Group 5 Moderators: Carole Cohn and Ted Enoch

Group Overview:
Group 5 proved to be an inspiring group of 23 engaged, invested and creative citizens. The group had a strong mix of ages and was fairly balanced among men and women. The group would have benefited from more participation/representation of young adults, African Americans (two were present), Latinos and Asian Americans, just to name a few groups that were clearly underrepresented. But great work was done in this group.

The group was serious about working on the budget process, and even though many in the group had strong feelings about a particular issue, everyone was willing to listen to differing views and give time to numerous issues. It appeared to the moderators that no one in the group took the option of filing a dissenting or individual report, and everyone was invested in the group process. And even when some members felt constrained by the process, they were none-the-less willing to try and work with the process, their group members and the moderators. This group took to the task with earnestness, respect, creativity and humor. A true sense of civic engagement and concern bound this group, and it will be this type of connection and commitment that will be called upon and summoned as Philadelphians respond to the coming financial difficulties that we all face together.

As to the decisions and ideas of this group, some interesting things happened:
• The group was willing and sometimes eager to offer new ideas beyond those that were presented in this process.
• Many in the group were interested in trying to help the group get started, as many topics were introduced in the first section, The Low Hanging Fruit. And even though many topics were offered here, the group found that it was not so easy to have 75 percent of its members agree with a particular budget cut or tax hike.
• Not a single topic proved to meet the criteria (75 percent agreement) of being off the table, or being protected in the No Way, No How category.
• And even though the group ran out of time and was not able to move into the final and most difficult decision-making section (you know, saving the hardest choices for last…) known as the Gut-Wrenchers, the group did some great work deliberating on topics during the Shared Pain section, during which 50 percent of the members had to agree with a solution.

But enough about the overview, lets look at what choices were made…

The Low Hanging Fruit: (Needing 75 percent of group to agree.)
• Cut Government Administration by 20 percent.
o Group vote: 85 percent; worth 5 points

• Force Eagles to pay $8 million in back taxes.
o Group vote: 98 percent; worth 4 points

• Reduce City’s Vehicle Fleet by 20 percent.
o Group vote: 79 percent; worth 6 points

• Reduce Prison budget 20 percent, release 1,200 inmates.
o Group vote: 75 percent; worth 21 points

• Reduce city law and legal counsel budget 30 percent*.
o Group vote: 79 percent; worth 2 points

• Raise city’s Amusement Tax by 1 percent to 6 percent.
o Group vote: 75 percent; worth 2 points

• Raise city’s parking tax/fees 1 percent to 21 percent.
o Group vote: 75 percent; worth 2 points

* Our group felt that eliminating the use of outside counsel to be key in this category

The No Way, No Hows: (Needing 75 percent of group to protect.)
No cut was off the table, no tax was this distasteful. Some topics were raised here but did not find 75 percent agreement in the group:

• Fire: A 10 percent budget cut was on the table
o About 50 percent of the group supported it, noting that all need share in the cutting process. Dissenters spoke to the need to spare deaths, property loss, and to avoid delays in response times. One member talked of losing her home.

• Free Library: A 10 percent budget cut was on the table
o About 42 percent of the group supported it. Dissenters spoke to the need for people to have access to computers, especially when more people will be looking for jobs.

• Public Health: A 20 percent budget cut was on the table.
o About 50 percent of the group supported it. The group was very reluctant to make a cut that could close nursing homes.

• Real Estate Tax: A 1-mill raise from 33.05 mills to 34.05 mills was on the table.
o This did not get much support. One senior citizen who was clearly struggling with health issues spoke out that this would force her to lose her home. Others spoke that somehow, some consistency and fairness throughout the city’s appraisal process must happen first, long before a change in the taxes occurred.
Share The Pain: (Needing 50 percent of group agreement.)
• Cut Housing budget by 20%, programs not beds
o Group vote: 65 percent; worth 5 points

• Streets: Levy fees on businesses for trash collection
o Group vote: 55 percent; worth 2 points

While the group did not have much success in advancing more budget solutions here, in part because of time constraints, some important discussions and values did arise:

Housing: The group suggested a 20 percent budget cut rather than the suggested 30 percent cut because there was a commitment to maintaining beds for our most needy citizens. If the cuts could come from programs and not shelters/beds, this is what our group wanted.

Recreation: Our group was looking for every way possible to avoid cutting services here. Fees for camp and programs were mentioned, perhaps some type of co-pay. The group really valued the role of this department, especially in the lives of our children.

Police: This department did not get raised independently by any group member, but after prompting by the moderator, the group did discuss various aspects relating to the police department. Notably:

• Only 10 percent of the group voted for a 10 percent cut in the department.
• There is concern for corruption and overtime in the department.
• There is great concern for the safety of our officers.

Our group did not have time to continue into the “Gut Wrenchers” section, but did have the following new ideas:

• Raise the Parking fee/tax to 25 percent.
• Collect on the demolition and bail fees that are owed the city.
• Payment in Lieu of Taxes was an important concern to many in the group. The large nonprofit landholders were cited, some specifically by name, such as Penn, Jefferson and the Catholic Church.
• One citizen noticed that PGW’s billing to her comes from an address in Northern New Jersey, thus indicating that the employees there were not paying wage taxes that went to Philadelphia. Her solution: Move this department to Philly.
• Fix or improve the Real Estate Assessment process. Make it consistent in every area of the city.
• Eliminate overtime in streets: No Saturday hours ever.
• Eliminate 311 — although some in the group thought that long-term, 311 could save the city money.

Other thoughts/comments:
One participant felt that this process - group members selecting particular topics to fit into particular categories - was not deliberate enough to systematically investigate each and all of the major potential areas of change, therefore missing the opportunities to test our values on all areas …

There seemed to be a consistent concern for the most vulnerable groups: children, those needing public health centers, and those needing housing …

It should be noted again, that even those with particular interests (those who worked for the fire company, or in a public health center, or a nursing home) did an incredible job of stating their case and then listening to other views. This group did an excellent job of listening to one another.

And one final note, the government official, Anuj Gupta, deputy director for performance management, who participated by listening to citizen’s concerns and occasionally offering statistical or factual clarifications, offered an effective and meaningful presence. If the hope is that citizen input is listened to, understood and valued by our officials, Anuj was a clear model for how this will come to pass. He truly listened, was clearly concerned, and was deeply invested in the citizens’ ideas.