Group Number 14
Moderators: Lisa Santer and Karen Scott
Total points: 81.5

Group Description:
Of the 13 participants, 10 appeared to be white and three African American, with six women and seven men. While most appeared to be in the broad range of middle age, there was at least two participants in their 20s, and one young teen son present but engaged in the discussions.
As a whole, the group was passionate about protecting our city. There were concerns that the city government had really already decided what to do, but people thought it was worth going through the process in case that wasn’t true, and in hopes that we could show this process works and is valuable for the future. A common refrain was that some departments surely have fat to trim, contrasting with some that are already overwhelmed. Although some participants spoke much more often than others, all seemed engaged in the entire process. The group had a surprisingly high number (13) of “Low Hanging Fruit”; we pushed quickly through “No Way, No How” issues and made a good dent in “Shared Pain” choices. We did not get to “Gut Wrenchers.”
To our knowledge, no dissenting worksheets were filed.

Low Hanging Fruit
Total points: 46.5
• #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
o There was some concern that the group’s decision was not fully informed, but overall, if we have to cut somewhere, these cars would be a good place to start.
o Arguments against included that workers need to travel and would have to fill out vouchers to be reimbursed — washing away savings and decreasing productivity.
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #3 DROP program: 4 points
o When someone mentioned they’d heard of abuses, both sides heated up but little discussion of merits.
o Nearly unanimous vote
• #12a Prisons — 10% cut: 10 points
o Many people don’t belong in prison, and some are there for excessive times. An example given by one participant was that he was incarcerated for a year for having “one dirty urine.” Releasing them could be positive rather than a painful cut, IF and only if, supportive programs were in place.
o Police officer killed recently by person who “never should have been released.”
o “We need more prisons, not less.”
o ~10 of 13 supported
• #10 Licenses and Inspections, modified: 2 points
o Dropped to 15% cut
o 30% cut seems extreme, as does NO inspections. Willing to have fewer demolitions for now, but want to keep some inspections.
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #20 Eagles: 4 points
o Laughter & unanimous vote
• #17 Amusement: 2 points
o “If you don’t want to pay extra, take advantage of free stuff.”
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #21 Parking: 2 points
o Small increase, so not too painful.
o Could decrease cars in city, which would be a good thing.
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #1a Administrative, modified: 2.5 points
o Dropped to 10% cut
o Pros: They should share in city’s pain. There must be some fat that can be trimmed there.
o Cons: Positions have already been cut. More cuts will create more inefficiency.
o 10 of 13 supported.
• #1b Administrative, revenue option: 1 point
o Small cost, on those who use service.
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #22 Real Estate: 5 points
o $51 more per year is not a vast amount.
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #9 Law: 1 point
o Dropped to 15% cut.
o There’s probably fat to trim here, and without people to do the work, city cannot function properly.
o Nearly unanimous vote
• #15b Streets — fee for commercial trash: 2 points
o Substantial concern for very small business, so wanted to ensure this fee is limited for those with fewer than six employees.
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #26b Commuter Wage Tax: 5 points
o “They can afford it.”
o Why is there such a big difference between the impact of the same % increase in the wage tax on commuters and residents?
o Virtually unanimous vote

No Ways, No Hows
Total points taken off the table: 101
• #15c Sanitation Service Fee: 13 pts
o Questioned how much it would save the city to go back to every-other-week recycling.
o Enforcement seen as problematic. If people do not pay, would their trash not be picked up, thus causing a problem for their neighbors? More problematic for poor people. Could cause flight from city.
o Two participants who live in neighborhood with significant trash problem said they’d support IF it meant streets would be cleaner.
o 10 of 13 supported.
• #8 Human Services all levels: 9 to 19 points
o Only 11% of this budget is city money. Every city dollar cut means a loss of $4 from other sources. It helps children. No fat to trim here.
o Virtually unanimous vote.
• # 6 Free Library, all levels: 1 to 3 points
o Unanimous
• #7 Housing: 7 points
o Shelters already overwhelmed and number of homeless people dramatically increasing.
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #11b Police 20% cut: 26 pts (=pts above 10% cut)
o Needed for safety, especially now.
o Probably some fat in there, so limited cut.
• #13 Public Health — all levels and revenue option: 6 to 8 points
o System already overwhelmed. Will be more with increasing unemployment.
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #5 Fire — all levels: 10 to 20 points
o Virtually unanimous vote
• #14 Recreation — all levels: 2 to 5 points
o “It’s not just playing.”
o Question of upcoming merger of Recreation & Fairmount Park departments and what that means for budgets.
o Virtually unanimous vote

Shared Pain
Total points: 35
• #2 Courts, modified: 5 points
o Dropped to 10% cut.
o Proposed but rejected for “Low Hanging Fruit.”
o Pros: Courts extremely inefficient. Too much waste in court system.
o Cons: Could take longer for trials - the large backlog is due to not enough people to process cases. Too large a cut will overwhelm the current system.
o 7 or 8 of 13 supported.
• #11a Police — 10% cut, 26 pts
o Must be some fat there, 10% probably safe.
o ~8 of 13 supported
• #23b Real Estate Transfer Tax: 4 points
o Chose increase of 2 mills.
o Virtually unanimous vote.

Gut Wrenchers
• N/A

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
• First Judicial District
o Proposed as “Low Hanging Fruit.”
o “Once we take care of this, everything else will be easy.”