Group Moderators: Loretta Raider and Josh Warner

Group Overview:
This group of 18 was relatively diverse, with a fairly even split between the sexes and an overall skew to the 40s/50s age range. For the most part, we had NE Philly residents, but about a third of the group came from other places (Center City, West Philly, South Philly, NW, and one suburbanite). As far as we know, only one or two people filled out dissenting sheets, but this was done after the group meeting. No members of the group left the process or outright rejected it; however, some group members questioned the value and limits of the process. We had a diversity of viewpoints in the group, with three or four city workers present, along with several “think outside the box” folks. Overall, it was a good group.

Low Hanging Fruit:
• No. 20 Eagles, passed with more than 75 percent of the vote
o People were outraged that taxes hadn’t been paid for use of the old stadium.

• No. 16 Vehicle Fleet, passed with 75 percent
o Good discussion over ‘luxury’ or ‘perk’ vehicles vs. necessary ones (fire, police, etc.). After Mr. Dubow answered that they were mainly looking at the sedan fleet, the vote passed.

• No. 17 Amusement, passed with 75 percent
o Good discussion on adding this tax to all tickets, or exempting arts and educational tickets from the increase.

• No. 1 Administrative, passed with more than 75 percent but wasn’t visited until the Shared Pain section. Group voted to put it in LHF bucket anyway.

• In addition:
o There was discussion of the DROP program, but after the city employees in the group explained it and the city representative, Mya, explained it, the item was revised to only remove it for Council members, so a point value was not assigned. The vote for putting it in LHF, as written on the sheet, was nowhere near even 25 percent of the group.
o Parking was discussed as LHF, but after a lengthy discussion of PPA vs. meters vs. parking structures and mass-transit encouragement, the vote only came to about 66 percent, so it was tabled.
o Other ideas at this time: Short discussion of PILOTS and what institutions don’t pay taxes, ending the 10-year tax abatement, collecting outstanding bail bonds, and a discussion on the taxes paid to the city by large corporations or businesses that aren’t headquartered in Philly.

No Way, No Hows:
• The only thing that made it on to our list was No. 5 - Fire Department
o Reasons given were that the Fire Department had faced so many cuts and unfilled positions already. (There was one PFD fireman in our group, who gave many reasons why cuts shouldn’t be made. One of the rotating senior city officials happened to be in the room at the time and refuted many of the fireman’s arguments.)

• Several things were offered by group members as NwNh, but many only had 50-66 percent of the vote.
o Police (voting on 10 percent cut) had 66 percent of the vote
o Courts
o Housing
o Human Services
o Law
o Public Health

Shared Pain:
This is where the group really got going, and we only had about 15-20 minutes for this section, as it was nearing 9 p.m. No. 2 Courts was the only thing mentioned as a NwNh that made it back into active discussion and onto the “Shared Pain” list.

• No. 22. Real Estate Tax, passed with slightly more than 50 percent
o There was interesting discussion on increasing the millage, but converting it to a land value tax, rather than a primarily improvements-based tax.
o General agreement that the 10-year tax abatement was unfair.
o Overall agreement that a massive reassessment must be done before raising the mills.
o General sentiment of “the rich should pay more” or “tired of free lunches for the condo folks.”

• No. 2. Courts (This one passed in an altered state: a 10 percent cut for 5 points), which passed with well over 50 percent of the vote
o Interesting discussion about the case backlog of a few years ago, and how, with better funding, the court system functions fairly well now.
o The specter of how cuts and/or full funding for courts, prisons, and police, and how they all interact, was discussed briefly.

• No. 14 Recreation, passed with just more than 50 percent of the vote
o Discussion of kids needing havens for constructive activities, but overall this topic was quick and easy.

• No. 12 Prisons, with a 10 percent cut
o The discussion about prisons was passionate, but mainly focused on the 20 percent cut.
o Again, the link between prisons and courts was brought up.
o Job training and re-entry programs were agreed to be necessary by the group, and if possible, cuts would spare these services from any decreases.

• No. 15. Streets Department (both revenue options made it onto the list, and an altered budget cut)
o (Revenue-2) “Pay-as-you-throw” was discussed briefly, and very much agreed to. Dumping (illegal and legal) was discussed in some detail. This passed with well over 50 percent support.
o (Revenue-1) The fee for commercial businesses passed with about 66 percent of the vote. There was some brief discussion about businesses suffering or leaving the city, but that was generally shot down by the group. There was a small contingent that “couldn’t believe” that businesses weren’t already being charged for trash pickup.
o (Budget cut) This passed in an altered state (10 percent cut for 5 points) by much more than 50 percent. The original 20 percent cut was one to two people shy of the 50 percent mark. Recycling came up as a passionate topic, and the services that pay people (such as Recycle Bank and Recycle Now) were brought up as potential revenue options. There was good deliberation regarding street cleaning: Is it a service that the city is responsible for providing, or is it a community/block/personal issue?

Gut Wrenchers:
This bucket was not reached in the time allowed, although some topics in the “Shared Pain” discussion were mentioned by the group as feeling like “Gut Wrenchers.”

In addition:
All told, this group had a grand total of 57 points. There was some excitement regarding the Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals as the group was breaking up after the process ended. With about 15 minutes left, the group became quite cohesive and really started rolling through and self-regulating for the numerous “Shared Pain” options deliberated. A few members were savvy enough to notice a close vote for “Shared Pain” that happened to fail, and then suggest a modified cut amount/point value, which then secured the necessary votes.