Group 9
Moderators: Josh Warner and Susanne Iannece
Total points: 84

Group Description:

Group 9 had 18 members: 11 female and seven male. The group was somewhat diverse, and included several Hispanic members. Age-wise, there was a large range, even though the group was mostly made of 30- 60-year-olds. We did have one infant, but no matter what we tried, we couldn’t get her to vote. Most participants came from South Philly, with members from Center City, Northwest Philly, Overbrook, Chinatown and Kensington rounding out the group. Two members had attended one or both of the previous workshops.

There were several group members that had a lot of background information on the various subjects being deliberated, and aside from a few minor speeches and the occasional fact war, the process was well-received and equally participated in. Despite the contrary views held by some of the more vocal group members, common ground was reached fairly quickly on many of the topics, which allowed the majority of the cuts and revenue sources to be covered (#18 and #19, Business Privilege Tax were the only topics not discussed) by the group. There were no outright “heated” exchanges, and overall the group had a strong tilt toward government efficiency. Before group work began, there were specific questions on the process, but never was the exercise itself (and its value) challenged, questioned or rejected by any group member during the process.

The “Gut Wrenchers” bucket was never reached with this group, and one dissenting work sheet was filled out by a group member that had fully participated in the group process.

Low Hanging Fruit
Total points: 49
• #17 Amusement: 2 points
o Not much discussion on this one.
o General agreement that those that could afford to go out to the Kimmel Center in the first place could afford a bit more on ticket prices.
o 18/18 voted in favor.
• #20 Eagles: 4 points
o Not much discussion, as this was a quick vote.
o No “cons” mentioned.
o 18/18 voted in favor
• #16 Vehicle Fleet: 6 points
o Group discussion again centered on abuse of a privilege for sedan-type vehicles, but with help from the city representative, it was understood that all city vehicles could be affected by the cut.
o Most of the group agreed that “perk” cars should be cut, but emergency and service vehicles should be spared.
o Good deliberation and agreement on the use of hybrid vehicles and Philly Car Share.
o Utilizing trans-passes for city workers was brought up by one member, and agreed to by the group.
o 16/18 voted in favor (for this option without any alteration)
• #22 Real Estate Tax: 5 points
o Deliberation on this point was fairly straightforward.
o Overall, the group thought small millage increases were fair but had some reservations.
o One member keenly observed that only the effect on residential properties was listed in the ‘impacts’ section of the work sheet. It was requested that impacts on commercial and industrial property holders be listed as well, in order to make a more informed decision.
o Fair-value assessment was considered very important by the group before it came up to vote.
o The PILOTs issue came up, and most group members thought that large institutions and nonprofits should pay more of their share.
o 14/18 voted in favor
• #1a Administrative, 5 points
o The ‘efficiency of government’ tilt of the group came to a head with this topic, and it was agreed that the City can make due with less administrative workers.
o Several group members were sensitive to the number of job cuts this option would entail
o It was then mentioned that ‘white collar’ job experience can be leveraged for a replacement job in the private sector fairly easily
o One young man mentioned that the Philadelphia Film Office should potentially be spared, if it happens to generate revenue for the City.
o 14/18 voted in favor.
• #1b Administrative (Recording Fees): 1 point
o No dissenting views here, and the point was viewed as a no brainer.
o It was mentioned that many of these records are vital or necessary, yet they are rarely needed by most residents.
o 15/18 voted in favor.
• #3 DROP Program: 4 points
o The group spent quite some time on this topic, but initially wanted clarification on whether it would save money or cost money.
o After clarification by Julie, our city representative, on what the program is and its cost/benefit, the group moved on to the discussion on how elected officials have abused this program.
o DROP for elected officials should be eliminated.
o 18/18 voted in favor.
• #10 Licenses & Inspections (15% cut): 2 points
o The group got very vocal for this topic, as this seemed to be the chief example of government inefficiency that most members knew of.
o After a few varying stories of L&I issues and mishaps, it was wholeheartedly agreed that the entire department should be overhauled and that workers don’t do their job well, are overpaid, and inefficient.
o Most had an issue with the amount of layoffs the 30% cut would entail, so a proposal for a 15% cut was offered.
o Despite the reduction of the cut, many group members repeated their strong opinions that the department needs a major overhaul.
o Memorable Quote: After telling a personal story of L&I inefficiency and how it affected him, one gentleman said “I don’t know, I guess this is a personal jihad on my part.”
o 18/18 voted in favor.
• #21 Parking: 2 points
o Discussion that this was a small increase and only for parking structures.
o General agreement that discouraging car use was a good thing.
o 18/18 voted in favor.
• #2 Courts (10% cut): 5 points
o One gentleman that has had significant experience with the court system gave a passionate laundry list of reasons for overhauling and cutting this portion of government.
o Inefficiencies were highlighted, and the specific word “scrutinized” was used when describing the need for overhaul and accountability of the system.
o After some discussion regarding the State Supreme Court decision regarding court funding, it was slyly mentioned that perhaps the city could force the state’s hand in giving the past due funding by cutting this.
o Memorable Quote: While discussing the link between police, courts and prisons, one person said that cutting court funding would “kind of put us in the line of fire.”
o Proposal for a 10% cut was offered.
o 17/18 voted in favor.
• #11a Police (5% cut): 13 points
o This part of the deliberation was certainly the highlight of the evening, as one brave (but well-informed) member mentioned Police as a potential “Low Hanging Fruit,” right at the second we had started to move on to the “No Way, No Hows.”
o It seems that the group member had been considering mentioning this for some time, as his reasoning was well thought out. The member started off by saying “Just hear me through,” and made several arguments:
 Many of the cuts would come from keeping unfilled positions unfilled and through standard attrition/retirement rates.
 Certain specialty units do not benefit the entire city as a whole, as they are targeted to a specific area or type of crime (e.g., hostage negotiation unit).
 The fact that the Federal Stimulus Bill includes monies for urban areas’ police departments, and that for the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, these funds can be relied upon.
 That back in the 1960s, the city had 600,000 more people than today, yet the police force was the same size, such that the city was doing more with less resources than today.
o After these arguments, the group responded with several cons, namely that a large police force would be needed in the event of a 9/11 type disaster, and that in bad economic times, crimes (especially petty crimes) certainly increase, and that patrols are effective as crime deterrents.
o One group member offered that more police do not equate to less crime.
o At this point, one group member offered a 5% cut option.
o 15/17 voted in favor.

Mentioned as potential “Low Hanging Fruit” but not passing the 75% threshold vote were:
• #23 Real Estate Transfer Tax
• #4 Fairmount Park (This made it on to the “No Way, No Hows.”)
• #14a Recreation - 10% cut (This made it on to the “No Way, No Hows.”)

No Ways, No Hows
Total points taken off the table: 43
• #6 Free Library: 3 points
o This topic quickly came to a vote after little discussion.
o Since libraries were taking cuts in November, the group felt that they did not deserve more, and relative savings (point value) wasn’t worth messing with.
o 16/17 voted in favor.
• #7 Housing: 7 points
o One group member said it simply from the ‘Impacts’ section: that 501 shelter beds would be lost, which was wrong in and of itself, and that with those folks on the street, many more services would be needed (police, courts, health, prisons, etc.).
o After no dissenting opinions were offered, 16/17 voted in favor.
• #8 Human Services: 19 points
o While the first group member to speak in favor of this mentioned children’s services, the discussion quickly turned to the matching grant monies from state and federal sources, and how cutting this would be losing out on money.
o 17/17 voted in favor.
• #13 Public Health: 7 points
o The group did not deliberate on this topic.
o It was offered as NwNh because of the burdens that cuts would place on other parts of government and society, and then quickly came to a vote.
o 17/17 voted in favor.
• #4 Fairmount Park: 2 points
o The majority of the discussion on this topic took place in the “Low Hanging Fruit” section, as it was offered for that bucket first.
o The group member who offered this (as a NwNh) mentioned that more and more people will be using the park system in stressful economic times because it is free.
o It was mentioned that cuts here would have a disproportionately high effect on children.
o Dissenting views (from the previous discussions for “Low Hanging Fruit”) focused on the fountains and mansions cuts, and that the jobs lost could likely be rehired or filled after the Fiscal 2010 budget year.
o 14/17 voted in favor.
• #14 Recreation: 5 points
o This topic was also previously brought up and discussed for “Low Hanging Fruit.”
o Because it received zero votes for “LHF,” one group member mentioned that it should go in the “No Way, No How” bucket.
o Deliberation was short, but the fact that kids need recreation centers was brought up and agreed upon, and that low-income families often depend on them.
o 17/17 voted in favor.

Mentioned as “No Way, No Hows” but not passing the 75% threshold vote were:
o #5 Fire - 20% cut
o #12 Prisons

Shared Pain
Total points: 35
• #23 Real Estate Transfer Tax: 2 points
o This was brought up under “Low Hanging Fruit,” but did not pass the 75% threshold. The pro for including it in “Shared Pain” was the prospect that people only buy/sell once, twice, or three times in their lives.
o Deliberation then came on the prospect of discouraging home sales in an already stagnant market.
o One member questioned what projections the city had used for the revenue growth figures, given the current market conditions.
o Julie mentioned that the city was using very conservative estimates, and the revenue could be a lot higher with this tax increase if the market rebounded.
o 16/17 voted in favor.
• #24 Sales Tax: 6 points
o It was mentioned that the sales tax is progressive in nature, and that folks can consume less when impacted by an increase.
o A counterpoint came when one member mentioned that people will go elsewhere to purchase expensive items, which might be a revenue loss for the city.
o Again, market conditions were mentioned, and a rhetorical question of “what happens in the next fiscal year,” was asked by a member to try and get others to consider that revenues could potentially be less even if taxes increase.
o 10/17 voted in favor.
• #26b Wage Tax/Commuter: 5 points
o The group discussed this as a fairness issue: Those who work in the city and use services here need to pay, too.
o One group member mentioned Conshohocken and the Comcast Center-type tax shelter deals, and that a commuter tax serves to drive jobs elsewhere.
o One person mentioned that some cities levy a “per head” tax for workers, instead of a wage tax.
o 12/17 voted in favor.
• #15a Streets (20% cut): 10 points
o The deliberation on all subsections of #15 Streets was very passionate.
o Although the group considered the cuts and both revenue options, the Commercial Levy revenue option was never brought to a vote, and the Sanitation Service Fee did not pass the 50% threshold.
o Right from the get go, one member mentioned that with all this recycling, and a reduction in the amount of trash being picked up and transported, the city should be realizing savings.
o “Pay as you throw” was rejected, but just barely. Issues of illegal dumping dominated the conversation, and one person mentioned that those that clean the public areas or alleys around their homes would be charged for public garbage.
o After getting nowhere with the revenue options, one member offered the 20% cut, and it came to a vote fairly quickly without any dissenting viewpoints.
o 13/17 voted in favor.
• #25b Wage Tax/Resident: 12 points
o In true “Shared Pain” fashion, the Resident Wage Tax was brought up.
o The regressive nature was highlighted, and the group agreed that low-income people would be the hardest hit.
o The $25 per $25,000 in income was the aspect that most of the discussion revolved around, even with the prior regressive/low-income dissenting opinions.
o 10/17 voted in favor.

Mentioned as Shared Pain but not passing the 50% threshold vote were:
o #15c Streets (Pay as you Throw / Sanitation Service Fee): 13 points
o #12a Prisons (10% cut): 10 points