Moderators: Franne McNeal and Carol Lydon
Group overview:
The group of 18 people entered the room with questions about why points were high or low on specific services, and one individual in particular questioned the validity of the process. “It was fixed; our voices don’t matter; these numbers are wrong.” The diversity based on neighborhoods was not clear, but the perspectives included people who worked for the police, fire, streets and parks departments. Individuals also worked in the arts, health sector, schools, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, schools as well as retirees. All individuals were tax payers, and some lived outside of the City of Philadelphia. Observers included press (NY Times, Daily News, Inquirer, and WHYY) and an official city representative. Visitors included other city officials and press. Four people completed dissenting worksheets. The group identified 26.5 points in the “low hanging fruit” and “shared pain” buckets.

Note: The group was initially resistant to the process. They had not reviewed the work sheet during the registration process, so they were unaware of the goals of the 100 points, the concept of the buckets, and the reasoning behind quickly surveying/prioritizing for “low-hanging fruit” and “no way no how” items. As a result they wanted to discuss/make their point on issues and were suspicious of why there was a need to “quickly” move on. As the evening went on, trust developed in the group, the individuals came together as a group, recognized that the bulk of the discussion would be on the “shared pain” items, and saw the value of naming pro/cons and clarifying statements as well as suggesting creative ideas and our modifying points for specific items.
Low Hanging Fruit:
Three items that made the list, with 75 percent of the group vote, for a total 10 points.
• No. 16 Vehicle Fleet - reduce budget by 20 percent, 6 points
• No. 26 Eagles (revenue action), 2 points
• No. 17 Amusement (revenue = ticket tax), 2 points
No Way, No How:
Two items that made the list, with 75 percent of group vote, for a total 72 points.
• No. 5 Fire - reduce budget by 10 percent, 20 points
o Reducing the Fire budget by any amount was discussed strongly by one person.
• No. 11 Police - reduce budget by 20 percent, 52 points
o Reducing the Police budget by any amount was discusses strongly by two people. Pro quotes: “With the economy, there will be more crime, we need more police.”
Discussion where 75 percent of vote was NOT obtained:
No. 13 Public Health (reducing budget by any amount) was discussed strongly by three people.

Pro quote: “Public health services prevent expensive emergencies, help reduce costs early, and help prevent long-term illnesses, which are expensive to treat.”
Pro quote: “86,000 people, $334 co-patient visits in 2008, 5.55 in first six months of patient visits.”

Con quote: “Not want people to suffer, but need folks to bite the bullet.”
Con quote: “The city will get money from the economic stimulus that may offset this issue.”
Issues brought up:
Where is funding for mural arts program?
Revenue generation idea: Raise fines for CLIP and anti-graffiti?
Shared Pain:
Three items that made the list, with 51 percent of group vote, for a total 16.5 points.
- No. 13 Public Health (modified, reduce budget by 10 percent), 2.5 points
- No. 13, Public Health (revenue = co-pays), 1 points
- No. 15 Streets (revenue = “pay-as-you-throw”), 13 points
Pro quote: “People pay for trash all around the world. It is a reasonable fee.”
Pro quote: “I will not vote for both (No. 25 Wage Tax and No. 15 Streets), so I would choose No. 15 because it generates $ in a way that does not drive out business or residents.”
Con quote: “Slippery slope, don’t want to go there. What else will we be charged for?”
Con quote: “If we do it, it will increase illegal dumping, which will increase costs and health/safety issues.”
Con quote: “Is this a charter issue? Is it legal to charge?”
Con quote: “What are the costs to administer the program and has that been considered against the ‘revenue’?”
General: “Renters do pay for services, via landlord, who pays property tax and then passes taxes on in the rent.”
Discussion where 51 percent of vote was NOT obtained:
- No. 1 Administrative (reduce budgets, 5 points) -> vote 20 percent
Pro quote: “Must cut “helpers” salaries.” There is a lot of waste and fat in those budgets and not enough accountability.”
- No. 3 DROP program (end early pension payments, 4 points) -> vote 20 percent
Pro quote: “Why are elected officials included? They should not be. They are ruining the program. They “retire,” keep the $, and then come back in another job.”
Con quote: “City workers need this program. They don’t abuse it. They wouldn’t save it otherwise. It is a saving plan of 4 percent and the city actually makes money 5 percent. Max of 4 years.”

- No. 21 Parking (revenue action = tax, 2 points) -> vote 20 percent

- No. 25 Wage/Resident Tax (increase .01%, 1 point) -> vote 20 percent
Con quote: “Ten percent may be a reasonable cut, but based on economy, would not risk businesses.”
Creative ideas:
• Be more transparent and specific (give names, amounts, reasons, actions being taken to pursue money, challenges) about the list of “past due” and money owed to city. Stop saying, “Well, we will look in to it,” or “We are looking in to it.” Need a specific timetable for accountability and exports.
• Tax Abatement, stop now. Go after the state. (Do understand that this is a long-term issue, but frustrated that it is a long-time issue.)
• Court and prison system. Go after those funds. (Do understand that this is a long-term issue, but frustrated that it is a long-time issue.)
Question to city official:
Q. What about a collection agency for uncollected real estate taxes => in general and for nonprofits (hospitals, etc)?
A: Being researched but is a “long-term” issue. Some agencies (PGW = semi autonomous), Water Dept = city agency. Charter issues are involved. Legal issues are involved. May be difficult to collect if debt written off (because of length of past due).
Gut Wrenchers:
Did not officially complete this section because we ran out of time. However, note that No. 21, No. 1, and No. 3 were discussed in shared pain but did not make that list; so those items may have been reintroduced as part of the “gut wrencher” discussion.