Council and Nutter wrangle over city's budget needs

City Hall's mounting frustrations with Philadelphia's unappealing budget options boiled over Thursday, as Council members sparred with one another and Mayor Nutter over everything from taxes on sugary drinks and real estate to the proposed garbage-collection fee and how deeply spending ought to be cut.

There appeared to be little consensus, if any, on how the city ought to close a gap of more than $120 million, even as the May 31 deadline for passing a budget approaches.

"The clock is ticking. It's decision time," Nutter said.

But no decisions were made yesterday.

Councilman Brian J. O'Neill tried to force some tough calls. He wanted Council to formally bury Nutter's proposed two-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks and $300 annual garbage-collection fee.

"This budget has been going nowhere," O'Neill said from the Council floor Thursday. "And maybe this is a way to start moving it."

But other Council members objected, saying it was too early to take any revenue-raising options off the table, though few have voiced support for either of Nutter's proposed taxes.

O'Neill reluctantly backed down.

"Eventually, we've got to start getting rid of these distractions," O'Neill said. "We're only considering a real estate tax now, and for all intents and purposes we have been for several weeks."

But Nutter has refused to concede defeat on the sugar-drink tax. He cited a new poll of 401 Philadelphians released Thursday by a coalition of anti-obesity organizations that found respondents preferred the drink tax to other revenue-raising options under consideration.

The poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent, found that 53 percent of respondents would support the drink tax so long as it helped fund anti-obesity campaigns, as Nutter has proposed.

But the tax still appears to be a long shot at best. The bill is fiercely opposed by industry groups, the Teamsters, and others who quickly dismissed the poll, pointing to past national surveys that have found staunch resistance to drink taxes.

The odds are better that Council will approve a property-tax increase, but even that possibility was called into question Thursday.

Councilman Frank DiCicco withdrew a bill that would have increased real estate taxes by 12 percent. It was immediately replaced by a new bill offered up by Council's Democratic leadership that would raise property taxes by 9 percent instead. There appeared to be little enthusiasm for that bill either, however.

"I did not draft the bill, I did not sign the bill, and I am not committed to voting for the bill," said Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr., who introduced the bill on leadership's behalf.

Given the distaste for raising taxes, Council is increasingly focused on spending cuts. But there are broad disagreements about how far the city should go.

Nutter sides with those on Council who contend that another round of big spending reductions would do too much damage to city services. Nutter has called for $33 million in fresh cuts this year, and the mayor has already trimmed spending on city services by a combined $187 million over the last two years, according to a recent Inquirer analysis of the city budget.

Cutting much deeper than that, Nutter argues, would degrade services to an unacceptable level.

On the other end of the debate is Councilman Bill Green. He wants to keep tax increases to a minimum, and to make those that must be enacted temporary.

To limit the tax hikes, Green would bleed the city's fund balance - the projected amount left over at the end of the year - down to $20 million, far below the $68 million cushion that Nutter considers prudent.

Green would also cut spending by an additional $40 million to $50 million next year. Doing that, he contends, means the city would need to increase taxes by only $43 million next year, the equivalent of a 5 percent property-tax increase. The figure is $100 million less than Nutter has called for.

On Thursday, Nutter appeared to call Green out, challenging him to present his cuts publicly and defend them.

"If City Council wants to propose other changes, they have a right to do that. But they should say what they are," Nutter said. "Let them see the light of day, let's test the assumptions."

Hours later, Green released the details of his proposed cuts to reporters for the first time. Most of the reductions come from eliminating - at least temporarily - empty or recently filled position in departments across city government.

Some of Green's key proposed spending reductions are:

$8 million in cuts to city prisons - an area that Nutter has significantly reduced spending in - chiefly through eliminating unfilled positions in the system, including 35 correctional officer positions.

$6.6 million in reduced spending on police through elimination of some empty and recently filled civilian positions and a $5 million cut in overtime. Police overtime is another area where Nutter has already reined in costs.

$4 million in cuts to the Division of Technology through elimination of unfilled positions, or about 10 percent of the department's total personnel budget.

$4 million through eliminating a newly created emergency fund for snow removal.

$1.7 million through the elimination of 43 new and unfilled park management positions connected to tree planting.

$1 million in cuts to Council's $15 million budget for wages and contractual services.

"I want to give city departments enough to do the job they're doing today and nothing more. We're in a crisis. This is not a time to be expanding services," Green said.