Group 11
Moderators: Kayte Connelly and Brett Kessler
Total points: 33

Group Description
The group was initially composed of 10, equally split between men and women. In addition, there was one man and one woman who would not join the circle. After about 15 minutes, the gentleman left the room. The woman wished to “go between” rooms. She did leave for a brief period. Upon her return, she joined the conversation but not the circle. Coincidentally, when she began to become engaged, one of the other participating gentlemen had to leave. The voting base, therefore was consistently 10.

Overall, this group had a much younger base, with two-thirds being younger than 35, we believe. Participants ranged in age from teens to seniors, with two people of color.

This was a much more inquisitive group, perhaps because of age, and the city representative was called on more frequently that in the other forums. When questions were asked, we did push to understand why these questions were important and the underlying values and concerns. As a result, we spent a great deal of time talking, and got few votes recorded. Our total votes recorded were 31, with an additional 30 taken off the table.

Low Hanging Fruit Total Points: 14
• #20 Eagles: 4 points
o Unanimous vote
o Questions about which services would be cut because they wanted to know (trash, maintenance, policing). The city should not provide any more services until they pay.
o The Eagles can afford to pay it.
o When there are harsh times, make the wealthy pay.
o They owe the money. Pay up.
o In court; in litigation. It’s appalling. Make them pay all court charges.
• #21 Parking: 2 points
o 8/10 votes
o Who is this affecting? Would it generate more $?
o Restaurants, theaters will not be supported. It may have a negative impact.
o Higher fees may encourage more public transportation. This impacts neighborhoods where transportation centers with parking are located. These residents have to buy permits.
o This would impact residents in Center City by 1%. They would not be greatly affected.
o Visitors and tourists would still come into the city.
o There was concern that private lots would top out additional costs to the users.
o Perhaps, the tax could be assessed depending on the time of the day.

• #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
o Unanimous vote
o As long as the vehicles are not providing vital service.
o Do a car share. The city presently uses Zip Car. Why don’t they support the nonprofit Philly Car Share? Perhaps because of Zip paying more taxes as a business?
o Contradictory information: The city rep advised us on February 18 that this did not involve any patrol cars. The city rep this evening advised us the Vehicle Fleet reduction did indeed involve patrol cars.
• #17 Amusement: 2 points
o 8/10 votes
o The folks who use amusements can pay the extra 1%.
No Way, No How Total points taken off the table: 30
• #4 Fairmount Park: 2 points
o Unanimous vote
o Will be used more by people.
o If we give people recreation options, then crime will be down.
o They were just given extreme cuts; we shouldn’t cut them anymore.
• #8 Human Services: 19 points
o 9/10 votes
o Frustrated by the options.
o This includes child protection services. It will cut essential programs like parenting and preventing delinquency that the citizens need.
o Too much of our future growth rides on this. The workers should be held more accountable.
o Will lose matching federal dollars.
• #14 Recreation: 2 points
o Unanimous vote
o It provides a place for people to go.
o The parks enrich our lives.
o As an option for children, the programs prevent crime and ultimately save dollars in the long run.
• # 7 Housing: 7 points
o 8/10 votes
o The economy is terrible.
o The homeless people will have no place to go.
o Reducing housing options would increase crime.
Shared Pain Total Points: 17
• #25b Wage Tax / Residents: 12 points
o 9/10 votes
o No conversation; just voted on it.
• #26b Wage Tax / Commuters: 5 points
o 8/10 votes

Tabled Items
• #3 DROP - tabled. Originally seen as a “no-brainer,” but we had a senior city worker in our group who countered with this information. (Not the city rep in the room.)
o The program is not working as intended. The original intent was for some city workers to plan for retirement, train replacements, and then retire at a locked-in date. For example, one would designate their intent to retire in four years, train someone, and then retire. This was not happening. If the worker were to return to benefit the city with their experience, this could not happen for one year.
o Elected city officials were never meant to benefit from the program. They should not benefit from the program. Yet almost all City Council members are presently enrolled in DROP.
o Younger people were not being trained. The city rehired some retired workers as contracted employees to do the necessary work.
o Once you lock in to retire, it is mandatory that you do so.
o You must be employed for 10 years to be eligible for participation.
o No one wanted to vote.
• #22 Real Estate Tax - tabled. Originally brought up in “Low Hanging Fruit,” but couldn’t move it to a vote.
o Clarification of millage. 1 mill = $5/$1000; 3 mills = $15/year
o Concern about the elderly on fixed income. They would have to make choices over food, heat or real-estate tax.
o A better idea would be for the city to collect the taxes that are already owed.
o Too many taxes are unpaid. There’s one house on Penrose Avenue that owes more than $600,000 in back taxes. How does this happen?
o Many fixed-income people live on a lesser side of real estate taxes, yet still have to prioritize. Some don’t pay their taxes until after the heating season and are penalized for that.
o People moved here from New Jersey to take advantage of tax abatements. Some were paying what Philadelphians pay in one year; some were paying in one month. E.g. Philadelphia residents are paying $700 a year; New Jersey, $700/month. It was an attraction to bring people here. They pay income taxes and wage taxes and sales taxes and more. To rescind abatements would take legal action. No immediate relief and might cause city flight. You had to be here in the ’70s to understand how the city has turned around.

• #10 Licenses and Inspections - tabled. Not enough information to talk about this choice.
• #13 Public Health - tabled.
o Thousands of people are without health insurance and need the centers.
o Without the centers, people would have to go to the hospitals, where it costs more because these costs never get paid or recovered. (Emergency rooms.)
o It won’t change the dynamic. People who go to the emergency room now will still go to the emergency room.
• #11 Police - tabled
o They are stretched.
o There is an increase in crime. We need them to do the extra patrols, especially in lieu of the fallout from the state of the economy.
o We received clarification for unfilled positions that were cut. The city is constantly recruiting classes.
o There is a great deal of talk about the inefficiencies of scale. There are too many specialized units. The city rep clarified that there were 90% on the street; 10% in administration.
• #15 Streets - 3 votes; tabled.
o All commercial businesses don’t pay the city for trash.
o A flat fee for the elderly on fixed incomes would adversely affect them and the city.
o Who pays for empty houses?
o Perhaps, the biweekly recycling would work, but keep the recycling. It’s too early to get rid of it, and trash collection is down. Give more incentives to increase recycling.
o How did these impacts get put together for 10 points?
Other Ideas:
• Raise taxes, collect past uncollected fines and fees, and process the cuts proposed. A well-run city attracts more home buyers.
• No more tax abatements.
• Aggressively enforce the collection of fees, fines and taxes. Do your job first. Who is holding the city workers accountable for these collections?