Tight Times, Tough Choices--Mastery Charter School (2/18/09)

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

Group Number 1

Moderators: Kiki Bolender and David Secan
Total points: 57

Group Description:
Our group of 25 was made up of seven men, 16 women and two middle-school-age girls. Seventeen were African American, and eight were white. About half were middle-age, with maybe six adults younger than 40 and a few maybe older than 60. The group worked in small groups of four people each to analyze the budget alternatives. Two city officials worked with us: Maia from the Managing Director’s Office and Rob Dubow, city finance director.

This was a group that made you glad to live in Philadelphia. People were, as befits good Philadelphians, opinionated, hard-headed, passionate and often loud, talking over one another as they might at a big family dinner. We did not make it to the “Gut Wrencher” bucket, even though people were willing to move on from a contentious point, in the interest of covering other issues.

A young woman who lives in Germantown, but works in two North Philadelphia city health centers, was very disturbed that there was not a workshop in North Philadelphia. She said she had passed out flyers at the centers to get people to go, but that it was just to difficult to get to the workshop locations, especially for the elderly. She thought it gave the appearance of a deliberate snub.

There were lots of good new ideas, with one major one that got a round of applause, with a promise from the moderators to try and make it happen. See below.

Low Hanging Fruit
Total points: 16
  • No. 3: DROP Program – 4 points
    • It is supposed to save money in the long run, but it has been abused and big loopholes have been found, especially among higher-income workers and elected officials.
  • No. 16: Vehicle Fleet – 6 points
    • High level of agreement, mainly centered on the question of why the city workers should have cars provided for them at all.
    • By not turning over the vehicles regularly, the aged fleet could cost more in maintenance.
    • The public perception of waste is important. "Put parking meters around City Hall" for the elected officials’ parking.
    • Public transit would be given a lot more money if the politicians had to ride every day.
  • No. 20: Eagles – 4 points
    • Unanimous approval for this, with the light-hearted disagreement that the Eagles could keep the money if they spent it on a new wide receiver.
    • No opposition, short discussion.
  • No. 21: Parking – 2 points
    • High level of agreement with very little discussion.
No Ways, No Hows
Total points taken off the table: 44
  • No. 4: Fairmount Park – 1 or 2 points
    • All agreed that it has already been cut to the bone. High level of agreement with very little discussion.
  • No. 5: Fire – 10 or 20 points
    • This is a very basic service, and it has already been cut to the bone.
  • No. 6: Free Library – 1 or 3 points
    • High level of agreement, especially around the issue of Internet access for people who cannot afford to have it at home.
  • No. 7: Housing – 7 points
    • High level of agreement, to protect those who are vulnerable. There was some annoyance with the city for not providing more information for us to work with.
  • No. 13: Public Health – 5, 7 or 1 points
    • Protect those who are vulnerable. High level of agreement with very little discussion.
  • No. 14: Recreation – 2, 3 or 5 points
    • All agreed that the department has already been cut to the bone. High level of agreement with very little discussion.
Shared Pain
Total points: 41
  • No. 1: Administrative – 5 points
    • Our understanding of this was enriched by one young man who works with transitioning people out of nursing homes and back into society. This program and others are funded through the Mayor’s Office, so the administrative cuts will be more painful than they might first appear.
    • This area has already taken some serious budget hits.
  • No. 11: Police – 16 points
    • This was a very lively discussion that started out with people trying to understand what the various budget cuts might mean. Our city officials, Maia and Rob, were on their cell phones immediately to bring in Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Everett Gillison. Group members had basic questions and used the information from the deputy mayor to help formulate their decisions.
    • What about that specialty unit that staked out a house in South Philadelphia for 10 years and never found anything?
    • What are the specialty units that are listed to be cut? (They include units that can be deployed for days or weeks to a "hot spot" like Point Breeze is right now.)
    • "My sister was assaulted in her home, and it took the police 45 minutes to arrive." Is that the work of a specialty unit? (No, that is the responsibility of the patrol officers, the first of five core services – followed by detectives, homicide, sex crimes and highway units. He asked to speak privately with the questioner about what happened.)
    • Again, this was a pretty tough group, even though they showed great compassion throughout. They voted to do a partial cut that would not take away everything that would be cut with the 10% cut.
  • No. 15c: Pay As You Throw – 0 points
    • This was very narrowly voted down (it may have returned had we had time for the "Gut Wrenchers"). People were very clear about exempting low-income people from the $260 annual fee, but it still did not quite make the list.
  • No. 18: BPT – Gross Receipts – 2 points
    • Some discussion about the nature of the tax. Some people thought that it was unfair to small businesses, but someone else thought that it was a way to get at big companies that could otherwise hide their profits.
  • No. 19: BPT – Net Profits Tax – 2 points
    • Little discussion, but still with sympathy for small businesses.
  • No. 22: Real Estate – 10 points
    • New idea – Modify the real estate tax to be heavily weighted toward unimproved land – increase revenue and inhibit speculation that keeps parcels empty to the detriment of the neighborhood.
    • New idea – Expand the tax base by freeing up (selling) government land, like that held by the Redevelopment Authority.
    • New idea – Allow a "homestead exemption" for property owners at a certain level of income.
  • No. 24: Sales Tax – 6 points
    • This was a very painful one to include, as it harshly affects lower-income and unemployed people. They don’t have the means to cross over the county to buy their prescriptions at Wal-Mart and get a lower sales tax.
Gut Wrenchers
Total points: 0
  • We just ran out of time, even though we continued until 9:30.
Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
  • First Judicial District
    • Rob gave a very quick outline of the muddy legal history. Group members asked that the city stay the course and go after the state creatively.
Very Big New Idea
  • City Council should take a hard look at itself, and perhaps commit to a 10-15% reduction in their budgets within 30 days after March 19. They should commit to participating in and supporting the same process we are currently doing, but for the City Council budgets.
Memorable Quotes
  • "We’re not here to pull everything down to lower standards." This was an interesting comment, coming from a group that was very realistic and not afraid to ask for more cuts and to go after wasteful spending. They want the cuts to be done very carefully.
  • "I disagree with all service cuts done for financial reasons only." Human needs are most important. The speaker was a representative of the Socialist Workers Party.
  • "I’m just passing through." Councilman Bill Green, when asked to sit down and join a small group that was short by one person.
  • As people were leaving, a woman came up and asked the moderators what kind of impact we could really expect to have. In spite of her worries about the effectiveness of the process, she left praising the group, saying, "Everybody was concerned about those less fortunate. Philadelphia is great."

top

Group 2

Moderators: Carolyn Chernoff, Ellen Petersen and Eddie Battle
Total points: 47.5
Group Description:

The group had 27 members, 12 females and 15 males. There were 16 White and 11 Black participants. Their ages ranged from early 20s to mid to late 60s. The group was composed of professionals, community volunteers, special-interest-group advocates, and concerned/interested citizens.

Participants were ready to work. They were attentive when given their process overview and charges by moderators. There were questions. Members were relaxed and confident in the moderators and the goals for the evening. Citizens were energetic and cooperative. All points of contention and exchanges of views were civil. No one dominated the group, or felt “silenced,” the moderators and group structure prevented this possibility. The group didn’t get to the “Gut Wrenchers” bucket. One participant completed the process and at the end appeared to be a dissenter. No dissenting sheets were filed. Members said they were pleased with the process and their work for the evening.

Some participants left 5 to 10 minutes before the session ended, causing percentage changes in voting.

Low Hanging Fruit

Total points: 16

  • #3 DROP program: 4 points
    • The program has been abused by elected officials. It should be for everyone.
    • >75% of the vote
  • #26b Wage Tax/Commuter: 5 point
    • This is a small increase but a significant amount of revenue. Many commuters can afford it. The increase was .1% to 3.5997%.
    • >75% of the vote
  • #20 Eagles: 4 points
    • This choice was supported with enthusiasm.
    • 100% of the vote
  • #17 Amusement: 3 points
    • <"Can we push from 6% to 10%?"
    • 5% of the vote
No Ways, No Hows

Total points taken off the table: 83

  • #11 Police: 52 points
    • 16/21=76% of the vote
  • #14 Recreation: 5 points
    • “Don’t recreation centers operate at half day anyhow because of school?” “Nope.” “No further cuts.” “I would voteNo Ways, No Hows (NWNH) if I know all programs were licensed. The city is liable.” (Another participant stated)… “but, it gets the kids off the streets.” “Recreation programs keep people out of prison.” The group voted 15 to 21 at first and finally 17 to 21 to place this choice in NWNH.
    • The group initially wrestled with a 10% recreation decrease. But decided against this choice by voicing concerns about lost jobs vs. points gained and concerns for kids.
    • 17/21>80% of the vote
  • #13 Public Health: 7 points
    • 16/21=76% of the vote
    • “Goes back to the prisons.” “Children with access to libraries help to keep them out of prison.”
    • 17/21>80% of the vote
  • #7 and #8 Housing and Human Services were combined: 16 points
  • “Can we combine Housing and Human Services?”
  • 19/19=100% of the vote
Shared Pain

Total points: 31.5

  • #21 Parking: 2 points
    • 50 +% of the vote
  • #22a Real Estate: 5 points
    • “Collect unpaid taxes.” “Lots of condos, etc.”
    • “Tax higher income people.”
    • “What about people hurt by gentrification projects?” “Pass anti-gentrification ordinances.”
    • >50% of the vote
  • #24 Sales: 6 points
    • “Four years ago the tax was higher. (Citizens) haven’t noticed changes.But would notice change in services.”
    • >50% of the vote
  • #25b Wage Tax / Resident: 12 points
    • “4.49 wage tax= 60 points.”
    • “Council already passed exemption for low-wage workers.”
    • “Would be less regressive than what we have now…cutting services (is) a disincentive.”
    • “Connected to commuter tax…if one rises the other rises.” “Actually no.”(The city representative told the group that wage commuter and resident taxes don’t automatically rise together.)
    • Votes on wage/resident tax were 14/25 for a .01% increase and 9/24 for an increase of .02%.
    • “Remember, people have left the city, lost revenue, because of wage tax.”
    • >50% of the vote
  • ·#15c Streets: 6.5 points
    • “Pay-As-You- Throw... how could this tax be collected?”
    • “$5/week too much for many”
    • $2.50, $10/month, received 11 of 21 votes.
    • “Encourages recycling.”…“Important for recycling.”
    • “Concerns about a flat fee.”
    • “What about tenants?”
    • “Cost less to collect this revenue.”
    • “Concern about littering.”
    • “Strain on low income people.”
    • As proposed (13 pts.) 9/25=36% of the vote. Modified to 6.5 points (see above.)
Gut Wrenchers>

We didn’t get to these choices.

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals

We didn’t get to these choices.

Memorable Quotes
  • “20% cuts unrealistic anywhere.”
  • “Why can’t we have more smaller cuts across the board?”
  • #12 Prisons
    • “Reduce inmate population especially for nonviolent and drug offenders.”“Keep reentry/job training (programs), and rehab services.”
    • “Is this possible at 20% cut?” (The participant found it incredulous to cut the prison budget by 20%.)
    • “Rethink three strikes/life imprisonment.”
    • “Want more spending on social services to help people avoid prison.”
    • “A 20% cut will have a negative impact, make conditions worse.”
    • There were six votes to reduce the prison budget by 10%.
  • #16 Vehicle Fleet
    • “Can we reduce fleet and have cheaper vehicles?”
    • “Does this include DHS cars?”
    • “They (DHS staff) already use own cars, get mileage reimbursement.”
    • “What might a 5% cut look like?”
    • We need to look for efficiency, force city to better manage (its vehicles).”
    • “What are these vehicles used for?”
    • “Want tiered options (10%, 20 %, 30 % reductions).”
  • #23 Real Estate Transfer
    • “Huge problem for city. It deters home buyers. It’s 1% in the surrounding area.”
    • “Tax could be absorbed by those able to buy expensive property. But, they have other options.”
    • “Cutting service (is a) disincentive too…hard choices!”
  • "We’re not even close to 100 points. Democracy is not picking your poison (choosing cuts in service or raising taxes) but making choices."

top

Group 3

Moderators: Joan Davis, Pete Lafferty

Total points: 93

Group Description:

Our group was composed of 21 citizens; 14 women and seven men. There were five African Americans, two Asian Americans and 14 Caucasians. Seven appeared to be under 40 years of age; 14 above 40.

Our group, at first, wished to share their thoughts about the format, what was included within the choices, and what was left out. There was high energy and some were, at first, a bit excitable, and cut one another off to a limited degree. We handled questions and comments about the process in a fair, firm manner, and moved the group into the work of the night by dividing into four small groups of 5-6 citizens. After moving from the small groups to the large group, we noticed that the tone, while passionate, did smooth out to good sharing and comments/questions among the group. We made it through three of the buckets. Our city budget person was briefly mentioned, but kept to the background, only clarifying when we (moderators) needed it done. Other city budget officials also came into the room, and remained in the back listening and only sharing clarifying comments which proved helpful to the group.

Dissenting worksheets: We didn't note any completed.

Low-Hanging Fruit

Total points: 68

  • #20: Eagles: 4 pts
    • No discussion; unanimous
  • #16: Vehicle Fleet: 6 pts
    • Employees don't deserve cars; high costs, not used during day time hours; might be a car used simply to commute
    • Citizens liked the use of Philly CarShare
    • Employees should use own cars and write off the costs on federal tax returns (like private sector-sales reps for example)
    • Have carpool and share: have fleet on site so anyone needing a car gets one from the lot; no one has a reserved car, just a common fleet shared.
    • Which departments are affected? Would this affect DHS and their role?
    • City council: do they have a need for cars?
    • Vote: 19/21 (19 of 21): 90%
  • #25: modification of wage tax: 56 pts
    • Return to 2004 levels of .5%; would generate $112M, 56 points; (later on, a city official shared a fact about the city needing to give back $80m of previous revenue so the yield might only be $32m)
    • Exemption: family of four earning $35k or less would be exempt.
    • Question: city population: changing in which direction? Is there a slight increase in city population recently?
    • Group felt strongly about increasing taxes to keep services
    • Unanimous vote 100%
  • #17: Amusement: 2 pts
    • Ticket prices go up, yet people who are fans will go anyway
    • Please have the city keep the free movie options (like in the parks, etc.) for those who can't afford the increase
    • Vote: 16/21: 76%
No Ways, No Hows

Total points taken off table: 17

  • #4: Fairmount Park: 2 pts
    • Affects kids; increase crime level if dropped
    • Vote: 20/21: 95%
  • #14: Recreation: 5 pts
    • Citizens put both Fairmount Park and Recreation in the same category, possibly based on the recent voting cycle. Later a city official clarified (just to one of the moderators) that it would take effect after this budget cycle.
    • People were passionate about this, if doing one, then the other was paired with it.
    • Keep kids off streets; Fairmount Park has already had an employee reduction in recent years
    • Vote: 21/21: 100%
  • #6: Free Library: 3 pts
    • Kids benefit
    • Helps those looking for jobs
    • Vote: 18/21: 86%
  • #13: Public Health: 7 pts
    • Needs own commissioner: job is too big to have this person do other things/duties
    • Covers those without health insurance
    • Loss of jobs was a concern
    • Variety of services are important and shouldn't be cut: for example: abatement, rat control
    • Vote: 21/21: 100%
Shared Pain

Total points: 25

  • #1: Administrative: 6 pts (includes both cost cuts and revenue option)
    • Group was passionate about these cuts and revenue gains--almost became a low hanging fruit
    • Utilize panel of experts from Universities
    • Better use of advisory committees
    • Vote: 16/21: 76%
  • #18-19 (BPT, gross and net); 21-24 (Parking, Real Estate tax and transfer tax, Sales tax): total points: 19
    • Group wanted to put all revenue options on this list
    • Could lose businesses/employees
  • #21: Parking: 2 pts
    • Considered: Cons: people will shop in the suburbs (car needed); tough economic times so don't raise this; for the cut:
    • Pro to this : discourage car use and improve environment and health issues from lower emissions
    • Vote: 14 of 21: 66%
Gut Wrenchers

Total points: 0

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
  • Did not get to this part
Memorable Quotes
  • Pilot program: Suggested: $38 million
    • Moderators shared the information of the program with the group for their consideration
Comments from Citizens:
  • Healthcare-based nonprofits should be exempt from this tax
  • Is there a threshold for those who would pay in terms of revenue/budget or other factor?
  • Would there be layoffs by the Nonprofits?
  • Split entities: charge University of Pennsylvania, but not UPenn Hospital system (again, don't charge healthcare)
  • Do non-profits claim services they donate?
  • UPenn and properties in University City: is the university gobbling up properties?
  • Tax: explore opportunities/options to tax universities: How are properties the university owns and rents out taxed?
  • UPenn might be more efficient at some services-how can that be a benefit/savings?
  • Pay fair share
    • Vote: 18/24: 75%
  • #15: Streets:
    • Roll commercial collection fee into city collection of garbage vs. commercial haulers
    • Pay as you throw may result in lots of garbage in streets/alleys/parks and needs to be thought out
    • Everyone should get basic service/higher user pay
    • What can you throw out — type of trash was a concern
    • Against the change: public health right to have garbage picked up; right as city resident
    • No vote was taken on this matter
  • #2: Courts
    • Cuts will slow the flow of court cases; ask city to force state to pay for courts
    • Vote: 9/21: 43%
  • #13: Public Health
    • Revenue option: charge restaurants more for inspections; could be done in timely manner (clarified by city official)
New Ideas:
  • Collect 50% of bail money due (from sheet handed out by activists at forum): $1B is due; would generate $500M
  • Real Estate/Abatement: reduce from 10 years to 2-3 years
    • Vote: 15/20: 75%
  • Tax surrounding counties

top

Group 5

Moderators: Beth Perry, Ted Enoch and Cassandra Georges

City representative: John Farrell

Total Points: 81

Group Description:

This diverse group had 20 people, 12 women and eightmen, with an ethnic mix almost evenly spread between blacks and whites, with one Asian participant. More than half of the group was middle-aged, but there was one young middle-schooler along with two people in their 20s, and four people older than 60 at the other end of the spectrum.

This group was interactive, cooperative, and ready to grapple with the difficult choices facing the city. Individuals with specific experience (court system, social-service nonprofits, legal work) shared relevant information but did not take over the discussion. The group did proceed through the buckets of "Low Hanging Fruit," "No Way, No How," and "Shared Pain." "Shared Pain" seemed sufficient for working through the work-sheet choices to a score of 81 points by the end of the evening. There seemed to be no need for a semantic shift over to "Gut Wrenchers": The discussion would not have changed. A protest about lack of discussion during "Low Hanging Fruit" was allayed as discussion naturally developed during "No Way, No How" and "Shared Pain."

There were no dissenting work sheets submitted.

Low Hanging Fruit

Total points: 12

  • #20. Eagles: 4 points
    • 75% of the vote
  • #17. Amusement: 2 points
    • 75% of the vote
    • There was a protest that a tax increase would push concerts and plays beyond people's price range. (Increases for movies and sports events did not cause this person the same amount of distress.)
  • #16. Vehicles: 6 points
    • 75% of the vote

These options were considered but did not get the required 75% votes:

  • #3. DROP: 4 points
    • 55% of the vote
  • #21. Parking: 2 points
    • 65% of the vote
  • #1. Administrative: 5 points
    • 35% of the vote
  • #24. Sales Tax: 6 points
    • 60% of the vote
  • #14. Recreation: 2 points
    • 25% of the vote

All these options, except for Recreation, would end up giving points under "Shared Pain."

No Way, No How

Total points taken off the table: 130

  • #7. Housing: 7 points
    • 80% of the vote
    • "We are seeing increasing stress in housing right now."
  • #8B. Human Services: 19 points
    • 90% of the vote
  • #8A. Human Services: 9 points
    • 80% of the vote
  • #13B. Public Health: 7 points
    • 90% of the vote
    • "We need public health services — people have no insurance."
  • # 13A Public Health: 5 points
    • 75% of the vote
  • #6B. Libraries: 3 points
    • 75% of the vote
  • #4C. Recreation: 5 points
    • 85% of the vote
  • #14B. Recreation: 3 points
    • 80% of the vote
  • #11B. Police: 52 points
    • 75% of the vote
  • #5B. Fire: 20 points
    • 85% of the vote

Options that did not make enough votes for the "No Way No How" list:

  • #6A. Libraries: 1 point
    • 45% of the vote
  • #4B. Fairmount Park: 2 points
    • 70% of the vote
    • "The Park is part of the character of Philadelphia, and it's already hurt."
  • #14A. Recreation: 2 points
    • 55% of the vote
  • #11A. Police: 26 points
    • 0% of the vote
  • #5A. Fire: 10 points
    • 15% of the vote
    • "Some engines haven't fought a fire in 3 months."
    • "But protect the medic units..."

In the end, "Shared Pain" acquired the points from #11A (Police, cut by half for 13 points) and #5A (Fire, cut by half for 5 points), when these options were moved over from "No Way, No How."

Shared Pain

Total points: 69

  • #15A. Streets — (Cut in ½): 5 points
    • 75% of the vote
  • #15B Streets — 2 points
    • 70% of the vote
    • Streets Discussion:
  • #15A full option for 10 points did not make the needed votes. (Only got 45% of the vote.)
    • "Flashing red stop lights are not understood — we need a full education effort for them."
  • "Pay As You Throw" option #15C got no votes
    • One person did like "Pay as you throw" because it was like recycling in that it put the responsibility on the taxpayer/citizen
    • Disagreement: "Pay as you throw" will lead to dirtier streets — people will avoid paying and still throw trash outside.
    • Disagreement: "This is and equity and class issue. Lower income neighborhoods already suffer with more trash than richer neighborhoods. 'Pay as you throw' will just add to the problem."
  • #25B. Wage/Resident: 12 points
    • 85% of the vote
  • #26B. Wage/Commuter: 5 points
    • 85% of the vote
  • #21. Parking (Garages): 2 points
    • 70% of the vote
    • People agreed that the recent parking meter increases were really being felt.
  • #5A. Fire (cut by ½): 5 points
    • 60% of the vote
  • #3. DROP: 4 points
    • 70% of the vote
    • Several people were very clear that they did not approve of city employees "retiring" for one day (!) and then "returning" the next to a well-paid position.
  • #24. Sales: 6 points
    • 70% of the vote
  • #11A. Police (cut by ½): 13 points
    • 55% of the vote"Philadelphia is a dangerous city, with crime and drug traffic."
    • "If the economy were better, I could go along with these cuts in police coverage...but not now." (People without money will commit more crimes.)
    • A younger black man made the emphatic point that police officers needed more training. He had experienced disrespect, man-handling, and harassment from the police in his lower-income neighborhood.
    • Federal stimulus package benefits will be a one-shot deal, and we cannot count on them for the ongoing budget needs of the police.
  • #12A. Prisons: 10 points
    • 80% of the vote
    • Don't take food away from people in prisons.
    • Dun prisoners' wages for rent (as is done in Virginia).
    • Put prisoners to work.
    • Disagreement: Prisoners would be competition for non-prison labor.
    • Police and the District Attorney's Office throw too many charges at offenders so people can't make bail and fill up the prisons.
    • Reduce sentences. Release nonviolent prisoners.
    • Too many violent offenders are on the streets.
    • Untreated mental illness is a big issue amongst the prison population.
    • There are no re-entry services, so offenders recycle back into prison.
  • #1A. Administrative: 5 points
    • 80% of the vote
  • #13. Public Health
    • No vote
    • One person who was adamant about protecting Public Health (#13A. #13B), and did speak out in favor of people providing co-payments.
Big Hairy Ambitious Goals
  • First Judicial District: 52 points
    • 80% of the vote
    • ‘The state will just cut funds for us from another category...'
    • ‘But it's the law! So go for it!'
  • "Row Offices" discussed: One person spoke in favor of there being offices independent of the mayor's control.
Other Ideas
  • Provide exemptions in wage-tax hikes for lower-income families. (Cut-off at $30,000 for a family of four.)
  • Sales tax on luxury items (SUVs, diamonds) — this got 60% of the votes.
  • Put trash collection fee on the water bill &mdahs; this got 30% of the vote.
  • Cut #311
    • Wrong time to begin providing this service (and wrong to use library workers).
    • Disagreement: Anti-hunger activists have found #311 very useful.
    • #311 has been useful for food stamps and for domestic-violence issues.
    • This service is new so the full impact has yet to be seen.

top

top

Group 6

Moderators: Dick Gross and Rochelle Krombolz
Total points: 38
Group Description:

This group was composed of 20 people with the following demographics: 12 women, eight men; seven African American, 12 caucasian/white, one other. We had a number of city workers from various departments. Ages ranged from about mid-20s to mid-50s with an average toward the middle to higher end of that range.

This was an energized group that was very receptive to the process. Members responded extremely well to working in small groups before reporting back to the larger group. It appeared that all participants were active and being listened to in the small groups; similarly there was not an issue of one or just a few participants dominating the discussion. Several participants were very knowledgeable about city government and certain departments in particular. They offered helpful insights periodically as did our observer from the city when one of the moderators asked him to do so. All participants were courteous to their peers and listened and respectfully offered complementary or differing opinions on issues. This group had a number of items that they agreed to either take heavier cuts on to receive more points or to create some conditions or exceptions that resulted in fewer points. The group was very comfortable with the process of taking the votes. This team’s score was more reflective of their not having had more time to discuss additional large point items than it was their willingness to consider both cuts and revenue drivers, or listen to opposing positions, or to work toward consensus.

Low Hanging Fruit

Total points: 29

  • #17 Amusement: 4 points
    • Approved a 2% increase in order to double the point value.
  • #20 Eagles: 4 points
    • Let them clean the stadium if they won’t pay.
    • We don’t want them to decide to move to New Jersey, however.
  • #21 Parking: 2 points
    • 1% won’t hurt that much.
  • #26b Wage Tax/Commuter: 5 points
    • It seems reasonable that in times of need we would bump this up (for both commuter and resident). We can always reduce it again when things get better.
    • We wouldn’t just stick it to the commuters. We will also support an increase for residents.
  • #25b Wage Tax/Resident: 6 points
    • Approved only a .05% increase
    • There is a benefit to trying to keep the percentage increase for commuters and residents somewhat similar so that there isn’t a significant tax benefit for current residents to move outside of the city.
    • A full .1% increase would be too discouraging.
  • #23 Real Estate Transfer: 2 points
    • OK to increase because it’s a one-time hit.
    • It could discourage the housing market for only a small amount of returns in revenue.
  • #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
    • "Personal drivers for city officials are ridiculous! They think they are entitled. That kind of thing needs to stop!"
    • Some members of the group suggested a 30% reduction here, but it was not the majority.
    • There was some concern over job loss by a few participants.
    • Any cuts should start at the top and be taken across all levels, including the mayor and City Council members.
No Ways, No Hows

Total points taken off the table: 52

  • #4a/b Fairmount Park: 3 points
    • They’ve already given enough.
    • There are a lot of untapped opportunities to use the park to generate revenues (renting out facilities, etc.).
  • #7 Housing: 7 points
  • #8a/b Human Services: 28 points
    • Making cuts here is not worth the corresponding loss of state and federal dollars.
  • #14a/b/c Recreation: 10 points
  • #6a/b Free Library: 4 points
Shared Pain

Total points: 9

  • #1 Administrative: 5 points
    • This item was originally nominated as a LHF. However, it did not achieve 75% consensus. The group later went back and revoted whereupon they achieved 75% consensus.
    • Group wanted to ensure that we maintain the capacity to raise revenue and increase fees.
    • Try to protect nonexempt positions.
  • #3 DROP Program: 2 points
    • This item was originally nominated as a LHF. However, it did not achieve 75% consensus. The group later went back and revoted on a lesser impact/point value whereupon they achieved 75% consensus.
    • This program should be taken away from elected and appointed officials.
  • #10 Licenses & Inspections: 2 points
    • This item was originally nominated as a LHF. However, it did not achieve 75% consensus. The group later went back and revoted on a lesser impact/point value whereupon they achieved 75% consensus.
    • The group agreed only to a 15% reduction.
    • The group wanted to be sure that any cuts here would not affect restaurant inspections
Gut Wrenchers
  • We didn’t get to these.
Other ideas:
  • PILOT — Look at levying fees from some of the larger nonprofits that are using real estate that otherwise might be generating tax revenue.
  • Consider cuts to City Council salaries even up to 20-30% as will be the case for some departmental budgets.
  • Mayor should give up his box seats for various venues.
Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
  • There was interest in voting on one or two of these; however, we ran out of time.
Memorable Quotes
  • Group wanted to know why we saw a progression of cuts including 10%, 20% and 30% for some departments, but not for others.
  • Some discussion on #13 Public Heath, but it was not voted into a bucket:
    • There was a proposal for a 10% reduction (not one of the options given) that would not require closing any nursing homes or health centers.
    • One participant indicated that nursing homes are not only housing people, but also treating sick or injured people without insurance. Closing nursing homes would not only affect residents.
  • Some discussion on #5 Fire, but it was not voted into a bucket:
    • If we reduce the number of firefighters, we can expect more overtime.
    • Do we have more fire companies than we need relative to the size of the population?
    • We should be considering how far apart stations are in order that response time is viable.
    • There was a suggestion that we could get a 5% reduction through natural attrition and not filling jobs though this was not a widely held view.
  • Some discussion on #12 Prisons, but it was not voted into a bucket:
    • "Our prison system is a disgrace! We are actually paying inmates $50/day to live three in a cell so that they don’t sue us. We make the British look good!"
    • There were strong emotions and mixed feelings about the prospect of releasing prisoners.
    • If we consider releasing prisoners, look first at nonviolent offenders and the group of people still in prison because they can’t make bail.

top