Moderator Report

Group Number 6
Moderators: Dick Gross, Rochelle Krombolz
Total points: 38

Group Description:
This group was comprised by 20 people with the following demographics: 12 women, 8 men, 7 African American, 12 caucasian/white, 1 other. We had a number of city workers from various departments. Ages ranged from approximately mid-20s to mid-50’s with an average towards the middle to higher end of that range.

This was an energized group who were very receptive to the process. They responded extremely well to working in small groups before reporting back to the larger group. It appeared that all participants were active and being listened to in the small groups; similarly there was not an issue of one or just a few participants dominating the group discussion. Several participants were very knowledgeable about city government and certain departments in particular. They offered helpful insights periodically as did our observer from the city when one of the moderators asked him to do so. All participants were courteous to their peers and listened and respectfully offered complementary or differing opinions on issues. This group had a number of items that they agreed to either take heavier cuts to receive more points, or create some conditions or exceptions that resulted in fewer points. The group was very comfortable with the process of taking the votes. This team’s score was more reflective of their not having had more time to discuss additional large point items than it was their willingness to consider both cuts and revenue drivers, or listen to opposing positions, or to work towards consensus.

Low-Hanging Fruit
Total points: 29
• Amusement ( 17) 4 points
o Approved a 2% increase in order to double the point value
• Eagles (20) 4 points
o Let them clean the stadium if they won’t pay.
o We don’t want them to decide to move to NJ, however.
• Parking (21) 2 points
o 1% won’t hurt that much
• Wage/commuter (26b) 5 points
o It seems reasonable that in times of need we would bump this up (for both commuter and resident). We can always reduce it again when things get better.
o We wouldn’t just stick it to the commuters. We will also support an increase for residents.

• Wage/resident (23b) 6 points
o Approved only a .05% increase
o There is a benefit to trying to keep the percentage increase for commuters and residents somewhat similar in order that there isn’t a significant tax benefit for current residents to move outside of the city.
o A full .1% increase would be too discouraging
• Real Estate Transfer (23) 2 points
o OK to increase because it’s a 1 time hit
o It could discourage the housing market for only a small amount of returns in revenue
• Vehicle Fleet (16) 6 points
o “Personal drivers for city officials are ridiculous! They think they are entitled. That kind of thing needs to stop!”
o Some members of the group suggested a 30% reduction here but it was not the majority
o There was some concern over job loss by a few participants
o Any cuts should start at the top and be taken across all levels, including the Mayor and City Council members.

No Ways, No Hows
Total points: 52
• Fairmount Park (4a,4b)
o They’ve already given enough.
o There are a lot of untapped opportunities to use the park to generate revenues (renting out facilities, etc)
• Housing (7)
• Human Services (8a, 8b)
o Making cuts here is not worth the corresponding loss of state and federal dollars.
• Recreation (14a, 14b, 14c)
• Free Library (6a, 6b)

Shared Pain
Total points: 9
• Administrative (1a, 1b) 5 points
o This item was originally nominated as a LHF, however it did not achieve 75% consensus. The group later went back and re-voted whereupon they achieved 75% consensus.
o Group wanted to ensure that we maintain the capacity to raise revenue and increase fees.
o Try to protect non-exempt positions.
• Drop Program (3) 2 points
o This item was originally nominated as a LHF, however it did not achieve 75% consensus. The group later went back and re-voted on a lesser impact/point value whereupon they achieved 75% consensus.
o This program should be taken away from elected and appointed officials
• Licenses & Inspections (10) 2 points
o This item was originally nominated as a LHF, however it did not achieve 75% consensus. The group later went back and re-voted on a lesser impact/point value whereupon they achieved 75% consensus.
o The group agreed only to a 15% reduction.
o The group wanted to be sure that any cuts here would not impact restaurant inspections.
Gut Wrenchers
Total points: 0
• We didn’t get to these

Other ideas:
• PILOT-look at levying fees from some of the larger non-profits who are using real estate that otherwise might be generating tax revenue
• Consider cuts to City Council salaries even up to 20-30% as will be the case for some departmental budgets.
• Mayor should give up his box seats for various venues

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
• There was interest in voting on 1 or 2 of these, however, we ran out of time
Memorable Quotes
• Group wanted to know why we saw a progression of cuts including 10%, 20% and 30% for some departments, but not for others.
• Some discussion on Public Heath (13) but it was not voted into a bucket:
o There was a proposal for a 10% reduction (not one of the options given) that would not require closing any nursing homes of health centers.
o One participant indicated that nursing homes are not only housing people, but also treating sick or injured people without insurance. Closing nursing homes would not only affect residents.
• Some discussion on Fire (5) but it was not voted into a bucket:
o If we reduce the number of firefighters, we can expect more overtime
o Do we have more fire companies than we need relative to the size of the population?
o We should be considering how far apart stations are in order that response time is viable.
o There was a suggestion that we could get a 5% reduction through natural attrition and not filling jobs though this was not a widely held view.
o
• Some discussion on Prisons (12) but it was not voted into a bucket:
o “Our prison system is a disgrace! We are actually paying inmates $50/day to live three in a cell so that they don’t sue us. We make the British look good!”
o There were strong emotions and mixed feelings about the prospect of releasing prisoners.
o If we consider releasing prisoners, look first at non-violent offenders and the group of people still in prison because they can’t make bail.