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

Groups 6-10

---

Group 1

Moderators:  Kiki Bolender, Benjamin Cromie, and David Secan

Total points: 79

Group Description:

There were 22 people in the group. Thirteen were male and nine were female; 14 were white and eight were African-American. We estimate that 11 were between the ages of 21 and 40, nine were 41 to 60 years old, and two were older than 60.

The group seemed to have productive and steady energy. They were cooperative, civil, creative about splitting/combining options and could see the big picture. They got started right away and steadily chose about a dozen items for the "Low Hanging Fruit" category. Almost everyone spoke out, and no one dominated the group.

No dissenting work sheets were filled out.

Low Hanging Fruit

Total points: 37

• #20. Eagles — $8 million: 4 points
  • Unanimous
• #21. Parking — 21% tax: 2 points
  • Almost everyone
  • One person countered with an argument not to discourage visitors to the city.
  • Fresh ideas: Can we put in a free fare zone for transit downtown and put parking in surrounding areas?
• #15b. Streets — revenue options, charge businesses $200/year: 2 points
  • Almost everyone
• #3. DROP Program — end program: 4 points
  • Almost everyone
• #16. Vehicle Fleet — reduce budget by 20%: 6 points
  • Almost everyone
  • Get rid of gas guzzlers and take-home vehicles, including some police vehicles.
• #24. Sales — raise sales tax to 7.1: 6 points
  • Almost everyone
• #1b. Administrative — Increase recording fees: 1 point
  • Almost everyone
• #12. Prisons — reduce budget by 10%: 10 points
  • Great discussion
  • Release 1,200 and keep all programs.
  • Two ex-offenders discussed how difficult it is to get their lives back on track.
  • This move should target nonviolent offenders and first-time offenders first.
  • "Prison is not the best place for a nonviolent offender."
  • It's not right to people who paid their debt.
  • City staffer: "Who needs to be locked up? That is a discussion the public needs to have."
• #17. Amusement — increase to 6%: 2 points
  • Big-ticket items like Eagles and South Broad arts organizations can afford it.

Mentioned but not selected

• #4. Fairmount Park — both cuts mentioned: 2 points
  • When people don't have money, it would be good to have the park.
  • "Can we get corporate sponsorship for Fairmount Park/some fountains?"
  • Moved to "Shared Pain" for discussion.
• 5. Fire — reduce budget by 10%: 10 points
  • Moved to "Shared Pain" then selected as a "Gut Wrencher."
  • Discussion written out in "Gut Wrenchers."
  • Can we reduce benefits rather than lay off firemen?

No Ways, No Hows

Total points taken off the table: 47

• #7. Housing — reduce budget by 30%: 7 points
  • Almost everyone
• #14. Recreation — all three choices: 5 points
  • Almost everyone
• #8. Human Services — all three choices: 19 points
  • Almost everyone
• #6. Free Library — both choices: 3 points
  • "If we don't want to cut recreation, we don't want to cut libraries."
  • It doesn't make sense (to cut libraries) if people are looking for jobs.
• #13. Public Health — all options: 8 points
  • "Do other cities keep nursing homes?"
  • "I would think the last cuts we want to make would be the ones that hit the people at the bottom of the ladder."
  • If we had public/federal health care, Public Health would be less costly.
• #22. Real Estate — both tax increases: 5 points per mill
  • Real estate taxes are too high, especially for low-income and retired residents.
  • Low real-estate taxes are a competitive advantage the city has to the suburbs.

Shared Pain

Total points: 22

• #1a. Administrative — reduce budget by 20%: 5 points
  • Mayor/administrative staff "should lead by example."
  • They should be selective — don't cut necessities.
  • "I assume jobs had been added in richer times."
• #25b. Wage/Resident — increase 0.1% to 4.0396: 12 points
  • Votes for 25b and 26b taken together.
• #26b. Wage/Commuter — increase 0.1% to 3.5997: 5 points
  • "The wage tax is a terrible thing to look at on your check."
  • "Is it temporary or is the city going to get used to it?"

Mentioned but not selected:

• #11. Police — reduce budget by 10%: 26 points
  • The group had questions and was mostly listening to the city staff answer.
    • From city staffer: Losing overtime for parades is a trade-off for keeping patrol overtime.
    • From city staffer: We're still using DOS.
    • From city staffer: Special units is how we do policing. Compared to a few years ago, we have more police on the street — we have officers from desk jobs in special units on the street.
  • Can we charge for false alarms for burglaries?
  • Voted on but not selected as a "Gut Wrencher."
• #4. Fairmount Park — both cuts mentioned: 2
  • When people don't have money, it would be good to have the park.
  • "Can we get corporate sponsorship for Fairmount Park/some fountains?"
• #5. Fire — reduce budget by 10%: 10 points
  • Ultimately selected as a "Gut Wrencher."
  • Add more volunteers to Fire Department (like in New Jersey).
  • Can we reduce benefits rather than lay off firemen?

• We had a quick vote of whether we would select fire over police or police over fire to include on the list.  Each vote received a minority of six votes.

Gut Wrenchers

Total points: 20

• #15. Streets — reduce budget by 10%: 10 points
  • Right at the end — little discussion.
• #5. Fire — reduce budget by 10% : 10 points
  • Add more volunteers to Fire Department (like in New Jersey).
  • Can we reduce benefits rather than lay off firemen?

Mentioned but not selected

• #11. Police — reduce budget by 10% - 26
  • The group had questions and was mostly listening to the city staff answer.
    • From city staffer: Losing overtime for parades is a trade-off for keeping patrol overtime.
    • From city staffer: We're still using DOS.
    • From city staffer: Special units is how we do policing. Compared to a few years ago, we have more police on the street — we have officers from desk jobs in special units on the street.
  • Can we charge for false alarms for burglaries?

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals

• We did not reach this section.

Memorable Quotes

• "I would think the last cuts we want to make would be the ones that hit the people at the bottom of the ladder."
• "Is it (a wage tax hike) temporary or is the city going to get used to it?"

•  "Prison is not the best place for a nonviolent offender."

•  "What about services to illegal immigrants?"
• "Nonprofits should pay more." Re: PILOT
• "What about the tax abatement?"

Other

• There were no process comments or questions at the beginning, but more than half-way in, one person complained that there were no revenue options, then corrected himself and said they should be organized into 10%, 20% and 30% options.

top

---

Group 2

Moderators: Ellen Petersen and Eddie Battle

Total points: 99

Group Description

The group had 11 members, six females and five males. Citizens were predominately white with eight members and three African Americans. Ages ranged from middle teens through late 60s. Participants were high school and college students, the faith community, law and social-work community members, other professionals, and concerned and interested persons.

The group was there to work. Citizens were relaxed and assured once they received the process overview and goals for the evening. There weren't any heated exchanges and points of difference were civil. There were process comments that were addressed by moderators. No one try to dominate the group, and no one was anyone "silenced." Yes, the group made it through each of the buckets.

Not known if any dissenting work sheets were filed. No dissenters were observed. Most exiting participants said the exercise was beneficial.

Low Hanging Fruit

Total points: 19

• #1 Administrative: 5 points
  • 8/10=80% of the vote
  • One member stepped out of the room temporarily and returned late.
• #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
  • 9/11=82% of the vote
• #20 Eagles: 4 points
  • 10/11=91% of the vote
• #21 Parking: 2 points
  • 9/11=82% of the vote
  • If garage or surface-lot fees increase, then parking in neighborhoods will increase.
  • "City should charge for parking in stadium." (A participant pointed out that South Jersey drivers park at the stadium for free in the mornings.)
  • "Parking-ticket problems." (Parking tickets are issued too easily by the city and causes hardships for people.)
• #17 Amusement: 2 points
  • 75+ % of the vote

No Ways, No Hows

Total points taken off the table: 46

• #5 Fire: 20 points
• #8 Human Services: 19 points
  • If budget is reduced, it will cause losses of state dollars and under-funding of the department. (Overall, Human Services will cost more.)
• #7 Housing: 7 points

Shared Pain

Total points: 25

• #22a Real Estate: 5 points
  • 50+ % of the vote
• #24 Sales: 6 points
  • 9/11=82% of the vote
• #10 Licenses and Inspections: 4 points
  • 50+ % of the vote
• #15a Streets: 10 points

Gut Wrenchers

Total points: 55

• #13a Public Health: 5 points
  • 50+ % of the vote
  • Members felt strongly about placing Public Health in this bucket. It's the only place poor and sick can get help.
• =#11a Police: 26 points
  • =7/11=64% of the vote
  • =Police Department needs restructured, find ways to be more efficient.
• #12a Prisons: 10 points
  • 50+ % of the vote.
  • Job-training and reentry programs should remain.
• #6a Free Library: 1 point
  • 8/11=73 % of the vote
  • "Why does central library get free pass?"
  • "Can library resources be re-allocated to schools?"
• #14b Recreation: 3 points
  • 50+ % of the vote
• #2 Courts: 10 points
  • 50+ % of the vote

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals

We didn't get to this list of items.

Memorable Quotes

• "Address disparity between wage/resident and wage/commuter rates." (Members felt that the state law that mandates a minimum spread between the two tax rates should be changed. The spread should be lessened.)
• "What impact will cuts in the Fairmount Park budget have on tourism?"

top

---

Group 3

Moderators: Pete Lafferty and Joan Davis

Total points: 20

Group Description

A group of 17 citizens joined Group 3 at St. Monica's for a vibrant discussion of budget trade-offs. The initial group demographics were five men and 12 women; 65 percent Caucasian, 30 percent African American, and 5 percent Asian American; and approximate age range of 11 participants in their 20s and 30s, and six older than 40. The voting numbers below reflect that two people left during the process (without comment), and another left for some duration then returned. 

There was some distrust of the process initially, citing the limited scope of the action list, but all were willing to participate. Ready to go to work, they broke into small, randomly situated groups of three to four people to deliberate over actions they could agree to categorize as "Low Hanging Fruit" or "No Way, No How." A spirited conversation ensued, with every single person engaged in sharing their values in favor or against the proposed actions. The small-group work had one additional interesting element - Anuj Gupta, our city "listener" moving about the room eavesdropping on their discussions, nodding, cocking his head, and clearly absorbing what he heard. Thank-you, Anuj, for that silent involvement. 

When the groups rejoined, they presented diverse perspectives, and many votes were close. The power of democracy was truly in effect; the absence of just three people that exited probably made a difference to the outcome. 

The key themes on which participants agreed included:

• revenue seeking before service cuts
• efficiency measures across the board before staff reductions  
• independent oversight and audits to ensure efficiency
• recognizing the poor state of facilities and urgent need for improvements (adds to budget requirements)

We didn't have sufficient time to finish the process, barely getting to the "Shared Pain" category, with a total of only 20 points. However the conversation was rich and fruitful. Observing the exchange of business cards at the end, it is the hope of this moderator that they continue the dialogue individually or with blog conversation.

Incubate your ideas with a realistic attention to the March 19th deadline [since laws and City Charter changes take months and years to change, not weeks], and maybe we can close this budget gap in a less painful way.

There were no dissenting work sheets submitted to the moderators.

Low-Hanging Fruit (requires at least 75% vote)

Total points: 10

• No. 3  DROP program: 4 points
  • The group accepted this as low impact, only effecting DROP recipients.
  • Participants set two standards if the city does retain DROP: 1) exclude elected officials and 2) prohibit the ability to retire then return to work for the city.
  • 14 out of 17 voted to eliminate DROP = 82%
• No. 20 Eagles: 4 points
  • Participants noted the facts that the Eagles owe the money, and they're making a profit. 
  • 14 out of 14 voted to pressure the Eagles to pay = 100%
• No. 21 Parking: 2 points
  • There was some brief discussion on the high price of lot parking now, noting that it's cheaper to park in D.C., Boston, and New York, but in the end most felt this was a tolerable source of additional revenue.
  • 12 out of 14 voted to implement this increase = 86%

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

• No. 1a Administrative — Budget Cuts: 5 points
  • The group had some discomfort not knowing the specific impacts, and most felt that the city is already doing more with less (as a result of 2008 budget-gap actions), concluding that processes would likely slow down.
  • There were conflicting perspectives. Some proposed that the Mayor's Office should be a model and the first to experience staff reductions, while others felt this would impact the city's ability to respond to ideas generated by the budget forums. Some expressed that every office was overstaffed and an across-the-board reduction was feasible, while others believed staffing to be at minimum levels already. 
  • 5 out of 17 voted to reduce Administrative budgets =  29%
• No. 1b Administrative — Revenue Option to Increase Recording Fees: 1 point
  • Many felt that this was only an occasional impact and they would tolerate an increase. 
  • 10 out of 17 voted to increase recording fees =  59%
• No. 6  Free Library — 10-20% Budget Cuts: 1 or 3 points
  • The group considered many alternatives, such as reduced hours, rotating days open, etc.,  recommending reductions to all libraries rather than elimination of some.
  • One participant noted that reduction in services doesn't reduce the fixed costs of the buildings.
  • The general sense was that other avenues would bring a greater impact, and other revenue-generating options should be considered instead. (Free Library was mentioned again during the "No Way, No How" segment, and passed the vote to be taken off the table.)
  • Two out of 14 voted to reduce the Free Library budget in some way = 14%
• No. 17 Amusement Revenue Action: 2 points
  • There was some tension between perspectives, with some who felt the increase would be nominal and others concerned that any impact to low-income residents would be unacceptable.
  • Arguments against this action stated that only a progressive tax would be acceptable.
  • One supporter thought that entertainment choices ARE progressive because they're subject to one's budget. Others acknowledged that "amusement" is a luxury, not a necessity, and voted that they would support this trade-off in order to close the budget gap. It was a close vote and may have come out differently if some of the initial participants hadn't left. 
  • 10 of 14 voted in favor of an Amusement Tax increase = 71%
• No. 15 Streets — 20% Budget Cut and Revenue Options considered together: a total of 25 points
  • Participants defined a standard for this set of actions and lowered the value to 7 points, but failed to gain sufficient support. The suggested conditions accepted the levy of a commercial fee and turning 500 traffic lights to flashing red as proposed, but excluded changes to sanitation and street services and rejected a $5/week fee for trash collection.
  • There were a couple of new ideas in this department. One participant suggested to reduce the cost of trash removal the city could replace house-to-house pickup with strategically placed large receptacles and find another way to help seniors and others who can't take their own trash a little farther. Another participant liked the pay-as-you-go option to pay for trash bags.
  • 7 of 14 voted in favor of the modified (7 point) Streets option =  50%
• No. 16 Vehicle Fleet — 20% Budget Cut: 6 points
  • Many in the group felt that this was a feasible option and had great potential with the expanded use of Philly Care Share and Zip Car to replace the fleet. 
  • All agreed that personal use should be eliminated.
  • There was concern for the impact of removing DHS vehicles, noting that these vehicles need to be reliable (and personal cars aren't always) and that many DHS visits are outside of Philadelphia County. A standard was suggested to exclude DHS vehicles.
  • Not knowing who this action would affect kept some from voting in favor of reductions.
  • 9 of 14 voted in favor of reducing the fleet, excluding DHS vehicles = 64%

No Ways, No Hows

Total points taken off the table: 99

These actions attained at least 75% vote:

• No. 5 Fire — 10-20% Budget Cuts: 10 or 20 points
  • Objections included, "It puts my house at risk," and "We can't take a chance with human life."
  • The group agreed the city should take necessary steps to reduce overtime and improve efficiencies, but not impact safety. 
  • There was much support behind the idea of independent oversight and audits to ensure efficiency.
  • 14 of 14 voted to remove Fire reductions from consideration = 100%
• No. 11 Police — 10-20% Budget Cuts: 26 or 52 points
  • The roup objected to any service cuts that impact safety.
  • One participant cited the sub-standard facilities that house the police.  Most concluded that this department should be improved, not cut.
  • 12 of 14 voted to remove Police reductions from consideration = 86%
• No. 8 Human Services — 10-20% Budget Cuts: 9 or 19 points
  • Participants expressed that this department had experienced cuts already and that "there aren't any slackers in Human Services."
  • The group agreed the city must avoid impacting these children, "our most vulnerable population." 
  • 14 of 14 voted to remove DHS reductions from consideration = 100%
• No. 6  Free Library — 10-20% Budget Cuts: 1 or 3 points
  • The group again discussed the Free Library proposals, this time winning the vote to protect the libraries.
  • One participant suggested tracking how libraries are used by adults and children and then deciding based on those findings. If users were primarily children, then consider using recreation centers and schools instead. 
  • The group discussed the importance of computer access and homework help provided at the libraries and that libraries are used as a safe space for children.
  • 12 of  14 voted to remove the Free Library system from consideration = 86%
• No. 14 Recreation Budget Cuts: 2, 3, or 5 points
  • Participants determined that recreation centers have an important role in "keeping kids off the street." Most felt that Recreation was at bare bones now and could not sustain further cuts.
  • One suggestion was to evaluate the value of the centers to the community by testing a fee system. Charge a nominal fee of 25 cents and determine if the a center is still used. Is the public willing to support this resource in any way?
  • 11 of 14 voted to remove Recreation Centers from consideration = 79%

One action was discussed for placement in the "No Way, No How" bucket, but did not have the required 75% support and was tabled for later consideration:

• No.10 Licenses and Inspections — 30% Budget Cut: 4 points
  • Many felt that Philadelphia needs more inspections, not less.
  • A standard was proposed to improve inspection of care facilities; e.g. day care, elderly care.
  • 7 of 15 voted to remove L&I from consideration =   47%

Shared Pain

Total points: 10

Achieved at least 51% vote:

• No. 12  Prisons — 10% Budget Cut: 10 points
  • The group acknowledged the need for a smaller prison population, and the majority supported release of nonviolent offenders.
  • Participants set a standard that budget reductions don't impact quality of life within prisons and that prisons continue to focus on transition support, expanding staff skilled in this area. Prisoners were considered a "vulnerable population" and those that should remain incarcerated must be adequately housed. 
  • 8 of 15 voted in favor of a 10 % cut = 53%
  • 2 of 15 voted in favor of a 20% cut = 13%, failing to pass the higher reduction.

A misunderstanding surfaced at the last minute and required clarification that Revenue Actions had been on the table all along. Several participants had mistakenly thought the process restricted their initial discussion to service reductions, based on the structure of the form. They would have raised the various tax increases as "Shared Pain" actions, but time ran out.  

Gut Wrenchers

Given time, we would have reconsidered topics put aside by a close vote early in the process: revenue options to increase Recording Fees and Amusement Tax, and reductions to Vehicle Fleet, Administrative, Streets and L&I budgets.

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals

The group did not get to this segment, but some sub-group discussion took place on what to do about making the state pay for the First Judicial District Court. At last sighting, they were heading to Harrisburg.

Memorable Quotes

• "Essential services are essential! It's like you're asking me to chose - do I eat or do I drink?"
• "All of the city's facilities need to be green, efficient, and sustainable. This is a long-term challenge that will eventually cost us more if not addressed now."
• In support of ending the 10-year real estate tax abatement for new development:  "We can't have two strata — those that pay and those that don't." and "There are many reasons to be in the city besides tax avoidance."
  • Some defended the abatement for its positive impact on new development, noting that these residents ARE paying taxes in the form of utilities, wage, etc., and will eventually pay high real estate taxes as well. The "Reserve" property was mentioned as a property that would deliver $9,000 annually in property taxes from each resident once the abatement expires.   
  • Others felt the abatement should be phased out or the duration shorter than 10 years.
• On Free Library budget reductions: "If we must take action here, reduce services, don't close any libraries."
• During the deliberation on increasing the Amusement tax: "It's peanuts to those who go — the total impact is small."
• Two participants collaborating at the end: "The city got really creative [about generating revenue] when we needed to build the stadium. Why can't they do that now?" "The city should have a weekend retreat with the mandate to find ways of generating revenue."

top

---

Group 4

Moderators: Jean di Sabatino and Fatima Hafiz

Total points: 71

Group Description

Our group was composed of 20 adults, three African American, one Hispanic, and 16 Caucasians. Six were males and two males (a reporter for The Nation and a City Year fellow) were nonvoting participants. There was a cross section of ages represented, the oldest we two women in their 80s and the youngest were in their 20s. However, the majority of participants were younger than 40. Two city staff members (woman from finance and one from health) and Ori Monson, PICA (Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority), stayed for the entire session. There were three others that stayed for a large portion of the session. After the first hour, there was attrition among participants, and we ended the session with 14 voting participants.

The tone of the evening was respectful and made light with laughter. The group was self-motivated to remain on task, and there were several occasions when participants checked each other to stay true to the norms and process. Participants had a highly evolved understanding of the issues and were secure in asking for clarification from other participants and the facilitators, and they made a few requests to ask the city observers. Discussion was energetic, complex and yielded considerable points. By the end of the evening, and with coaching for the most timid, all participants had the opportunity to express their opinions and to offer items for three of the four buckets. Actions were placed in the "No Way, No How" category only toward the end of the session. No items were added to the "Gut Wrenching" bucket. 

Low-Hanging Fruit

Total points: 14 points

• #3 DROP Program = 4 points, with 17 out of 18 votes
  • Participants asked for clarification of this action. The PICA representative provided details. The program was designed as a short-term remedy for reducing the large number of senior managers.
  • One participant was not clear of the trade-offs: Would the city lose qualified workers? She was willing to proceed with the vote without this question answered.
  • The discussion was peppered with muted outrage that this program was enacted as a two-year temporary remedy (as per PICA) yet extended.
• #16 Vehicle Fleet = 6 points, with 13 out of 18 votes
  • The moderator explained that police, fire and sanitation vehicles were exempt.
  • The finance office official texted for clarification and stated that POLICE CRUISERS ARE INCLUDED in the 800-vehicle reduction.
  • There was no other discussion.
• #20 Eagles = 4 points, with 18 out of 18 votes
  • Quick vote, no discussion.

No Ways, No Hows

Total points taken off the table: 23 points

These items were brought up by the group within the last 15 minutes of the session. There was little discussion.

• #4 Fairmount Park = 1 point, with 11 out of 15 votes
• #6 Free Library = 1 point, with 7 out of 15 votes
  • One participant suggested that school libraries should be opened to the public.
  • The City Year fellow (who had remained silent throughout the session) responded from experience that many of the school libraries are "books on a cart."
  • This prompted the participants to ask for a quick vote to exclude the libraries from cuts.

• #7 Housing = 7 points, with 9 out of 15 votes
  • Minimum discussion.
  • Affects the most vulnerable.

• #8 Human Resources = 9 points, with 9 out of 15 votes
• #13 Public Health = 5 points, with 13 out of 15 votes
  • With all the outstanding hospital and ancillary medical facilities, does the city need to run a nursing home?
  • There was no energy to pursue this question.
  • Participants agreed that the city needed to protect the most vulnerable citizens.

• #1a & #1b Administrative = 6 points, with 11 out of 18 votes
  • Discussion regarding the quality of services. Suggestion to increase customer-service standards and make Deed Office more efficient.

• #11 Police 5% reduction = 13 points, with 9 out of 18 votes
  • Took vote on 10% reduction, but this did not pass.
  • 5% reduction was suggested by a participant.
  • Elderly participants made strongest case for police protection.
  • One participant questioned if it is possible to concentrate on prevention through better education and human services. This discussion eventually contributed to listing Human Services as a "No Way, No How."
  • Mistrust regarding city's ability to provide preventive services.
  • Brief discussion regarding the highly specialized nature of the force. Not much interest around this.
  • Trade-off suggested by the elderly: Would a decrease in force result in increased insurance rates?
  • Participants agreed to consider this option if city would agree to not fill vacancies in lieu of layoffs.

• #12a Prisons 10% reduction = 10 points, with 12 out of 18 votes
  • Moderator explained that the 300 prisoners to be released in the 10% reduction option were nonviolent, accused or awaiting trial. City observers confirmed.
  • City also confirmed that there were five prisons within the city.
  • Suggestion that some support programs currently offered within the prison system were offered in other departments. Several supported the idea to identify the range of services provided outside the prison system.
  • Participants agreed to this option only if adequate reentry and job-training services were provided.

• #15c Streets (revenue option #2) = 13 points, with 9 out of 18 votes
  • The option was clarified by a moderator: sanitation fee as opposed to "pay as you throw."
  • Discussion of this option highlighted the age differences within the group.
  • The eldest participants were clearly opposed to this measure. They questioned whether the younger participants (one of which proposed that the measure be included) lived in houses or apartments.
  • An older participant did suggest that collection sites could be consolidated (only on cross streets for example).
  • There was a suggestion to lessen the cost burden for those of lesser means.
  • Increased "short dumping" was stated as a trade-off.
  • The reduction part of this option was not suggested.

• #17 Amusement = 2 points, with 9 out of 16 votes
  • One younger participant suggested tacking a 10% tax on amusement. There was some agreement but not enough for a favorable vote.
  • See quote section below.

• #25 Wage Tax/Resident = 12 points, with 11 out of 15 votes
  • Younger participants were almost unanimously in favor of this.
  • One participant suggested that the state consider a progressive tax structure.
  • This option and the commuter option were offered during the last few minutes of the session.

• #26 Wage Tax/Commuter = 1 point, with 15 out of 15 votes

Item discussed as a "Shared Pain" but not passed:

• Recreation Centers were brought up for a vote, but received only 6 out of 18. The item did not pass and was not brought up for a second vote.
  • One participant suggested privatizing the services provided in the centers. The centers could still remain open.
  • Another participant, supported by several, stated that recreation activities are provided by other departments such as Human Services. There was considerable agreement that the recreation centers did not provide a high-quality service and that programs sponsored by Human Services and other departments met a higher standard.
  • There was agreement that well-organized recreation activities are preventive and ultimately save money. These are the best way to keep children off the streets. This value swayed the vote.

Gut Wrenchers

• No items were brought to this category although the category was listed.

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals

• None suggested.

Memorable Quotes

• There were two notable quotes, both producing considerable laughter
  • One came as the group successfully voted for a revenue option attached to the Streets option. "REVENUES MAKE ME SMILE." was quoted several times during the evening.
  • As we brought the Amusement revenue to a vote, there was a suggestion to increase the tax on tickets to 10%, thereby adding four points to the category. One participant suggested that "The funnier the movie, the higher the tax percentage."

Last-Minute Suggestions

• Fire
  • As folks were beginning to pack up, one participant suggested that the city consider supplementing (via attrition) the force with volunteers that would be highly trained and led by seasoned Fire Department veterans.
  • Also mentioned was the importance of maintaining the EMTs and the Fire Houses.

top

---