Group Moderators: George Coley, Ellen Peterson and Adrian Sagan

Group Overview:
On Thursday, Feb. 12, 2009, community members attended the Penn Center for Civic Engagement’s public deliberation titled, “The City Budget: Tight Times, Tough Choices” at Saint Dominic’s Church. Group 9 consisted of 17 participants, which included seven women and 10 men. One male left early allowing for 16 people to participate in the entire process. One African American female and two African American males participated in the process. During the deliberation, eight people offered a regional description of where they reside: three individuals from North Philadelphia, three individuals from Northeast Philadelphia, and two individuals from South Philadelphia.

The group’s mood, overall, can be described as positive. Participants followed the ground rules fully, were capable of listening to people’s views, and were willing to work together. Although there were identified Interest Groups in attendance at the forum, a person’s commitment to a specific issue did not openly affect Group 9’s ability to collaborate. One individual identified himself as working for a Community Development Corporation, one woman was identified as working in Human Services, one woman is engaged to a police officer. Also, an uncaptured number (approximately two to three) were involved in education and two people were advocates of Philadelphia’s homeless population. There were no individual dissenting work sheets filed with the moderators at the end of the deliberation.

Low Hanging Fruit:
This group identified four services to be placed in the category of “Low Hanging Fruit,” totaling 12 points:
• No. 16 Vehicle Fleet (6 points) received support from 12 of 16 participants.
• No. 17 Amusement (2 points) received support from 13 of 16 participants.
• No. 20 Eagles (2 points) received support from 14 of 16 participants.
• No. 21 Parking (2 points) received support from 13 of 16 participants.

Support for the inclusion of the Vehicle Fleet arose as a member voiced the belief that cars are being misused by city workers. Although Parking was included in this category, participants were concerned of its potential impact on visitors coming to the city and whether it would divert potential visitors to suburban areas and neighboring states.

Services that were discussed but did not receive support for inclusion in the “Low Hanging Fruit” category were:
• No. 3 Drop program
o The Drop program received support from 12 of the 17 participants because participants felt it would impact services. Concern was raised that elected officials could participate in the program

• No. 2 Courts
o The Court received support from 7 of 17 participants for inclusion in the “Low Hanging Fruit” category. There was a general concern that nonviolent offences are clogging the system and further support for the cut would surface if priority was placed on the court hearing violent offenses first. There was concern from members of the group that if the community learned of the court’s “new priorities” there would be an increase in nonviolent crime in the city.

• No. 9 Law
o Law was the final topic that was not carried by the working group, as it did not receive any votes after deliberation. The major concerns were the city’s capacity to go after and collect money from people who owe back taxes and that people would be forced to seek private counsel, which would be too costly for many residents.

No Ways, No Hows:
Five services, totaling 49 points, were placed in the “No Ways, No Hows” category.

• No. 5 Fire (10 points)
o Fire was supported by 14 of the 16 participants. The issue of better screening calls prior to sending departments out was discussed and viewed as important.

• No. 6 Library (1 point)
o Libraries were supported by 13 of 16 participants. Consensus was developed and viewed libraries as an important resource to children and its connection to education. Discussion focused around the understanding that many schools do not have a library on campus or a librarian on staff. A reduction in libraries will result in an increase in crime and rate of incarceration.

• No. 7 Housing (7 points)
o Housing, which received 13 of 16 participant’s support, was carried because participants believed too many people have been forced to the street. A contributor to the current homeless population is the increased rate of foreclosures in the area, many in specific zip codes.

• No. 11 Police (26 points)
o Police received support from 14 of 16 participants in the group. Discussion and concern arose around citations for small violations (ex: parking too far from the curb) when the community has larger crime concerns. Community members also personally felt the challenge of high crime areas and police resources being diverted to them, leaving little coverage in low priority areas.

• No. 13 Public Health (5 points)
o Public Health received 13 of 16 votes for inclusion in the “No Ways, No Hows” category. Public health was viewed as the, “safety net” of the City. Although not voted on, there was an expressed interest in the co-pay revenue option for Public Health.

Shared Pains:
Six options, yielding 40 points, were chosen for the Shared Pains category:

• No.1 Administrative (5 points)
o Administrative, which received support from 13 of 16 participants, was carried with the belief that the Mayor must take another personal pay cut.

• No. 3 Drop program (4 points) (revisited from Low Hanging Fruit)

• All three options in No. 15 Streets and No. 24 Sales Tax (6 points)
o The Street Revenue Option was supported by 11 of the 16 members. There was a common belief that illegal dumping and the rat population will increase, but the group’s priority is protection from job loss. The Sales Tax was supported, but members of the group noted that the city’s low-income community will be impacted the most.

Gut Wrenchers:
Nine of 16 participants supported a 20 percent reduction in No. 12 Prisons (21 points).
Participants believed there should be a reduction in overtime offered to staff, and there should be an increased priority placed on prison alternatives (ex: ankle monitors). Members of the group also stated that drug offenders should not be incarcerated.

Additional Comments/Options:
Three options were offered that were not listed as options in the work sheet. The city should look at increasing the Hotel Tax and look more closely at tax abatements. One individual felt the city should “say no to any salary raises while in negotiation with the unions.”