Raising money, and questions

TOMORROW, several of Mayor Nutter's top staffers will testify before City Council about the tax on sugary drinks, the trash fee, and other revenue options in the city budget.

Here are some of the questions we hope Council asks:

Are the trash fee and sugary-drink tax the best options?

Not only haven't we heard convincing enough arguments that these are the best options, but they both have logical flaws. If the soda tax is intended to encourage healthy behavior, what happens if people stop buying these products and revenue declines? (An event not figured into the five-year plan.) The tax is not designed to ensure that retailers will be easily able to target the tax to sugary drinks. They are more likely to spread the hike across all products. Naturally, this defeats the whole health rationale for the tax. There are just as many issues with the trash fee. Why does it have to be a flat fee? Does it make sense to charge everyone the same amount, regardless of ability to pay and the amount of waste produced? Also, why should the trash fee be permanent? The pension deferral and the sales-tax hike of last year are temporary.

What are the other options for revenue?

An increase in the property tax would be a lot more equitable than a flat fee on all property owners. It would also come with the added benefit of being deductible.

What's worse, cutting city government by 7.5 percent or imposing new fees and taxes?

The administration has said the budget deficit could be erased by cutting every city department by 7.5 percent. We have no idea how those cuts would translate into reduced operations or services. And lacking this information, it's fair to ask whether reducing services by this much - which Nutter has said would be "draconian" - really hurt as much as a $300 fee for trash collection.

Did the city consider pay-as-you-throw?

We want Council to ask about the logic of the trash-fee structure . . . because there doesn't seem to be any. Smaller households will pay the same $300 fee as families producing much more trash. And the low-income subsidy - a flat reduction in the fee - will do nothing to reduce consumption, which is the driving factor in waste-management costs. More than 7,000 communities across the country (including 200 in Pennsylvania) charge fees on a "pay as you throw" basis." Residents are charged for the trash they actually produce, encouraging people to be less wasteful, which has both fiscal and environmental benefits. We've heard nothing about this option from the administration.

How serious is the administration about its proposals?

Not only do the soda tax and trash fee have inherent structural problems, but obvious political problems. The political blow-back on the trash fee in particular shouldn't surprise the administration, which floated the same idea last year before killing it. So what changed from last year? Nothing, which is why we wonder why the administration wasn't doing more to prepare the public for a return to trash-fee talk. Did it really expect to announce it as suddenly as it did and expect everyone to forget his objections from last year? Which makes us wonder: Is the administration serious about this?

Where's the public?

So far, there are plenty of spaces left for public input during the hearing (which begins at 10 a.m. tomorrow) To get on the schedule, call City Council at 215-686-3407. *