Moderators: Carolyn T. Thompson, Rochelle Krombolz and Carolyn Chernoff

Group Overview:
The majority of the group expressed strong feelings that no cuts should be made, and that it was better to focus on increasing revenue through means not included (and potentially intentionally excluded) on the handout. The group expressed a great deal of distrust for the process and was concerned that any information they gave would be used against them. (If they recommended cuts, then the cuts would be seen as okay for the city to implement, but cuts are not okay.) There were originally 19 participants. Two participants wanted to follow the process and left to join the main room discussion. The other 17 remained for the full time. Based on a visual assessment, rather than asking participants to self-identify, the group demographics were: majority white with one black participant; mix of male and female; range of ages, from teenaged to seasoned citizens. Various participants identified themselves as retired or current city workers (fire, police, water, recreation). No participants completed individual dissenting worksheets.

Low Hanging Fruit:
• Eagles
o Why not sue to get the money?

No Ways, No Hows:
• Recreation Centers
o Lived through four city bankruptcies - there are built in “cuts” that will be first to go - fluff is parades, rec centers, library - hard to say, but it’s (fluff). It doesn’t run the city.
o Rec centers and libraries are needed for children, prevent crime! Keep kids off streets, give them stuff to do.
o Rec centers help kids now without much city support. Get money from outside sources (Marines, fund-raising, employee donations).

Shared Pain:
• Amusement (14 for)
o For private theaters, not start-ups.
o On expensive tickets only.
o Want differentiated taxing to ensure that people who can afford expensive amusements were contributing at a higher level. Were not sure it is legal.

Idea Bank:
The group focused a large portion of its time and energy on creating new revenue generating ideas they would like the city to consider. At the end of the evening, each participant was asked to select the two ideas that they felt were the most important for the city to address first. Those numbers are in parenthesis at the end of the idea.
• Collect back taxes, fines and penalties owed to the city (17).
• Close corporate loopholes in state taxes; capture companies who don’t pay taxes because they file tax returns outside of Philly (earnings and real estate taxes) (7).
• Institute PILOT program - end for-profit tax exemption (5).
- Verizon carries a lot of potential money especially compared to private home taxes.
- Other cities have been doing this for 10+ years, why don’t we?
• No new tax abatements or lower the number of years. (Group was split on this one, 10 in favor, 7 against) (4).
- End the 10-year local property tax abatement.
- If we stop tax abatements, we will lose a whole stream of revenue. (But we aren’t building on the waterfront now anyway so would we really be trading anything off?)
- Tax abatements are useful; they keep money and revenue in the city.
- We pay taxes, builders don’t. This is not fair.
• End BPT exemptions for banks and financial institutions (2).
• Use state treasury investment accounts to earn interest; deposit money more quickly in order to earn more interest until those monies are distributed.
- Money is being lost because checks aren’t deposited for long periods of time.
- BPT is not cashing checks.
• Turn back box seats at sports games in order to earn sales tax revenue on the proceeds. If the city pays for them they would also save that money. (The group was unclear whether or not the city currently pays for the box seats.)
• Drop program needs to be better explained to citizens. It is unclear how it works.
• Increase luxury import taxes.
• Real estate taxes need to be reassessed.
- Unclear whether the outcome of this process will simply equalize the amount of taxes being paid across the constituency or if there be a net increase in revenues.
• Implement controller suggestions that have already been captured and published to increase revenue.

Discussion Notes:

Reaction to the process and big-picture feedback
• We don’t want any cuts! (Lots of group support and energy for this.)
o We have weathered tough times before without this type of budget cut.
o There is no way a revenue-only approach will get us to 100 points. (minority view)
o Fourteen participants wanted to focus only on revenue gain; 5 wanted to focus on revenue and reductions.
• We should be looking at long-term goals to help the five-year plan. (Lots of group energy around this topic.)
o First judicial district is a no brainer.
o Get that state money!
o The city should have taken care of these issues a long time ago. Why should we table that discussion tonight versus sending them a message that we are tired of the lack of accountability on these things.
o We need to start looking at these now!
• New ideas are being marginalized. We are being forced to choose between certain options, and the list is not inclusive of many good ideas. Important things missing include:
o Tax abatement
o Closing corporate loopholes
o Budget numbers not correct - city is holding out real numbers.
• Decisions are being made by those who do not understand the city.
• Loosing funds to red tape.
• They probably won’t listen to anything we say here.
o We can send a message by not playing their game tonight.
o Post Office employee surveys were used against employees when bargaining - concerned this is same thing. (Revenue cuts will be seen as okay because citizens recommended them.)
o They already know what they are going to do.
o Nutter is a good man making tough choices but it is a game.
o Solving this puzzle is not a solution or the best use of this meeting.

Content Discussion
• We are firing those who bring in revenue.
• I pay taxes but others don’t. Slumlords profit.
• Revenue creation
o (General energy in the group was to get additional revenue from higher income people and businesses.)
o Concern that the city is nickel and diming us so that we won’t be able to afford to live in the city.
o For every revenue incentive we say no to, the city will see it as support for service cuts. (minority view)
o Don’t want to increase revenue streams that hurt us.
• Real estate tax (didn’t quite make the “No Ways, No Hows” list, but was close)
o Disagreement about whether or not this helped families.
o Outsiders (NY) brought up our neighborhoods.
o Leave transfer taxes alone.
• Business privilege tax
o It is killing us!
o It hurts, but there are exemptions for that aren’t fair.
• End exemptions for financial institutions, port related businesses and other profit making businesses.
o Disagreement about whether or not credit unions should be exempt.
o Get rid of the gross receipts part. (This probably has to go through City Council.)
• Sales tax
o Don’t increase it
• Parking taxes
o I paid more to park for two hours than for my ticket to the auto show.
o People purposely get parking tickets because they cost less than parking in a garage.
• Casinos
o They will generate revenue; they could financially save this town.
o We need a tax base; we need new income; what better way than gambling.
o Can’t believe the city can’t generate revenue without casinos - seems like an admission of guilt.
• Additional items touched on briefly
o Causation program - reassess for revenue.
o Equalization program - we should say no, we aren’t getting the whole story.
o Do people who make money off investments and interest have to pay wage tax on this money? Concern was expressed regarding retires paying these taxes.