Group 6
Moderators: Rochelle Krombolz and Onaje Mujid
Total points: 68

Group Description:
Our group was composed of 17 people initially with two participants leaving early because of schedule conflicts (vs. frustration or something else). The demographics were as follows: 10 women, 7 men, 5 African American, 11 white/Caucasian, 1 other. We had two or three city employees from various departments. Ages ranged from about mid-20s to mid-late-50s with an average toward the middle of that range.
This was an energized group that was very receptive to the process. Members 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. A few participants were particularly knowledgeable about aspects of city government and certain departments. 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, listened and respectfully offered complementary or differing opinions on issues. This group had a number of items where they agreed to either take heavier cuts to receive more points, or to create some conditions or exceptions that resulted in fewer points. The group was very comfortable with the process of taking the votes. This team deliberated and shared ideas such that they were able to come up with a solid number of points through a number of different cuts/revenue drivers. The most dramatic decision the group made was to increase the residential wage tax by .4% with some caveats vs. the suggested .01% or .1%. This resulted in a large number of points from just one item (40 pts). We spent the majority of our time on “Low Hanging Fruit,” and generated “No Way, No How’s” in the last 20 minutes of the session. We had no “other ideas,” no items that were voted into “Shared Pain,” and we did not get to “Gut Wrenchers.”
No dissenting work sheets were filed. Most participants completed pre- and post-workshop surveys.

Low-Hanging Fruit
Total points: 68
• #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
o 15/17 votes
o We don’t care whether city staff and elected officials have cars. In fact, I’ve heard suggestions that there might be some abuse in usage of city cars.
o We should try to provide more cars through Philly Car Share.
o We want to protect cars for Human Services visits.
o Why can’t there be more carpooling?
• #20 Eagles: 4 points
o 17/17 votes
o The Eagles make a lot of money, and they should pay what they owe.
o We don’t want to be held hostage.
• #3 DROP Program: 4 points
o 12/16 votes
o Reduction here doesn’t eliminate jobs.
o We may lose seasoned employees.
o We should stop City Council from getting to participate. I’ve heard they can retire for a day and come right back the next day to collect both salary and pension.
o This program provides incentive for tenured employees to retire which allows for new people/ideas to be brought in.
o The program is not well-targeted/well-designed such that it will produce a good outcome.
• #24 Sales tax: 6 points
o 13/16 votes
o These increases would be so minimal on a per household basis, and yet yield a very large amount of revenue.
o Some participants felt that this was not a good choice because it did not target high-income households with a higher percentage tax than it did low-wage households. Other participants pointed out that in all likelihood the higher-income households would spend more, and therefore in actual dollars they indeed would be paying more taxes.
• #23 Real Estate Transfer: 2 points
o 13/16 votes
o These percentages don’t seem like they would equate to a lot of money to the average homebuyer.
o There is a risk that this increase could drive people away from buying in the city.
o We could see a further deterioration in an already troubled real estate market.
o I don’t think that the amount of the transfer tax is a deciding factor in whether and where to buy a house. Other things like schools, neighborhoods, sports, safety, etc. are bigger factors
o I’d rather take a hit here than add it to the wage tax.
• #17 Amusement: 1 point
o 12/16 votes
o People wouldn’t even notice this.
o This is discretionary spending, and people can decide not to do these things if they can’t afford to.
o Any increase here will be felt more by lower-income households and further devastate the families who can’t afford to enjoy the city’s cultural offerings.
o People will decide for themselves whether they will spend money on these types of things.
o Ultimately, the group voted to raise the amusement tax by 1%, but to exclude movie tickets from the increase in order that that amusement wouldn’t become more expensive for low-income households. They took only 1 point for this item.
• #26 Wage Tax/Commuter: 5 points
o 15/15 votes
o The commuters are paying a lower wage tax than the residents, but they are still using many of the city’s services.
o People have the choice not to work in Philly (if they don’t like the tax).
• #25 Wage Tax/Resident: 40 points
o 14/15 votes
o This is a really big revenue opportunity for the city - a relatively small increase drives a lot of additional revenue.
o An increase would only take it back to where it was before.
o We should exempt the first $35K of earnings from the approved increase.
o We’re not sure how much an increase will or won’t hurt business in Philly, but it is a consideration.
o Ultimately, the group decided to increase the resident wage tax by .4% (still at or below where it used to be), with the caveat that we exempt the first $35K of income from the increase. This resulted in 40 points for their tally.

No Ways, No Hows
Total points taken off the table: 57
• #13 Public Health: 8
o 15/15 votes
o Public-health centers are already busy and crowded.
o A lot of people are losing jobs and/or insurance due to the economy and they need this service.
o Community safety is a consideration if we reduce these services. We could see untreated illness that turns into an epidemic.
• #7 Housing: 7 points
o 15/15 votes
o We should help people vulnerable to foreclosures.
o The high rate of homelessness and the visibility of homeless citizens in public places have already been cited as discouraging businesses and visitors from coming here.
• #8 Human Services: 19 points
o 14/15 votes
o If we reduced these services, we would see an increase in crime and homelessness.
o Many people who are in need of mental-health services get that treatment here, and it aids them in their recovery.
o These services include prevention services, services for the elderly, services for developmentally challenged individuals, and we think those are important.
o It is ridiculous to cut in an area where would be foregoing supplemental funding from the state or federal government.
o I’d rather see us cut hours if necessary than close anything.
• #6 Free Library: 3 points
o 8/15 votes
o This was a close vote.
• #5 Fire: 20 points
o 13/15 votes
o I would rather pay more taxes than touch this.
• Proposed but did not make a 75% consensus: #11a/b Police
o There are a lot of officers that are not in good enough physical condition to do their jobs properly. They are overweight and should be made to get into better shape in order to do their jobs well.
o I’ve heard that not all police resources are being fully utilized.
o Some of police officers’ time is spent in traffic court.
o Of the possible departments that might have the visibility to receive supplemental funding by the state or federal government, Police would be high on the list, so why not take a little from here and hope that some of it comes back?
o While the number of police officers is sufficient, we would like to see them better qualified.

Shared Pain
Total points: 0
• We had one item (Police) that didn’t make 75% for the NWNH, and on which we subsequently voted for as a “Shared Pain.” It did not achieve a 50% approval for placement into “Shared Pain” either.

Gut Wrenchers
Total points: 0
• We did not get to these.

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
• We did not get to these, although the participants did express interest.