Group Number 13
Moderators: Loretta Raider, Brian Seymour, Gwynne Smith Scheffer
Total points: 48

Group Description:
Our group was composed of 12 participants that included five males (one African American, one Asian, three White) and seven females (one Asian, six White). The South Philadelphia neighbors identified by participants represented include South Street and Second Street. One fourth of the group was 40+ years (one senior), approximately one-third under 30, the remaining 30-40 years. One participant (Asian male) works for the City but was participating as a neighborhood citizen. Three activists were strategically place in the room. There were three City representatives in our group most of the time, with a fourth who came in during the last half hour.

Group 13 participants were very engaged in the task overall with lively. There was an abundance of interaction between the group members. Noteworthy is the younger participants, as they sought to build their background knowledge, engaged the moderators and City personnel present to gain a better understanding of the content in the grid. The youngest members of the group (two young white females) jumped in immediately after the initial review of the grid when the floor opened with outside materials attempting to interject them into the conversation. Group 13 was slow is identifying Low-Hanging Fruit and the No Way No How in part they were bogged down with the salmon colored flyer distributed by The Coalition for Essential Services. We agreed that we would include the action items outlined in the flyer in the notes which paved the way to move onto The City Budget: Tight Times, Tough Choices grid and get back on the task for the evening. There was much dialogue between participants as they worked to build understanding of the implications of the decisions as they tried to reach consensus in order to take a vote when we started out but unity within the group shortly developed after a few rounds. There was positive interaction between our group members, all voices were heard and all were engaged. We had two group members who had to leave in the last half-hour. Later in the evening the issue of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) from the yellow flyer (not a PPCE document) surfaced. The City representative’s commentary erupted into a tense exchange between him and an activist. However, situation was calmed by another the City representative who handled the concerns in a quick fashion. Again we agreed to place PILOT as a suggestion in the notes. As we were wrapping up, one of the younger participant commented “there are things on the list I don’t understand…I didn’t know what BPT meant….the City is either going to punch you in the face or punch you in the gut.” Another expressed she was “sympathetic for how hard and complicated this is…” One more surfaced “what other options are not on the table…are there other possible cuts.”

No dissenting worksheets were completed in Group 13 that were turned in to moderators.

Low-Hanging Fruit
Total points: 24
• 24. Sales Tax - 6 points
o No sales tax on necessities - We shouldn’t have taxes on things that are necessary like food and clothing. Group member brought up that we don’t take these items. Don’t want to burden the poor who are already having difficulty making ends meet.
o “.1% isn’t much and we need to start doing something” was how one participant drove home that the group needed to get going and agree on an issue
o “not going to be easy to make cuts” was the rationale for adding the tax
o Vote: 75% (9 out of 12)

• 20. Eagles - 4 points
o Comments from the group included “they got over on us” and “they making money and we’re paying for it” There were a few sidebars going on but it was basically a no brainer that the Eagles need to pay their bill.
o Vote: 83% (10 out of 12)

• 16. Vehicle Fleet - 6 points
o “We don’t know how to predict the impact of the decisions” indicating that they would like more information and details.
o Another group member said we “have to take at face value” using the information that was available.
o Participant offered information she heard on Channel 64 - “DHS will keep their vehicles…no threats to safety…guy works in Northeast Philly and has a car so he can respond in the middle night because he might have to go to West Philly.”
o Police cars - Are they impacted?
o “…don’t want police or fire impacted” Anna offered that this includes all vehicles - Brian offered 1500 vehicles in fleet was the number given at the previous evening’s workshop.
o City Council - What about their cars? Anna offered that the cars are ordered by fleet but the money comes out of the councilperson’s budget. A group participant commented, “Where does their budget money come from?” The response from Anna - “Taxpayers. Mayor doesn’t control it, it’s an allocation.” Participant - “What’s negotiable and what’s not?”
o “What about the airport budget?” Anna’s response, “self-funded, different fund.” Participant - “… want more participation in what’s negotiable’
o Suggestion from The Coalition for Essential Services, salmon-colored flyer containing information which is not generated by the City, surfaced again here - “Collect back taxes” was raised here.
o Vote: 100% (12 of 12)

• 3. Drop Program - 4 points
o This program is abused by City Council - “I know a City Council member who drop out for a day and then came back the next.” This discussion surfaced on the heels of the conversation related to 16. Fleet Vehicles.
o Don’t include City Council or people who work for City Council in the program.
o “We realize that people might be grandfathered in but let’s start excluding from this point forward.”
o “This program was developed under different times and can be dropped across the board…stop giving money away”
o Vote: 83% (10 of 12)

• 21. Parking - 2 points
o Philadelphia has a good public transportation system. Some participants remarked that they used public transportation to attend this workshop.
o “If you drive a car into the city then you have to pay.” There were some sidebars going on around using car share program, traffic, and environmental impact of cars.
o “Everything’s got two sides”
o A participant commented that she would like to have more of these workshops during this discussion.
o Vote: 75% (9 of 12)

• 15b. Levy Fee (Commercial Collections) - 2 points
o Not much for big businesses but will hurt small business. There was concern in the group that small business owners are barely making it as it is in the City. Larger business could pay these fees with no problem. There was a little discussion about the possibility on no fees for small business.
o “It’s already difficult for small businesses”
o Comcast surfaced as an example of big business who could afford to pay. City represent indicated that Comcast is private and pays for its own collection.
o Vote: 75% (9 of 12)

No Ways, No Hows
Total points: 93
• 6. Free Library - 3 points
o “Don’t cut at all” was immediately indicated. This was an untouchable.
o Kids need a safe haven - it’s not logical [to make cuts]
o It was suggested by one of our participants the we could be major cuts in other areas (but this was not teased to identify her thoughts on which “other areas” she was thinking about)
o Another suggestion was rather than closing library measure such as closing on Saturdays or reducing hours. This suggestion was made by a group member who has attended rallies over the past month on this issue.
o Vote: 100% (12 of 12)

• 13. Public Health - 7 points
o There was concern that many people don’t have health insurance.
o Those needing health care services are “already waiting five months for an appointment” as it stands right now.
o Another participant suggested that we need to “focus on the concept of prevention through education” to reduce health care costs.
o If you don’t have health centers people will start using the emergency room for health care which is even more expensive.
o Vote: 100% (12 of 12)

• 14. Recreation Center - 5 points
o The sentiment was that this is the same as the libraries, “kids need a place to go”
o One participant is on the neighborhood advisory council that her local rec centers has already reduced hours. There’s no other place to go and that the centers are places for adults too.
o The quality of life has to be maintained in the neighborhoods
o Working parents need to have the rec centers for after school care. “I can’t get out of work at 3pm every day to pick my son up from school.”
o Vote: 92% (11 of 12)

• 7. Housing - 7 points
o There’s a two year waiting list for eligible families now and cuts would only add to the delay.
o “Number of units available is low” and “need growing on the other side due to foreclosures.”
o This concern was again raised - “We need to think about the quality of life”
o “If our economy is going to move forward we need places to live.”
o “Housing is a life and death issues. I moved to Philly from Wisconsin…people die in cold weather…”
o Vote: 75% (9 of 12)

• 8. Human Services 19 points
o One group member felt that this was an inefficient way to cut. They wanted to know what type of analysis has been conducted.
o It was raised that there a new commissioner who has “not had enough time to make changes” to the existing system to make it run more efficiently
o City only puts in 20% (not sure what this is in reference to)
o Vote: 100% (12 of 12)

• 11. Police - 52 points
o There was no real discussion about the police other than public safety is first and foremost.
o City riddled with crime
o The concern was we need more police not fewer to deal with crime in the City.
o One group member felt that “Philly crime keeps increasing.”
o It was asked if there are “other ways to address” the budget reduction for police.
o A participant offered that there is “no correlation between increasing number of police with reduction in crime.”
o It was suggested that we increase social services and housing as a way to reduce crime.
o Vote: 92% (11 of 12)

• The moderators provided an opportunity for the group to revisit the list when the announcement was made that 20 minutes remained until the end of the session. No service areas listed were up for reconsideration.

Shared Pain
Total points: 24
• 1. Administrative - 5 points
o Initially recommended by a participant as Low Hanging Fruit by a 40+ participant whose suggestion was influenced by Channel 64 programming.
o There a problem in government throughout the entire country around administrative staff - too many, high pay.
o One group member shared that “Mayor Nutter has the largest cabinet the City has ever had” and is this really necessary.
o Explicitly listed details and wants to add language [to the grid] on who will be cut
o Group members wanted a list of cuts by department to assist in the decision-making process. They wanted to investigate what jobs need to be cut.
o Anna gave explanation on the process used. Anna was asked by a participant if the cuts included senior positions. Anna shared that some department heads/managers offered themselves up to take cuts voluntarily.
o City salaries - Are they being cut?
o Will low level administrators be cut?
o Vote: 58% (7 of 12)

• 17. Amusement - 2 points
o In the context of all of the other cuts there was little discussion in the group. The group was slightly winding down and the announcement was made that we only had 20 minutes left.
o One comment was that the extra fee just makes it more expensive
o Vote: 75% (9 of 12)

• 25. Wage/Resident - 12 points
o Some of the participants were unfamiliar with PICA and requested clarification from the City to give an overview of PICA and its role in the City.
o This is where PILOT surfaced and we agreed to include the flyer’s content in the notes. Again the group tenor was that they wanted to gain some points so there was not much discussion here.
o Vote: 67% (8 of 12)

• 26. Wage/Commuter - 5 points
o The group immediately moved down the grid to this service area after voting on 25. Wage/Resident. One group member said “share the pain all the way around” and the group response was “why not.”
o Vote: 100% (11 of 11) (we only had 11 participants at this point)

• 9. Law - 2 points
o Was surfaced but there was no substantive discussion as a group
o Comment was that we need lawyers to defend the city
o Moderator gave clarification that it is outside counsel that City contracts with not attorneys who are employees of the City
o No vote as conversation shifted to 5. Fire
o Vote: 0% (we had only 10 participants at this point)

• 5. Fire
o The groups felt that needed more information like how many fires are there in the City; are the number of fires up or down
o There was also sentiment that the department is top heavy and might be reduced at that level rather than the actual firefighters.
o Some group members wanted to know “Who would lose jobs?”
o Are they [fire department employees] working at full capacity? What type of analysis has been conducted?
o Are they just sitting around the fire house?
o Vote: 20% (2 of 10)
Gut Wrenchers
Total points: 0
• Never made it this far

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
• Never made it this far

Memorable Quotes
• 15c. Levy Fee (Sanitation Service Fee) - 13 points
o Everybody has to pay
o Doesn’t want to use one penny in a household if you don’t have a job
o If future get worse [no money to pay]
o Vote: 17% (2 of 12)
o Group came back to this after discussing 17. Amusements
o “Didn’t want to vote on something where wording is up in the air”
o Second Vote: 25% (3 of 12)

• 10. Licenses & Inspections
o Take a 20% cut so that you have some inspectors
o Will make it easier for inspectors to get paid under the table…they will slide in and slide out [without conducting the inspection]
o Vote: 17% (2 of 12)

Other Ideas/Suggestions
• Costs related to City personnel
o The issue was also raised about City employees need to pay towards their health care benefits. This will reduce some of the burden on the City budget. “We all have to contribute to our plans so City workers should too.”
o Union contracts need to be looked at closely to find ways to reduce costs

• Group 13 participants requested that the action items listed on the flyer distributed by The Coalition for Essential Services be added for future consideration. It was discussed that revenue actions suggestions might be out of the City’s control and/or may not be good policy. Further investigation is needed because these suggestions were not generated by the City. It was also mention that there are stringent restrictions on non-profits that will need to be investigated related to the desire of some group members to support PILOT.
o Collect 50% of $1,000,000,000 bail money owed to the city
o Collect $38,000,000 a year with PILOT program
o End the 10-year local property tax abatement
o Collect 50% of $400,000,000 in uncollected taxes
o Close corporate loopholes in state taxes and create revenue sharing stream for stressed PA cities
o Roll back Wage Tax to 2004 level to half a percentage point higher than current set: 3.9% to 4.5% - While also exempting low wage families such as: a family of four making $35,000 a year or less
o Roll back Gross Receipts Tax to 2003 level from: .0014 to .0023 - While exempting businesses with gross sales less than $500,000 a year
o Convert Wage Tax to an Income Tax
o End exemptions from the Business Privilege Tax for financial institutions and port-related businesses
o Amend state constitution to allow progressive taxation
o Use bailout money to refinance city’s pension fund