Group Number 3
Moderators: Pete Lafferty and Joan Davis
Total points: 20

Group Description:
A group of 17 citizens joined Group 3 at St. Monica’s for a vibrant discussion of budget trade-offs. The initial group demographics were five men and 12 women; 65 percent Caucasian, 30 percent African American, and 5 percent Asian American; and approximate age range of 11 participants in their 20s and 30s, and six older than 40. The voting numbers below reflect that two people left during the process (without comment), and another left for some duration then returned.

There was some distrust of the process initially, citing the limited scope of the action list, but all were willing to participate. Ready to go to work, they broke into small, randomly situated groups of three to four people to deliberate over actions they could agree to categorize as “Low Hanging Fruit” or “No Way, No How.” A spirited conversation ensued, with every single person engaged in sharing their values in favor or against the proposed actions. The small-group work had one additional interesting element - Anuj Gupta, our city “listener” moving about the room eavesdropping on their discussions, nodding, cocking his head, and clearly absorbing what he heard. Thank-you, Anuj, for that silent involvement.

When the groups rejoined, they presented diverse perspectives, and many votes were close. The power of democracy was truly in effect; the absence of just three people that exited probably made a difference to the outcome.

The key themes on which participants agreed included:
• revenue seeking before service cuts
• efficiency measures across the board before staff reductions
• independent oversight and audits to ensure efficiency
• recognizing the poor state of facilities and urgent need for improvements (adds to budget requirements)

We didn’t have sufficient time to finish the process, barely getting to the “Shared Pain” category, with a total of only 20 points. However the conversation was rich and fruitful. Observing the exchange of business cards at the end, it is the hope of this moderator that they continue the dialogue individually or with blog conversation.

Incubate your ideas with a realistic attention to the March 19th deadline [since laws and City Charter changes take months and years to change, not weeks], and maybe we can close this budget gap in a less painful way.
There were no dissenting work sheets submitted to the moderators.

Low-Hanging Fruit (requires at least 75% vote)
Total points: 10
• No. 3 DROP program: 4 points
o The group accepted this as low impact, only effecting DROP recipients.
o Participants set two standards if the city does retain DROP: 1) exclude elected officials and 2) prohibit the ability to retire then return to work for the city.
o 14 out of 17 voted to eliminate DROP = 82%
• No. 20 Eagles: 4 points
o Participants noted the facts that the Eagles owe the money, and they’re making a profit.
o 14 out of 14 voted to pressure the Eagles to pay = 100%
• No. 21 Parking: 2 points
o There was some brief discussion on the high price of lot parking now, noting that it’s cheaper to park in D.C., Boston and New York, but in the end most felt this was a tolerable source of additional revenue.
o 12 out of 14 voted to implement this increase = 86%

Several options were discussed as “Low Hanging Fruit” but could not gain the 75% support needed and were tabled for later consideration. These REJECTED options included:
• No. 1a Administrative - Budget Cuts: 5 points
o The group had some discomfort not knowing the specific impacts, and most felt that the city is already doing more with less (as a result of 2008 budget-gap actions), concluding that processes would likely slow down.
o There were conflicting perspectives. Some proposed that the Mayor’s Office should be a model and the first to experience staff reductions, while others felt this would impact the city’s ability to respond to ideas generated by the budget forums. Some expressed that every office was overstaffed and an across-the-board reduction was feasible, while others believed staffing to be at minimum levels already.
o 5 out of 17 voted to reduce Administrative budgets = 29%
• No. 1b Administrative - Revenue Option to Increase Recording Fees: 1 point
o Many felt that this was only an occasional impact and they would tolerate an increase.
o 10 out of 17 voted to increase recording fees = 59%
• No. 6 Free Library - 10-20% Budget Cuts: 1 or 3 points
o The group considered many alternatives, such as reduced hours, rotating days open, etc., recommending reductions to all libraries rather than elimination of some.
o One participant noted that reduction in services doesn’t reduce the fixed costs of the buildings.
o The general sense was that other avenues would bring a greater impact, and other revenue-generating options should be considered instead. (Free Library was mentioned again during the “No Way, No How” segment, and passed the vote to be taken off the table.)
o Two out of 14 voted to reduce the Free Library budget in some way = 14%
• No. 17 Amusement Revenue Action: 2 points
o There was some tension between perspectives, with some who felt the increase would be nominal and others concerned that any impact to low-income residents would be unacceptable.
o Arguments against this action stated that only a progressive tax would be acceptable.
o One supporter thought that entertainment choices ARE progressive because they’re subject to one’s budget. Others acknowledged that “amusement” is a luxury, not a necessity, and voted that they would support this trade-off in order to close the budget gap. It was a close vote and may have come out differently if some of the initial participants hadn’t left.
o 10 of 14 voted in favor of an Amusement Tax increase = 71%
• No. 15 Streets - 20% Budget Cut and Revenue Options considered together: a total of 25 points
o Participants defined a standard for this set of actions and lowered the value to 7 points, but failed to gain sufficient support. The suggested conditions accepted the levy of a commercial fee and turning 500 traffic lights to flashing red as proposed, but excluded changes to sanitation and street services and rejected a $5/week fee for trash collection.
o There were a couple of new ideas in this department. One participant suggested to reduce the cost of trash removal the city could replace house-to-house pickup with strategically placed large receptacles and find another way to help seniors and others who can’t take their own trash a little farther. Another participant liked the pay-as-you-go option to pay for trash bags.
o 7 of 14 voted in favor of the modified (7 point) Streets option = 50%
• No. 16 Vehicle Fleet - 20% Budget Cut: 6 points
o Many in the group felt that this was a feasible option and had great potential with the expanded use of Philly Care Share and Zip Car to replace the fleet.
o All agreed that personal use should be eliminated.
o There was concern for the impact of removing DHS vehicles, noting that these vehicles need to be reliable (and personal cars aren’t always) and that many DHS visits are outside of Philadelphia County. A standard was suggested to exclude DHS vehicles.
o Not knowing who this action would affect kept some from voting in favor of reductions.
o 9 of 14 voted in favor of reducing the fleet, excluding DHS vehicles = 64%

No Ways, No Hows
Total points taken off the table: 99
These actions attained at least 75% vote:
• No. 5 Fire - 10-20% Budget Cuts: 10 or 20 points
o Objections included, “It puts my house at risk,” and “We can’t take a chance with human life.”
o The group agreed the city should take necessary steps to reduce overtime and improve efficiencies, but not impact safety.
o There was much support behind the idea of independent oversight and audits to ensure efficiency.
o 14 of 14 voted to remove Fire reductions from consideration = 100%
• No. 11 Police - 10-20% Budget Cuts: 26 or 52 points
o The group objected to any service cuts that impact safety.
o One participant cited the sub-standard facilities that house the police. Most concluded that this department should be improved, not cut.
o 12 of 14 voted to remove Police reductions from consideration = 86%
• No. 8 Human Services - 10-20% Budget Cuts: 9 or 19 points
o Participants expressed that this department had experienced cuts already and that “there aren’t any slackers in Human Services.”
o The group agreed the city must avoid impacting these children, “our most vulnerable population.”
o 14 of 14 voted to remove DHS reductions from consideration = 100%
• No. 6 Free Library - 10-20% Budget Cuts: 1 or 3 points
o The group again discussed the Free Library proposals, this time winning the vote to protect the libraries.
o One participant suggested tracking how libraries are used by adults and children and then deciding based on those findings. If users were primarily children, then consider using recreation centers and schools instead.
o The group discussed the importance of computer access and homework help provided at the libraries and that libraries are used as a safe space for children.
o 12 of 14 voted to remove the Free Library system from consideration = 86%
• No. 14 Recreation Budget Cuts: 2, 3, or 5 points
o Participants determined that recreation centers have an important role in “keeping kids off the street.” Most felt that Recreation was at bare bones now and could not sustain further cuts.
o One suggestion was to evaluate the value of the centers to the community by testing a fee system. Charge a nominal fee of 25 cents and determine if the a center is still used. Is the public willing to support this resource in any way?
o 11of 14 voted to remove Recreation Centers from consideration = 79%

One action was discussed for placement in the “No Way, No How” bucket, but did not have the required 75% support and was tabled for later consideration:
• No.10 Licenses and Inspections - 30% Budget Cut: 4 points
o Many felt that Philadelphia needs more inspections, not less.
o A standard was proposed to improve inspection of care facilities; e.g. day care, elderly care.
o 7 of 15 voted to remove L&I from consideration = 47%

Shared Pain
Total points: 10
Achieved at least 51% vote:
• No. 12 Prisons - 10% Budget Cut: 10 points
o The group acknowledged the need for a smaller prison population, and the majority supported release of nonviolent offenders.
o Participants set a standard that budget reductions don’t impact quality of life within prisons and that prisons continue to focus on transition support, expanding staff skilled in this area. Prisoners were considered a “vulnerable population” and those that should remain incarcerated must be adequately housed.
o 8 of 15 voted in favor of a 10 % cut = 53%
o 2 of 15 voted in favor of a 20% cut = 13%, failing to pass the higher reduction.

A misunderstanding surfaced at the last minute and required clarification that Revenue Actions had been on the table all along. Several participants had mistakenly thought the process restricted their initial discussion to service reductions, based on the structure of the form. They would have raised the various tax increases as “Shared Pain” actions, but time ran out.

Gut Wrenchers
Given time, we would have reconsidered topics put aside by a close vote early in the process: revenue options to increase Recording Fees and Amusement Tax, and reductions to Vehicle Fleet, Administrative, Streets and L&I budgets.

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
The group did not get to this segment, but some sub-group discussion took place on what to do about making the state pay for the First Judicial District Court. At last sighting, they were heading to Harrisburg.

Memorable Quotes
• “Essential services are essential! It’s like you’re asking me to chose - do I eat or do I drink?”
• “All of the city’s facilities need to be green, efficient, and sustainable. This is a long-term challenge that will eventually cost us more if not addressed now.”
• In support of ending the 10-year real estate tax abatement for new development: “We can’t have two strata - those that pay and those that don’t.” and “There are many reasons to be in the city besides tax avoidance.”
o Some defended the abatement for its positive impact on new development, noting that these residents ARE paying taxes in the form of utilities, wage, etc., and will eventually pay high real estate taxes as well. The “Reserve” property was mentioned as a property that would deliver $9,000 annually in property taxes from each resident once the abatement expires.
o Others felt the abatement should be phased out or the duration shorter than 10 years.
• On Free Library budget reductions: “If we must take action here, reduce services, don’t close any libraries.”
• During the deliberation on increasing the Amusement tax: “It’s peanuts to those who go - the total impact is small.”
• Two participants collaborating at the end: “The city got really creative [about generating revenue] when we needed to build the stadium. Why can’t they do that now?” “The city should have a weekend retreat with the mandate to find ways of generating revenue.”