sliding scale based on a means test commonly used by hospitals. The group unanimously agreed that this revenue option, although not desired, it is a viable revenue option provided that it is applied in a reasonable way that considers ability to pay and does not put public health at risk.
  • No. 21 Sales Tax Increase
    • With suggestions for selective application such as targeting tourist industry and liquor sales, the group unanimously voted in favor of the proposed increase.
  • No. 15 Streets Reduction
    • Participants considered twice monthly recycle pickup and blinking traffic lights to be reasonable service reductions, while less responsive street repair / cleaning were more painful tradeoffs. In the end, 22 voted in favor of the proposed 20 percent reduction.
  • No. 15 Streets Revenue Option — Fees for Commercial Collection
    • Participants expressed surprise that there aren't commercial fees today, but set a standard that small businesses should be exempt. Twenty voted in favor of this revenue option.
  • No. 25 / No. 27 Wage Tax Increases for Residents and Commuters
    • The group objected to any increase, but in the end determined that the city had to generate income from somewhere to offset the items deemed "No Way, No How." Proposing that steps be taken to approve a progressive tax instead, the group voted unanimously for a near-term increase of the higher revenue options — .1 percent increase to 4.0396 percent for residents, 3.5997 percent for commuters.
  • No. 1 Administrative Revenue Option - Increase Recording Fees
    • The group again raised this option, and this time 20 voted in favor, with limited additional discussion.

Several options were discussed as "Shared Pain" but could not gain the 50 percent support needed and were tabled for later consideration. These rejected options included:

  • No. 11 Police Reduction
    • The group again considered reductions to the police force, including just not filling open positions; reallocating officers / community relations personnel to the street; cuts to just management and civil-service positions; and a lower 5 percent reduction instead of 10-20 percent. Statements regarding improvements achieved in just the past couple of years would be lost, brought strong agreement that the crime rate today is still unacceptable. The group voted unanimously against the proposed 10-20 percent reductions across the board, and only three voted in favor of a 5 percent reduction.
  • No. 12 Prison Reduction
    • The group considered a standard of releasing only nonviolent offenders but felt the proposed reduction went beyond that. Statements included: "Repeat offenders should go to jail and stay in jail," and "Police arrest today, then arrest again tomorrow because we don't keep them there." The majority rejected prison reductions, with only two voting in favor.
  • No. 14 Recreation Reduction
    • Stating "we depend on rec centers to keep the neighborhood sane," participants considered other options. It was a close vote, but this item could not gain majority support for an across the board reduction as proposed, with 12 voting in favor.

Gut Wrenchers:

Time didn't allow us to revisit topics that were put aside early in the process; those included increases to Real Estate, BPT, and RE Transfer taxes; eliminating DROP; and reductions to Recreation, Prison and Police budgets. Had we done so, we may have had a few added as Gut Wrenchers.

The final tally for this group was 58 points. We did not discuss the list of Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals.

Recap of Other Ideas:
  • Use prisoner labor to service Fairmount Park.
  • Reduce or eliminate tax abatements.
  • Find ways to reduce theft of city / school property.
  • Charge Real Estate tax and BPT to institutions that are not required to pay now. Banks, financial institutions, educational institutions, and nonprofits were thought to have tax exempt status. They should also pay for all city services used.
  • Consider the potential revenue generated by casinos.
  • Reduce the number of City Council representatives and their staff.
  • Make DROP unavailable to elected / appointed officials.
  • Ensure that allopportunities to save operating costs be taken before considering any reduction in staff. Eliminate duplication of services to further reduce operating costs; e.g. redundancies now that 311 has been implemented to answer calls.
  • Collect all fines due to the city.
  • Redraw the crime emergency grid and redeploy some police from areas like Chestnut Hill and Penn's campus.
  • Eliminate police overtime for court appearances.
  • Reduce rec center hours, but don't close any.
  • Solicit private resources to bolster the budget for rec centers / pools.
top

Group 4

Moderators: Jean DiSabatino, Onaje Muid and Kayte Connelly

Group Overview:

This group was composed of 18 citizens and a variety of seemingly citified workers/onlookers filing in and out. One city rep was present for the duration. There was a broad spectrum of ages, maybe early 20s to 91; two-thirds females, mostly Caucasian with one African American. Of the six men in the group, two of them were in their 20s. One woman wore a piece of corrugated cardboard on a string around her neck with a sign about the homeless. We had one daughter who brought her 91-year-old mother because of a concern that they would close down her health center.

When I thanked them for coming at the end, the "mom" said that she wasn't political and had never done anything like this before in her life. But she felt this time "it was important to come and listen and learn. I am very pleased that I came and learned a lot." She had done both the video and the Wailing Wall.

The mood was disruptive; they didn't like the process. "It's a farce." There were speeches they wanted to give, options that weren't included. We wrote down their alternate ideas in the beginning, (paying attention to their tension), stated the other options, and encouraged them to do the video and the Wailing Wall, and then, to participate in the process. We stressed that their comments would be recorded and would, in fact, be taken into consideration. Many of those in the room had already completed both of the other options.

Because we did that piece first, it seemed, they felt that they were heard and everyone stayed for the rest of the session. As the conversations continued during the evening because they could see that their comments were being noted and that votes were taken based on those notes, there was some sense of trust that was developed within the group and the moderators. They referred frequently to the notes taken and added them as conditions for their votes.

We had no "Gut Wrenchers." While we encouraged folks to do the buckets in order, it did not occur. There were a few folks who were very passionate about certain issues, and some startling pieces of information were shared with the group as noted.

There is a discrepancy for the points awarded. While all of these options were selected, in reviewing the actual awarding of points in the Round 4 Final sheet, in fact, some of the points were transposed. The points in Column A were as we recorded them. The actual points as presented on the Round 4 Final sheet in Column B. At the conclusion of the session, we thought we had achieved a total of 60 points. But the tally sheet did not reflect that. For that reason, we went back through the notes and awarded the points as they had been called out and recorded. It seems now, that we may have actually gotten to 74 points after comparing the point schedule.

Low Hanging Fruit:

Column A Column B

No. 20 Eagles 2 2

No. 15B Pay-as-you-go Trash 2 13

No. 3 DROP 4 4

TOTAL Points for Low Hanging Fruit: 19

  • No. 20 Eagles
    • Just shy of unanimous. Folks were surprised to know this fact. Strong comments for "the Eagles should pay up and pay up now."
  • No. 15B Trash
    • Concerns about trouble with the collection and dumping in the neighborhoods. Pay-as-you-throw was considered. This was originally tabled, but we came back to it later in the discussion and voted it through.
  • No. 3 DROP program
    • As it stands now, according to those in attendance, this is offered to all positions. Retirement is diverted and lumped. It was meant to get the higher-ups to retire, but it was changed during Street administration and is now being abused. People can retire, go out and come back into work, while collecting their pension. This passed with the stated intention by the group that only the mayoral appointments and City Council must be affected and affected immediately. The first line of the totem pole, in particular, should not be permitted to abuse the system, nor should any others.

Shared Pain:

No. 16B Vehicles (6)

No. 15A Streets (5)

No. 11a Police (26)

No. 22a Real estate (5)

No. 12a Prisons (10)

No. 14a Recreation (2)

No. 13c Public Health (1)

TOTAL points for "Shared Pain": 55

GRAND TOTAL 74

  • No. 16B Vehicle Fleet
    • No Council people should have vehicles. (Believed to be 20 members.) Do NOT take away any DHS vehicles.
  • No. 15A Streets
    • Cut budget by 10 percent. Flashing lights are better respected than regular street lights. Cut the street crews as needed. The vote included the contingency that street crews be cut by 10 percent. Recycling just started, and there was already a significant increase in usage through the single stream, with a decrease in trash. Recycling is working. Don't touch the recycling.
  • No. 11A Safety Issues
    • The police are too specialized. The officer on the street is stripped of all ability to perform their jobs as patrolman, e.g. marking the places of the bullets takes a "specialty unit." There are more specialized units than there are officers. The city is top heavy with specialties, and there are strictly not enough men on the street. The civil affairs and accountability units were the specific ones identified as having too many employees; although there were notably others.
    • Hands OFF the street patrol.
    • There were lists of those who should be included: There were retiring policemen, those involved in DROP, and those to be re-deployed. LEAVE THOSE POSITIONS UNFILLED.
    • Cut the Specialty Units. They are redundant and unnecessary. Cut the 73 MANAGERS, not the chemists, the "civilians," the 911 operators or the IT staff. This statement passed it through.
  • No. 22A Raise the real estate taxes
    • These are unfairly assessed and should be redistributed. One woman spoke about paying less than $800; another about paying more than $1,500. There was an understanding that if you wanted good schools, you needed more money. This money is not targeted anywhere in the documents. Keep a larger proportion of it for schools. It is less than $10/month. Doubling it to $20 a month was considered, but it would be too hard on too many people.
  • No. 12A Prisons
    • Thirty percent of the offenders are in because of the system or they don't have bail. Let out only those nonviolent criminals. This group was very specific about no job training cuts or re-entry programs. A question as to where these eople are going to go led into a statement about a low recidivism rate. Crime tends to go up if you close a prison. Strong "regular" contributors dominated this conversation despite valiant efforts to include more people and some quiet folks finding their voices and expressing themselves.
  • No. 14A Recreation by 30 percent
    • No; but cut it by 10 percent. If there is no staff on the playgrounds, the children cannot use the quipment safely. (Pools, for example — you need attendants). These centers keep kids off the streets and out of trouble. Although recreation might appear less important than the police, don't close any centers. Have them be managed more efficiently and open when people are using them. The same for the senior centers and other programs covered under recreation. Get rid of redundant staff.

  • No. 13C Public Health - Revenue side
    • They spoke about charging the uninsured a co-pay. There were several voices about making sure that the insured were being charged a co-pay.

No Way, No How:

  • No. 7 Homeless
    • Too many on the street.
  • No. 8 DHS closing
    • If DHS closes, the city loses money because of contracts. (Concern about a $1/8 match from the state and federal government.) The prevention dollars are helping children and families.
  • No. 13a Public Health
    • A sidenote about SEPTA employees obtaining prescriptions with their current insurance system, and then selling them on the street was made (with several other city suits in the room at the time.) We got the conversation back on the issue of closing Health Centers. This is when Arlene spoke up for her mother. No closings.
  • No. 6 Libraries
    • The library system is presently looking for private funds to keep sites open. It has acquired up to 60 percent of its funding, privately. The libraries are integral to our education system and keep children safe and off the streets.
Other Considerations included:
  • Sales Taxes - This would be better than cutting the police and libraries. But it is hard to project the intended benefits based on the economy. There were many questions about the accuracy of the numbers. Tabled for lack of trust in the figures.
  • WAGE Taxes - These would affect too many people negatively. Tabled.
  • Increase Record Fees - No first round. Tabled.
  • Trash - Commercial businesses were described as having more than 5 units or a small business. They were taxed pretty heavily, and we would lose them.

The original order of the conversation was this:

First: The IDEAS from the audience (listed below).

Then: The items were discussed in this order. Eagles, Trash, Vehicles, Streets, Homeless, DHS, Safety/Police, DROP, Public Health, Taxes (real estate, sales then wage), prisons, recreation, libraries.

Not sure if Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals, but the comments from the very beginning, which when voiced, relieved people's anxiety about "not being heard" and permitted the work to begin.

Because of the time constraint, and the specific flow of conversation, we were not able to thoroughly flush these out. However, it is critical to note, again, that upon doing this, we were able to get to the business at hand. People weren't necessarily happy about the fact that they weren't included in this evening's process, but we assured them that their comments would be read and taken into consideration. No definitive action was promised.

  • Enact a PILOT program. This would bring $38 million and would affect 40 percent of city properties. Make all organizations responsible for services. Assign these points for the next go-round.
  • Courts - too many of them. There are 52 in the Philadelphia Judicial System. Cut them and assign them points for the next go-round.
  • Tax abatements - unfair. Put some of them back on the role of paying taxes. Assign this recommendation points for the next go-round.

Several times during the evening, comments were made about the fact that these were Not Fair Choices on revenues, and if we were giving taxpayers voices, then the administration should put it all on the table.

top

Group 5

Moderators: Carole Cohn and Ted Enoch

Group Overview:

Group 5 proved to be an inspiring group of 23 engaged, invested and creative citizens. The group had a strong mix of ages and was fairly balanced among men and women. The group would have benefited from more participation/representation of young adults, African Americans (two were present), Latinos and Asian Americans, just to name a few groups that were clearly underrepresented. But great work was done in this group.

The group was serious about working on the budget process, and even though many in the group had strong feelings about a particular issue, everyone was willing to listen to differing views and give time to numerous issues. It appeared to the moderators that no one in the group took the option of filing a dissenting or individual report, and everyone was invested in the group process. And even when some members felt constrained by the process, they were none-the-less willing to try and work with the process, their group members and the moderators. This group took to the task with earnestness, respect, creativity and humor. A true sense of civic engagement and concern bound this group, and it will be this type of connection and commitment that will be called upon and summoned as Philadelphians respond to the coming financial difficulties that we all face together.

As to the decisions and ideas of this group, some interesting things happened:

  • The group was willing and sometimes eager to offer new ideas beyond those that were presented in this process.
  • Many in the group were interested in trying to help the group get started, as many topics were introduced in the first section, The Low Hanging Fruit. And even though many topics were offered here, the group found that it was not so easy to have 75 percent of its members agree with a particular budget cut or tax hike.
  • Not a single topic proved to meet the criteria (75 percent agreement) of being off the table, or being protected in the No Way, No How category.
  • And even though the group ran out of time and was not able to move into the final and most difficult decision-making section (you know, saving the hardest choices for last...) known as the Gut-Wrenchers, the group did some great work deliberating on topics during the Shared Pain section, during which 50 percent of the members had to agree with a solution.

But enough about the overview, lets look at what choices were made...

The Low Hanging Fruit: (Needing 75 percent of group to agree.)

  • Cut Government Administration by 20 percent.
    • Group vote: 85 percent; worth 5 points
  • Force Eagles to pay $8 million in back taxes.
    • Group vote: 98 percent; worth 4 points
  • Reduce City's Vehicle Fleet by 20 percent.
    • Group vote: 79 percent; worth 6 points
  • Reduce Prison budget 20 percent, release 1,200 inmates.
    • Group vote: 75 percent; worth 21 points
  • Reduce city law and legal counsel budget 30 percent*.
    • Group vote: 79 percent; worth 2 points
  • Raise city's Amusement Tax by 1 percent to 6 percent.
    • Group vote: 75 percent; worth 2 points
  • Raise city's parking tax/fees 1 percent to 21 percent.
    • Group vote: 75 percent; worth 2 points

* Our group felt that eliminating the use of outside counsel to be key in this category

The No Way, No Hows: (Needing 75 percent of group to protect.)

No cut was off the table, no tax was this distasteful. Some topics were raised here but did not find 75 percent agreement in the group:

  • Fire: A 10 percent budget cut was on the table
    • About 50 percent of the group supported it, noting that all need share in the cutting process. Dissenters spoke to the need to spare deaths, property loss, and to avoid delays in response times. One member talked of losing her home.
  • Free Library: A 10 percent budget cut was on the table
    • About 42 percent of the group supported it. Dissenters spoke to the need for people to have access to computers, especially when more people will be looking for jobs.
  • Public Health: A 20 percent budget cut was on the table.
    • About 50 percent of the group supported it. The group was very reluctant to make a cut that could close nursing homes.
  • Real Estate Tax: A 1-mill raise from 33.05 mills to 34.05 mills was on the table.
    • This did not get much support. One senior citizen who was clearly struggling with health issues spoke out that this would force her to lose her home. Others spoke that somehow, some consistency and fairness throughout the city's appraisal process must happen first, long before a change in the taxes occurred.

Share The Pain: (Needing 50 percent of group agreement.)

  • Cut Housing budget by 20%, programs not beds
    • Group vote: 65 percent; worth 5 points
  • Streets: Levy fees on businesses for trash collection
    • Group vote: 55 percent; worth 2 points

While the group did not have much success in advancing more budget solutions here, in part because of time constraints, some important discussions and values did arise:

Housing: The group suggested a 20 percent budget cut rather than the suggested 30 percent cut because there was a commitment to maintaining beds for our most needy citizens. If the cuts could come from programs and not shelters/beds, this is what our group wanted.

Recreation: Our group was looking for every way possible to avoid cutting services here. Fees for camp and programs were mentioned, perhaps some type of co-pay. The group really valued the role of this department, especially in the lives of our children.

Police: This department did not get raised independently by any group member, but after prompting by the moderator, the group did discuss various aspects relating to the police department. Notably:

  • Only 10 percent of the group voted for a 10 percent cut in the department.
  • There is concern for corruption and overtime in the department.
  • There is great concern for the safety of our officers.

Our group did not have time to continue into the "Gut Wrenchers" section, but did have the following new ideas:

  • Raise the Parking fee/tax to 25 percent.
  • Collect on the demolition and bail fees that are owed the city.
  • Payment in Lieu of Taxes was an important concern to many in the group. The large nonprofit landholders were cited, some specifically by name, such as Penn, Jefferson and the Catholic Church.
  • One citizen noticed that PGW's billing to her comes from an address in Northern New Jersey, thus indicating that the employees there were not paying wage taxes that went to Philadelphia. Her solution: Move this department to Philly.
  • Fix or improve the Real Estate Assessment process. Make it consistent in every area of the city.
  • Eliminate overtime in streets: No Saturday hours ever.
  • Eliminate 311 -- although some in the group thought that long-term, 311 could save the city money.
Other thoughts/comments:

One participant felt that this process - group members selecting particular topics to fit into particular categories - was not deliberate enough to systematically investigate each and all of the major potential areas of change, therefore missing the opportunities to test our values on all areas ...

There seemed to be a consistent concern for the most vulnerable groups: children, those needing public health centers, and those needing housing ...

It should be noted again, that even those with particular interests (those who worked for the fire company, or in a public health center, or a nursing home) did an incredible job of stating their case and then listening to other views. This group did an excellent job of listening to one another.

And one final note, the government official, Anuj Gupta, deputy director for performance management, who participated by listening to citizen's concerns and occasionally offering statistical or factual clarifications, offered an effective and meaningful presence. If the hope is that citizen input is listened to, understood and valued by our officials, Anuj was a clear model for how this will come to pass. He truly listened, was clearly concerned, and was deeply invested in the citizens' ideas.

top

Group 6

Moderators: Ellen Greenberg, Seymour, Smith Scheffer

Group Overview:

Our group was composed of 22 participants and included five males, one African American female, one Asian female, and one White female dissenter. Neighborhoods, as identified when participants introduced themselves, included Rhawnhurst, Mount Airy, Mayfair, South Philly and the Northeast. The tenor of the room was for the most part positive and upbeat in light of the nature of the task. Everyone was engaged and on task with very few tangents or sidebar conversations. It was a solid team effort to work to reach the goal which yielded a result of 71 points.

Low Hanging Fruit:

  • No. 20 Eagles — 2 points. Immediate and unanimous decision.
  • No. 21 Parking — 2 points
    • Supporting reasons:
      • Could reduce the number of vehicles moving in and out of the city.
      • Would be better for the environment if there are fewer vehicles.
    • Question: Do garage owners pay real estate tax?
  • No. 17 Amusement — 2 points
    • Supporting reason: Leisure stuff "we can save up for it."
  • No. 3 DROP program — 4 points
    • Supporting reasons:
      • Not used as it was intended, e.g., to be used to replenish the police and firefighter pool (takes 1½ years to complete training and testing); to keep employees from giving only two weeks notice that they were retiring, leaving critical positions vacant.
      • Program is abused by city employees.
  • No. 15 Streets — Levy Fee — 2 points
    • Suggestions:
      • Levy fee based on a sliding scale based on size of business
      • Consider private trash collection for businesses
      • Impose the levy fee for commercial collection but revisit when times are better to eliminate it. (The city asks citizens and business to sacrifice during hard times but they don't get a reprieve when times are good.)

Now Ways, No Hows:

  • No. 11 Police — 52 points
    • Argument against: We need the police to keep the city safe.
  • No. 5 Fire — 20 points
    • Argument against: Needed emergency services from the fire company, and it took 20 minutes to respond. (Person didn't make it.)
  • No. 4 Fairmount Park — 2 points
    • Argument against: Brings revenue from visitors. Also, it is such a small number, so why do it?

Shared Pain:

  • No. 12 Prisons (5 percent) — 5 points
    • Supporting reasons: Lot of nonviolent offenders in the prison system who would benefit from alternative programs, e.g., drug/alcohol programs.
    • Argument against: Initial concern was the release of prisoners would increase crime in the city.
    • Other concerns:
      • Want clarification on exactly who would be released from prison.
      • Suggested near the end of the session to reduce the budget by 20 percent to keep from cutting the police budget.
  • No. 22 Real Estate (35.05 mills) — 10 points
    • Supporting reasons: Member of group broke down the cost of increasing the tax to less than $9/month per taxpayer so group agreed they could live with that.
  • No. 2 Courts — 10 points
    • Supporting reasons:
      • The pace of trials is already too slow, which presents challenges when your loved ones are waiting for trial.
      • Slow down an already slow process.
    • Other concerns:
      • Alternative programs to address issues, e.g., Safe Surrender program would have to reduce stress on the courts.
      • Investigate and address the conduct of judges, e.g., late starts, lunch breaks, special calls from defense attorneys to get preferential treatment for their cases leaving others waiting long times to have their cases heard.
      • Reform prisons to become more efficient so that the courts are not stressed.
  • No. 1 Administrative — Reduce budgets — 5 oints
  • Supporting reasons:
    • We are affected by jobs cuts too so they can cut some administrative jobs.
    • People in those positions are generally over-paid, if jobs need to get cut — start there.
  • No. 1 Administrative — Increase Recording Fees — 1 point
    • No substantive discussion on this issue.
  • No. 9 Law — 2 points
    • Supporting reason:
      • Initial discussion was that there are enough lawyers in the administration; loaded up on the city lawyers.
      • Yielded no results so it was tabled.
      • The group came back to it.
  • No. 15 Streets — Reduce by 20 percent
    • Argument against: Potholes don't get fixed now; if we cut this, it'll be even worse.
  • No. 24 Sales — 6 points
    • Supporting reasons:
      • Other cities' sales tax is more than ours.
      • It's only .1 percent increase.
  • No. 10 L&I — 4 points
    • Supporting reasons:
      • They sleep in their cars so they don't work anyway.
      • Worse functioning department in the city; everyone knows that.
    • Questions:
      • Businesses/vendors — What's the role of the Health Department?
  • No. 16 Vehicle Fleet — 6 points
    • Questions:
      • Are you taking away the captain's car?
      • Which vehicles are being taken away? Are they the take-home cars?
      • Are cars part included of the union contract agreement?
    • Concern: Reduce maintenance cost

Gut Wrenchers:

There were none. The group was unwilling to touch the items they put in the "No Way, No How" category. There was some discussion about looking at the Police cuts vs. the Prison cuts, but the overwhelming majority preferred to make the Prison cuts, which then reinforced their stance that the Police can't afford any cuts.

Additional Notes:

The following sources were tabled after discussion in the group or that did not enough votes to make the list:

  • No. 23 Real Estate Transfer (not enough votes)
    • We have the highest transfer tax in the nation
  • No. 6 Free Library (tabled)
    • Place for the community, especially children, to have access to computers.
    • Philadelphia Schools don't have libraries in their buildings (comment from the fact that Philadelphia has more libraries per capita than any other city).
    • Children need access to books.
    • Children need a safe place they can go in their own neighborhoods — especially children from poor neighborhoods.
  • No. 13 Public Health (tabled)
    • Not all nursing homes are being utilized to capacity — may be empty beds in other facilities.
    • Clarification from Jennifer — It affects one city-owned facility, Riverside. (How can you access the other nursing homes that may have vacancies?)
    • One person didn't know what OTC meant.
    • Need more information on the impact to the health centers because some people have no health insurance.
  • No. 14 Recreation (not enough votes)
    • Certain sections of the city need their centers as they house preschool, senior and arts programs.
    • One gentleman who was in favor of cutting the budget here stated that parents (including working parents) need to take on the responsibility of spending more time with their children and coming up with creative ways to keep them occupied.
    • In response, two women argued that as working parents, there is no time/way for them to do that. They're working, and they need the recreation centers as resources (safe, productive environment to send their children).
    • Suggest that colleges sponsor libraries and rec centers as a community service, e.g., Adopt-A-Rec Center (like Adopt-A-Highway program).
  • No. 15 Streets — Reduce budget by 20% (not enough votes)
  • No. 15 Streets — Levy "pay-as-you-throw" (not enough votes)
    • Use bar code trash cans like they do in other communities.
    • If we increase real estate tax then we don't want to pay for trash.
    • You will need to police your trash so that others don't add to your trash increasing your bill.
    • Increase in illegal dumping.
top