The Next Mayor

Today's Daily News provided a useful breakdown of the city's oft-maligned Business Privilege Tax (link added). Most city residents will never have to pay this tax and therefore feel that they have little stake in the debate over its existence.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The many sides of the Business Privilege Tax debate ultimately come down to how government can influence the economic situation of the city's residents, visitors, business owners and workers.

BPT cut proponents claim that the tax is a major reason that businesses are hesitant to come to Philadelphia and why entrepreneurs prefer to start businesses outside of the city limits. They claims that decreasing the tax and making changes in how it is assessed would cause more businesses to open up and create new jobs. New business means more property tax revenue; new jobs means more wage tax revenue.

Those who oppose BPT cuts say that the loss in the revenue from cutting the BPT would hamper the government's ability to make the city a more attractive place because of cuts to services, infrastructure upkeep and a continued inability to fund education and transit.

Even if you're not a business owner, you could be a potential employee for one of these new businesses or you could simply be a resident who is concerned with the city's ability to perform basic services.

We want to hear from everyone. If you are the owner of a small or large business in Philadelphia or outside of it, did the BPT affect your decision about where to locate or were there other stronger considerations? Tell us your story.

If you are thinking of starting your own small business, have you been thinking about the BPT yet?

We're less interested in your opinion about whether BPT reductions will/will not bring in more business, will/will not lead to an overall decrease in revenue, what you think business look for when making locational decisions (unless, as I said, you own or are starting a business). We'll leave those econometric studies and statistics to the experts... who can twist them to back any arguments anyway. We won't delete those opinions but we're really not looking for them here.

No, we want your story. How are personally affected by the BPT or by the services provided for (and therefore in some measure funded by) the BPT? Sound off in the comments.

City Council began hearings on Mayor Nutter's proposed capital budget on Tuesday. Capital budget expenditures – as opposed to operational budget -- are mostly used to make investments in the city's infrastructure – everything from bridges and buildings to new roads and major repairs. Capital spending is to a city what home improvements are to the rest of us -- easy to put off from year to year because they seem too expensive. ($40,000 for a new roof?! Just buy another bucket.)

The city hasn’t spent much on capital improvements over the last few years and the amount has been steadily decreasing: $75 million in ’05, $69 million in ’06, $63 million in ’07, and $57 million in ’08. Nutter’s plan for $121 million in spending is the largest outlay the city has seen since 2002 and includes $9 million to expand the central branch of the public library, $2 million to upgrade communication technology for firefighters, and $4.5 million to improve facilities in Fairmount Park.

Proposals from the Nutter Administration to increase capital spending are partially in response to a study of the city’s infrastructure done last year by the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority. PICA conducted an assessment of city facilities in five areas: police, fire, public health, prisons, and City Hall. The agency found that Philadelphia has spent far too little on infrastructure and recommended a major boost-- $143 million over four years-- in funding for capital spending on areas covered in the report. You can read a summary of the report by clicking here.

The challenge for the Nutter Administration is balancing between investing in existing facilities and spending capital dollars on new initiatives. Every mayor wants to put money into new areas that they believe will improve the city. It must be annoying to have to plow millions of dollars into infrastructure that has been neglected for years.

Not so deep thought...

Remember Chaka Fattah's proposal during the primary to study the idea of congestion pricing for Center City? It was one of the points in his transportation plan. In other words, he was looking into charging people to drive their cars into the central business district. Whooo boy did he catch some flak for that one - including from folks like Inga Saffron who correctly pointed out that traffic in Center City really isn't all that bad most of the time.

Anyway, there was a fair amount of consternation about the idea as I recall.

So isn't Mayor Nutter's plan to raise the parking tax from 15 percent to 20 percent (an increase that will be passed on almost entirely to the consumer) along the same line? Yet... not so much with the consternation.

I bring this up only because today's Metro previewed the release a new report by the Center City District that includes suggestions for freeing up the snarls that occur during the morning and afternoon rush.

The Metro put the congestion question to Deputy Mayor of Transportation and Public Utilities Rina Cutler:

Some officials, both at City Hall and with regional transportation groups, have already begun examining ways to alleviate the congestion.

She said the rising price of parking, the possibility of $4 per gallon gas and a more attractive public transit system will lower the amount of cars in Center City in the near future.

All of this true and as a frequent Center City pedestrian, friend of clean air and amateur fan of issues relating to city planning and design, I'm all for raising the price of parking (and therefore the price of driving into Center City) so high that it actually becomes worthwhile to develop new businesses instead of surface parking lots and garages. (With the caveat that SEPTA must also be expanded and made into a world-class mass transit system - perhaps using some of the increased revenue that comes from the parking tax.)

I'm just saying, parking tax increase vs congestion pricing - is there such a big difference?

If you drive into Center City on a daily basis - whether to work, shop or dine - what would it take to get you to take SEPTA? Will an increase in the parking tax and subsequent increase in what you pay for parking cause you to leave the car behind or simply avoid coming into the city?

Tell us your story in the comments.

You'll recall a little while ago the city's law department published a list of delinquent property tax payers in the major daily papers and made that list available on their website.

This story by WHYY's Elizabeth Fiedler included reactions from folks who are actually on the list.

The Philadelphia Business Journal's weekly opinion survey asks the following:

Philadelphia recently began publicizing the names of companies and individuals that are behind on their taxes, and Pennsylvania said its Internet list of tax delinquents currently includes 219 companies that owe $6.8 million.

Should the names of companies that are behind on their taxes be publicized?

Go... take the survey at PBJ but feel free to offer your own opinion in the comments to this post.

We’ve read a bunch of stories over the past few days about municipal bonds that could have big implications for Nutter's proposal to borrow $4.5 billion to fund the city's pension system. This stuff is mind numbingly complicated, so bear with me...

According to one of the articles that ran in the New York Times, a growing number of cities and states are complaining that the cost of borrowing money is too high. Corporations are able to get money at a lower interest rate despite the fact that government bonds have traditionally been a safer investment.

What does this actually mean? Anyone who has borrowed a large sum of money knows that your credit score plays a major role in conditions of the loan. Lenders use your credit score to determine how much money you can borrow and at what interest rate. Cities are also assigned credit scores, called bond ratings, which calculate the risk of lending money to that municipality.

If a city has a low bond rating but still needs money, where does it turn? A rating can be improved by purchasing bond insurance. If a city cannot repay its debt then the bond insurer pays back the lender. It's similar to having a co-signer on a loan. Buying bond insurance makes it possible for cities to get more money at a better rate, but also increases the overall cost of the loan.

Still with me? Now, let’s return to the Times article. Governments looking to borrow money, led by California, are claiming that bond ratings are being kept artificially low, forcing them to purchase insurance. This has put a lot of pressure on the rating agencies to make it easier for cities and states to float bonds at competitive rates.

So, how does all of this impact Philadelphia ability to get a good deal on the $4.5 billion Nutter wants to borrow for the pension fund? According to Amy Resnick, who edits The Bond Buyer, “The current environment means that Philadelphia will be negotiating from a position of strength. They will be able to borrow at competitive rates.”

We’ll be following this story closely over the next few months, so stay tuned...

A few years ago, when the words "hip"and "Philadelphia" began appearing in the same sentence, the phrase "Wireless Philadelphia" was usually lurking nearby. This brainchild of Mayor John "Waiting-in-line-for-an-I-Phone" Street was one of the few items that people agreed was part of his positive legacy. Wireless Philadelphia is/was a great idea. The plan was to make the entire city a wireless hotspot and give residents access to a reliable internet connection anywhere in the city for just $21.95 per month. The project was also supposed to help bridge the digital divide by offering low income individuals a special subsidized rate. All of this was going to be done by a private company and cost the city absolutely nothing.

So, what's the problem? Earthlink, the company responsible for building the network is getting out of the municipal wireless business and wants to sell the Philadelphia network. No one is surprised that Earthlink is jumping ship, but a new proposal to spend tax dollars on implementing the project has raised some eyebrows on city council.

Originally, the plan was for Earthlink to build a citywide wireless network, sign up customers, and fund a non-profit called Wireless Philadelphia to provide internet access to low-income individuals. The problem is that Earthlink couldn't figure out a way to build the network profitably. The company has stopped expanding the network (about 70% of which is complete) and is no longer looking to sign up new customers. The entire project is basically at a standstill and will remain that way until sold to another operator.

Still, the plan to build a citywide wireless network still won't cost taxpayers anything, right? Well, not exactly. The Nutter Administration requested $200,000 for the Mayor's Office of Information Services to hire a project manager to work on implementing the wi-fi proposal. The money was in an appropriations bill that was considered by City Council on Monday and is expected to be voted on March 27. Councilman Frank Rizzo, a early critic of the wi-fi plan, believes that this violates the original spirit of the proposal sold to City Council.

"We had all been led to believe that there would be no taxpayer dollars to support Wireless Philadelphia. This is the beginning of this project costing the taxpayers money," said Rizzo. "I'm not suggesting it's millions and millions of dollars, but we don't really know how many hours members of the administration have spent on Wireless Philadelphia."

Still, the only way to save the project may be to spend more tax dollars. Michael Calabrese, Vice President of the New America Foundation and an expert on municipal wireless, believes the best option for Philadelphia may be to buy the network from Earthlink and complete the project with public funds.

"Like most public services, there is no free lunch. Still, other cities have shown that are benefits to be gained with a very moderate investment," said Calabrese. "In some ways, Philadelphia is at an advantage now. It can buy the network at a low cost and the funds needed to complete it would be fairly modest."

A second option would be for another company to buy the network and complete construction. Earthlink already sunk $20 million into the system, so it could be a good investment. Philadelphia is home to one of the largest internet providers in the nation-- Comcast. Why won't this hometown company invest in our high-tech infrastructure? Seems like a no-brainier.

Philadelphia is not the only big town struggling with municipal wireless. Citywide networks have struggled to get off the ground in cities such as Chicago, Houston, and St. Louis. Even tech-friendly San Francisco shelved it's wireless project last year due. Philadelphia still has a chance to say ahead of the technological curve. We just have to figure out how to do this before anyone else can.

Last night, Mayor Nutter hosted the first meeting of the Philadelphia Youth Commission. Created by ballot question approved by voters in May, the commission is supposed to provide young people with an opportunity to get involved in local government. Here is exact text that voters were asked to approve or disapprove:

Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to create a Youth Commission, with members between the ages of 12 and 23 years of age, to be responsible for advising the City Council and the Mayor regarding issues affecting children and youth in order to ensure that children and youth have a voice regarding policies and decisions affecting them?

The Youth Commission isn’t the only body that’s budget is shielded from public view. There are more than a dozen commissions appointed by the mayor and city council. I spent the day scouring the web and making phone calls, trying to figure out how much money was being spent on various commissions and what exactly they do. We’ll (hopefully) have a full breakdown next week, but I was surprised to find out how hard it was to actually get the numbers.

For example, I called the Mayor’s Commission on Technology and the person who answered the phone said that she “wasn’t authorized” to answer my questions. I would have to wait until her boss returned next week to get any information about the budget of the commission. I actually reached the finance director of another commission who explained that he knew the numbers, but was not permitted to provide them to a member of the media. I was getting pretty frustrated after spending hours on the phone and having almost nothing to show for it.

I thought my luck might be changing when I finally reached someone in the budget office. The numbers I was looking for were available in a detailed document that listed all the proposed expenditures for the next year. There was one catch—no one in the budget office could give me the numbers over the phone. I had to come down the municipal services building and get the budget document in person.

Talk about frustrating! So, what is the solution? Well, let’s start with the ballot questions. Voters should be provided to with some kind of estimate for how much a proposal will cost. It’s sort of silly to expect people to vote on something and not provide that kind of information. Second, these commissions should be required to provide a breakdown of their budget—either on the web or by phone if requested.

If this administration is serious about a more open and transparent government, City Hall should get over its reluctance to share budget figures, even over the phone. Why is a personal visit required? Why is this information so guarded? After all: It's our money.

Next week, we’ll take a closer look at several different commissions, explain what they do, and how much of your money they spend. Stay tuned….

City Journal, a conservative-leaning publication that focuses on the, as they would call it, "bloating" budgets of Democratically run cities, has an article in their current issue with a somewhat misleading title.

"A Philly Tax Cutter" says the title but what follows is eight and half paragraphs (out of nine) of the kind of hack-job, anti-Philly screed that was probably typical of travel guides in the mid-1980s. Falling back on many of old stereotypes and vague statistical estimates (8000 people left the city last year!), the article goes the oft-traveled route of beating up on the city and its political leaders for running a high-tax, inefficient operation that essentially shakes down businesses and chases away any enterprise that can pick up and move.

Most of the article, the subhead of which is "Can Mayor Nutter cure the city’s cancer?" (a lovely metaphor), talks about Ed Rendell and John Street - simultaneously praising them for following the advice of folks like City Journal and cutting taxes while also excoriating them for not cutting taxes enough.

Only in the last few sentences, which read:

So Nutter will face serious problems as he takes office this January. CONGRATULATIONS, MAYOR NUTTER: BOY, ARE YOU SCREWED, read the cover of a recent issue of Philadelphia. But don’t count Nutter out: he claims that he will get rid of the $250 business start-up fee and cut both the profit and the gross-revenue parts of the privilege tax. “We’ll make Philadelphia a model city,” he says. With a tax cutter in the mayor’s office, who knows?

does the article do any looking forward.

Trust me when I say that I've kept tabs on what City Journal has written in the past about Philadelphia and this is not a case where that publication's regular readers need a recap of Philadelphia's tax situation. In fact, it seems like Philly bashing is a regular column.

Anyway, I've reprinted the only relevant (though rather vacuous) part of the article for you. If you care to take a walk down bad memory lane, feel free to read the whole thing.

My post on Wireless Philadelphia generated a lot of comments from readers. People seem to have two mindsets about the idea of municipal wireless. Some folks believe that providing high-speed internet to every city resident is a worthwhile investment in public infrastructure. Others say that this type of service should be handled by the private sector and point to numerous companies that already offer internet access at an affordable rate. EarthLink's decision to abandon Philadelphia has raised questions about how the city should move forward with this effort.

I have my own opinions about the subject, but I thought it might be worthwhile to highlight a couple of the comments that take the argument in different directions. Here’s one perspective:

I have to agree with Rizzo that Wireless Philly (at least as proposed) is a silly idea. It isn't providing anything that wasn't there before the city stepped in... except for providing internet access in poor neighborhoods, which the market apparently doesn't do -- or doesn't do well? Not sure -- because it's unprofitable.

The logical conclusion of all this is that taxpayer dollars would have to be used to provide the desired services to the poor neighborhoods. I.e. something unprofitable, or that would be prohibitively expensive, getting subsidized with public funds -- happens with things like highways and other infrastructure, the question is whether internet access is something that should be subsidized.

Another commenter points out that the goals of Wireless Philadelphia have changed over time and believes that is why the project has stumbled:

Wireless Phila was originally promoted as free, universal wifi service. Then after some time it morph'd to low-fee, then to low-fee based on some form of means-testing. The original concept was excellent but it threatened the price-gouging of the major ISP's. And now we have this--a failure that will be attributed to the dumb-luck of Philadelphia never being able to achieve its goals…RadioTimes had a very interesting broadcast about this not long ago. I recall the main message to be that municipal-owned wireless is actually a wise investment for cities because it facilitates efficient and inexpensive communication for the improved performance of city services, including police, fire, and emergency. By owning the network, the city itself is not vulnerable to the whims of for-profit ownership (like EarthLink abandoning the project halfway).

Personally, I think investing in a wireless network is very worthwhile for Philadelphia. Making Philadelphia look cool and tech-savvy to outsiders is not the only benefit. The internet has become a vital communication tool in modern society. It’s necessary for everything from students doing academic research to job seekers looking to connect with potential employers. A citywide wireless network is a tremendously valuable piece of infrastructure, particularly for a city that so often seems to be trapped in the 19th century.

The main question in my mind is how to actually make it happen. It seems very unlikely that City Council, already skeptical of Wireless Philadelphia, would approve having the city purchase the network from EarthLink and operate the system. The more likely outcome is that another internet service provider will purchase the network and complete the project. That seems to be the best option for moving forward—but how long will it take for EarthLink to find another buyer?

So, what say you? Would buying the wireless network from EarthLink be a good use of our money or should be wait for another company to save the system?

It appears that the It's Our Money project and crack reporter Ben Waxman may have started a little avalanche with this recent post about Wireless Philadelphia. So much of an avalanche, it seems, that a little known functionary from deep within in the city bureaucracy is rapidly becoming a household (or at least cyber household) name: Chief Information Officer Terry Phillis.

While his title sounds like something from high up in the ranks of the communist Chinese hierarchy, Mr. Phillis is actually in charge of all of the city's attempts to enter the 21st century (or at least the late 90s). He's the one you can credit (or blame) for the city's website and its attempts to turn Philadelphia into one big hot spot.

The Inquirer's Heard in the Hall had two posts about Wireless Philly and/or Mr. Phillis yesterday. The second of which is an especially interesting bit about Mr. Phillis' desire to get rid of the ridiculous 2.49 percent charge that bill payers face when choosing to take care of their debts to the city through its website.

The Daily News's City Hall blog, Philly Clout had an entertaining piece about Mr. Phillis' crusade against all those porn-looking, youtube-watching, blog-reading, online-shopping, city workers who are sucking up the city's bandwidth. Apparently City Council members themselves won't have to worry about curtailing their visits to Amazon.com since Mr. Phillis assures them that their own anonymity will be protected. Mmm mmm, I smell some juicy freedom of information requests coming down the pipe.

Philadelphia Will Do, in providing his own comedic stylings to the above story, demonstrates why it still may be a while until Mr. Phillis is indeed a household name:

Philadelphia Chief Information Officer Terry Phillis told City Council today 65 percent of traffic from phila.gov computers is just people screwing around.

She added that the city now has software to monitor everyone's Internet account...

Finally, one of the frequent contributors to Young Philly Politics pivoted off of Ben's thoughts about Wireless Philly and offered his own solution. It's a solution that combines two of my favorite things: regional cooperation and the ability to surf the web while I drive out to King of Prussia!

By now anyone who pays any attention to Philadelphia politics already knows that State Senator Vince Fumo is going to announce that he's seeking re-election, leaving the field wide open for the remaining three candidates to duke it out for the Democratic nomination.

What you may have missed, however, is this little side bar piece by Bob Warner of the Daily News. It appears that Senator Fumo will be providing the City of Philadelphia with a little extra tax revenue than he had been previously:

A spokesman for the Board of Revision of Taxes reported yesterday that the BRT staff has assessed the market value of Fumo's brownstone home on Green Street at $953,000, up from $250,000 in the current tax year.

The new assessment will mean an equally large jump in Fumo's tax bills, from $6,611 this year to $25,201 next year, according to BRT spokesman Kevin Feeley.

I haven't gotten the email blast from Brett Mandel at Philadelphia Forward yet but I think I can predict what his advice to Fumo will be: appeal, baby, appeal!

The Fumo property tax situation is just another, if very high profile, example of the dysfunction of the city's property tax system. It's a topic that I'm sure we'll cover in some depth soon so stay tuned.

Update: The Inquirer goes into a little more detail about Fumo's tax situation.

As you might have read in yesterdays Daily News, April 5th will be the date of a massive citywide clean-up led by the Mayor. Nutter has challenged residents to remove 1 million pounds of trash from streets and sidewalks across Philadelphia. Marshalling thousands of people to remove litter is a very visible way to show a commitment to the environment, but it's not the only thing the Administration has planned. Nutter has proposed creating an "Office of Sustainability" to coordinate a number of environmental initiatives throughout city government.

The growing awareness of environmental issues has prompted a number of cities to take steps to address climate change. According to a speech given by Professor Kent E. Portney, a professor at Tufts University who studies urban environmentalism, 41 cities have adopted some kind of policy designed to improve environmental practices. This includes several municipalities that have established offices of sustainability. I thought it would be worthwhile to examine what a couple of these offices do and imagine how those practices might be brought to Philadelphia.

One of the oldest offices focusing on sustainability is in Portland, Oregon. Founded in 1990, it provides a variety of direct services to residents to promote environmentally friendly behavior. This includes helping residents recycle, encouraging people apply for tax credits available for using alternative energy sources such as wind or solar, and marketing the city as a destination for green tourism. The office also plays a role in economic development through a green building program and working to attract companies that focus on environmentally-friendly technologies.

Another city that has an office of sustainability is Seattle. The office originally focused on internal governmental practices such as reducing the amount of pesticides in city parks, purchasing more fuel efficient cars for city employees, and purchasing recycled paper products for use in all city offices. In recent years, the Seattle has shifted from focusing on government to reducing the environmental impact of the entire city. For example, Seattle now offers tax credits for residents that purchase energy efficient appliances and the city also modified its zoning code to require developers to meet strict environmental standards.

Which of programs make the most sense for Philly? Right now, environmentalism has not exactly been at the top of the political agenda. I think the first step is to make sure that the city government behaves in an environmentally friendly manner. Like Seattle, we should make sure that all of our public offices use recycled materials whenever possible. We could also upgrade our city fleet to include more fuel efficient vehicles-- Nutter has already started by buying a hybrid Chevy Tahoe for his personal transportation. We can start working on more citywide efforts after government has become environmentally friendly.

All of these programs sound good, but it will be difficult for Philadelphia to implement most of them. Why? Well, it's mostly a question of funding. For example, Seattle's office has a $1.8 million budget and a full-time staff of eight people. In contrast, Philadelphia will only have one person and a budget of merely $70,000. It seems pretty unlikely that Philadelphia will be able to accomplish much with such a limited amount of resources. However, both Seattle and Portland started with much smaller offices. The initiatives grew over time as policymakers began to value sustainability.
So here's a question for citizens interested in having more say about how the city spends our money: How much money should we devote to "sustainability?" And what might we be able to give up in order to devote more money to the cause...or should we give up the sustainability cause and use that $70,000 elsewhere? Let us hear from you...it is, after all, your money.

Young Philly Politics has taken on the task of breaking down the city's Business Privilege Tax. They are seeking to determine the winners and the not-as-much winners who will benefit from the cuts proposed by the Nutter administration.

So far, the city has been somewhat less than forthcoming on the information they're seeking to complete their analysis - namely how much does each business (categorized by size, revenue, profits, if not by name) actually pay and how much will each business actually save because of the cuts?

Dan U-A's conclusion from the analysis of the preliminary data sent to him by the city is:

If we want to target tax breaks to small businesses, fine. But, we should be clear about a couple things: Even at the biggest projection of tax breaks, the vast majority of Philly businesses will not be 'saved' by an extra 100 dollars a month. And, they will not all of a sudden be able to hire a number of additional workers. What will happen is that the biggest 446 businesses will get themselves a nice chunk of change.

Comments supporting and challenging that conclusion are plentiful. Check out it out and try your hand at your own interpretation of the (very preliminary) data and report back!

On Wednesday, State Senator Vincent Fumo announced he would not seek reelection after holding office for more than 30 years. He faces a 139-count indictment for fraud (and other charges) and recently suffered a heart attack.

Fumo’s political clout is legendary. His ability to bring state dollars to Philadelphia is unquestioned, even by his opponents. Through that ability he became a political powerhouse. From the Inquirer:

He used that power with a vengeance. For projects large and small, Fumo helped bring the money home. Neighborhood improvements in the Italian Market, new helicopters for city police, a hospice for AIDS patients, a court for women seeking protection from abuse: All won with help from Fumo.

There’s just one little question: how the heck did he do that?

How did Vince Fumo get all of that money from Harrisburg? Who else was involved and what did they do? How exactly does a legislator bring home the bacon and why was Fumo so much better at it than anyone else?

There is a process, supposedly public, that governs how tax dollars are collected and dived up. The money isn't stored in a giant safe in Harrisburg and then divided up in some hotel ballroom. Some argue the current way of doing things is pretty close. It is complicated and often shielded from the public view. We should take this as an opportunity to shed some light on the subject.

There are three Democrats running to replace Vincent Fumo. Should we wonder which one of them will be able to bring the most dollars from Harrisburg? Is that even a fair metric to judge a candidate on? Fumo's way of doing things may be way he would up indicted.

Last year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) threatened to freeze $50 million in federal funding for Philadelphia public housing. The department claimed that the money would be withheld because city properties were not accessible for people with disabilities. Like many programs in Philadelphia, the Housing Authority could not operate without a great deal of federal aid.

Carl Greene, the head of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, believes that the money was cut because he refused to approve a real estate transaction that would have benefited Kenneth Gamble, a real estate developer with a lot of political influence. Gamble wanted to the city to transfer him several plots of vacant of land worth $2 million. Greene refused and HUD said it would pull federal funding shortly after. PHA believes that the two were related. An e-mail exchange between two federal officials seems to back up that claim. From the Daily News:

The e-mail exchange between then-Assistant Secretary Orlando Cabrera and Assistant Secretary Kim Kendrick occurred on the same day, Jan. 12, 2007, that HUD notified the PHA that it was in violation of rules regarding accessibility for disabled residents.

Cabrera responded: "Let me look into that possibility."

It's amazing to find out that funding decisions for something so vital-- housing for Philadelphia's poorest residents-- is whim to such political intrigue. It's unconscionable that federal officials would withhold funding to punish a local agency for refusing to approve a land deal to politically-connected developer.

It also really reinforces the fact that the federal government plays a huge role in what type of funding and services are provided by city government. Many of the important decisions about what happens in Philadelphia are made in Washington and elsewhere. There is only so much control that local officials have over the city budget-- and something are simple of upsetting the wrong person can make Philadelphia lose millions.

Since we've been talking about the Business Privilege Tax for a couple weeks now and there seems to be some controversy about the tax in the local blogosphere, I offer you a piece from Governing.com's series America's Innovative Mayors.

Titled "How to be the next Silicon Valley? What every mayor should know," it's an article that has something for everyone - tax cutters, city service/quality of life advocates, and those who think that cutting taxes vs. city services is a "false choice."

Enjoy the read, pick out your favorite parts and discuss them in the comments. And for purposes of this post (and all of them), please take the time to create some kind of user name for yourself even if it is a pseudonym. This way we can keep track of who is saying what and not get stuck with a bunch of "anonymous" comments. Thanks!

Philadelphia politics has a reputation for being corrupt, but it's difficult to always pinpoint exactly what that means in practice. Bob Warner has a great story in today's Daily News that breaks down how a government agency, in this case the Philadelphia Parking Authority, can use it's power to benefit a select few with political influence.

Three years ago, the Parking Authority installed a number of cameras to catch motorists running red lights. A sensor detects if a car does not stop, a picture is taken, and the offending driver gets a ticket in the mail. According to the article, this program has been beneficial to a company with close ties to local Republicans.

The bulk of the $6 million that the Parking Authority has spent on the program so far has gone to a single company: American Traffic Solutions, the Scottsdale, Ariz., firm that owns the 52 red-light cameras installed at 10 Philadelphia intersections.

Another ATS employee, Matthew Slonaker, is Republican leader of the 33rd ward and an unsuccessful GOP legislative candidate in 2004. Slonaker used to work for the Parking Authority, writing parking tickets.

How did Republicans takeover the Parking Authority? Rep. John Perzel, a Republican from Northeast Philadelphia, engineered a state takeover in 2001. It has become a patronage mill in recent years and attracted a lot of negative attention for failing to contribute sufficient funds to local public schools.

The real question is, how long will the Parking Authority remain under control of the state? Last year, the agency collected more than $31 million in revenue. That's a lot of money that should be controlled by the city. Is there any reason for state control to continue?

Let's catch up with a couple of budget-related stories before the disappear in the world of philly.com archives.

Keep telling the story about the out-of-whack property tax valuation story. That's what Stu Bykofsky did on Monday with this piece about a bunch of properties (including his own) that saw their BRT-determined market value go up while others remain under assessed.

I got some sage advice on Monday that even if a story has been done before, it's worth retelling over and over again until the issue is resolved. In my case today, it's worth blogging about someone else telling that same story again.

In today's Daily News, A Republican ward leader (yes, we have those in Philadelphia and they don't all work for the Parking Authority) takes issue with Mayor Nutter's dance around certain charter-mandated salaries. Really, I'm surprised that City Council hasn't come up with the idea to make themselves all deputy mayors and get extra pay from that. I guess since they can just vote themselves a pay raise, that step isn't necessary.

When Senator Casey isn't joining Senator Specter in grilling the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he can be found delivering $5.3 million in aid for low-income housing. The money isn't from HUD but from a the regional Federal Home Loan Bank in Pittsburgh. Here's your history lesson: "The Pittsburgh bank covers Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia, and is one of 12 such banks nationwide chartered by Congress in 1932 to guarantee funding for mortgages, according to the bank's Web site."

The Inquirer's Great Expectations project continues with more citizen input for the future of the city. The good news is City Council is participating. The bad news is, they're like the party guests who never want to leave:

And they have shown up. Some have been to multiple sessions, including at-large members Jack Kelly and Bill Greenlee, the Fourth District's Curtis Jones Jr., and the runaway leader (six sessions), new at-large member Bill Green, the son of the man who once so famously denigrated the body.

Green the Younger has consistently impressed citizens with his candor, his grasp, and his vision for high-tech reform of government, even if sometimes his veteran colleagues roll their eyes at his lengthy orations.

There is a budget-related section in Chris Satullo's column when he writes about Councilman Wilson Goode's post-election candor about real estate valuation:

Property tax revaluation was another high-interest topic. Speaking in Mount Airy, Councilman Wilson Goode Jr. showed the frankness that a politician fresh from easy reelection can show, telling folks that the revaluation everyone fears is desperately needed to end the crazy-quilt assessments that tend to be most unfair to working-class Philadelphians.

Wouldn't it be better if he just asked people: would you rather be able to connect your property taxes directly to me and my council colleagues as we vote to raise or lower your rates and you vote to keep us or give us the boot or is it better for some unelected body to raise your taxes by changing the very value of your house?

Finally, the city's new health commissioner doesn't seem to like STDs all that much and he'd like you to know that some of our money is being spent to prevent their spread. A worthwhile goal indeed.

1. Below are four different people who work for the City of Philadelphia. Put them in order from who gets paid the most to the least.

1) Mayor Nutter
2) The leader of a recreation center
3) Mayor Nutter's chief of staff
4) A security guard who protects city health centers.

2. Last year, how much did the Fire Department spend on “Small Power Tools and Small Hand Tools”?

1) $25,676
2) $81,100
3) $8,421
4) $241,584

3. Three out of four departments below are real. Which one did I make up?

1) Department of Public Property
2) Department of Utilities
3) Procurement Department
4) Sinking Fund Commission

The answers to all of these questions, and more, can be found in the giant binders pictured below.

A while back, I wrote a post about trying to find out exact costs of various boards and commissions funded by the city. At first, I had a little trouble tracking down the exact numbers. No more. A very nice person from the Office of Budget and Program Evaluation saved me a copy of the Mayor’s Operating Budget for 2009. There is information about everything you ever wanted to know about city government, but were afraid to ask. It has staggering amount of data about every single department, commission, and office in city government. I've spent the last two days looking them over and there is a lot to digest.

First off, as you can see by the pictures, these things are just really big. The information is in two binders that together must weigh at least 10 pounds. I carried them with me on the subway, which must have looked pretty funny to my fellow passengers. Page after page is filled with numbers and tables. There is a complete breakdown of 58 separate entities-- from the Art Museum to the Zoning Commission --that get some sort of funding from the city. I don't know the exact page count (the information is organized into subsections) but it has to be almost two thousand. Not exactly light reading.

One of the other things that jumps out at me about these binders is the difference between them and other budget documents the Nutter Administration has released to the public. For example, the "Budget in Brief", available from the Finance Department's website, has a lot of pretty graphs and text to accompany the information. You can make sense of it if you don't really know anything about city government. That's not true for the complete operating budget. If you found it on the street and started flipping through the content you'd probably get lost pretty quickly. All of the data is presented numerically in an endless series of tables. There are a few bullet points in the beginning of each section that describe the mission of the department, but that's about all.

The amount of detail in the document is also staggering. Want to know how much L&I spent on renting parking spaces last year? The number ($12,242) is right on page 13, section 49. You can find out how much each department spends on stuff like office supplies, salaries, and janitorial services. More than anything, these two binders provide a window into how complex city government really is.

There is some potentially juicy stuff as well. You can find out how much people are paid (Mayor Nutter makes $186,044; a clerk working for the Streets Department makes around $36,000). Each department has a listing of job categories and a range of salaries. I am not surprised this information is public, but I have to say that I wouldn't want the whole world knowing how much money I make. (Here is a little hint: it’s a lot closer to the clerk than the mayor.) I guess that kind of scrutiny is part of working in the public sector.

The salary stuff is interesting, but what really surprised me is the sheer number different job titles for people who work for the city. There is a lot more to local government than police officers, firefighters, and garbage collectors. Did you know that the city also employs industrial hygienists, microfilming processing supervisors, and radiographers? Now that I've looked at these binders, it makes sense why so much of the city budget ($2.4 billion) is spent on salary, pension, and other benefits. A lot of the money is spent on paying people to do jobs that you've never heard of.

Dan tipped me off to an effort in California that has taken this kind of data and turned it into a searchable database. You can visit the website of the Sacramento Bee and search for the salary of every state employee. You can even search by name. Is this a useful? Should we be putting that type of information on web? What are some other ways to organize this stuff in a way that regular folks can use?

-------
Here are the answers to the quiz:

Question #1: Mayor Nutter's Chief of Staff ($198,500), Mayor Nutter ($186,044), Recreation leader ($40,080), Security guard ($34,000).

Question #2: The Fire Department spent $25,676 on “Small Power Tools & Hand Tools” last year.

Question #3: There is no such thing as the Department of Utilities.

It's not often that we get information about who is getting Our Money handed to us on a silver platter. In today's Inquirer there is a story about the city awarding $2.1 million in grants to various arts and cultural organizations. The complete list of grantees, including award amounts, is also included.

(Full disclosure, WHYY, Inc. is on the list of grantees for its role as an arts and culture presenter.)

We can have the debate all the live long day about whether this is an effective use of tax dollars. In fact, why don't we do that? Have at it in the comments. Only one requirement - please read the entire article before you start commenting so you have some idea of the background and the intention of the awards.

If nothing else a list like this, which barely scratches the surface of all of the arts and cultural organizations in the region, serves to remind us how lucky we are and how many choices we have for entertainment and enlightenment.

The war between Geno's Steaks and the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations is finally over. The city agency found that a sign telling customers to order in English was not discriminatory. The case attracted attention from around the country and made Joey Vento, who owns Geno's, something of a celebrity.

It all started when Vento hung a sticker that read: "This is America. WHEN ORDERING 'SPEAK ENGLISH'." Some people were offended and the commission ordered Vento to remove the sign. Vento said that he would rather close his shop than take it down. His tale of woe was seized upon by conservative talk radio and he became a martyr for people angry about illegal immigration.

So—what was the deal with that unfamiliar agency that created such a huge controversy? Meet the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. This is the place to go if you’re being discriminated against at work, in a restaurant, or by city government. What does that actually mean? Let's imagine a woman who works at a large company finds out that she is being paid less than her male co-workers who do the same job. She can file a complaint with the commission and request that they conduct an investigation. If they find evidence of bias, the commission can fine the offending company until it makes things right.

The commission was created in 1951 by an amendment to the City Charter. It's charged with enforcing a law called Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance that outlaws discrimination based on 12 separate areas: race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, or gender identity.

The commission charged that the intent of Vento’s sign was to discriminate based on national origin. Vento responded by saying he had never refused service to anyone and the sign was only a political statement. Some saw his as a champion for free speech and other believed he was merely a bigot. For a while, Vento seemed to everywhere. He appeared on countless radio programs and was interviewed by all the major television networks. Everyone had an opinion about the sign. Rick Santorum declared that he supported Vento. Rudy Giuliani even came to Philadelphia to campaign with him. An obscure little city commission had started a lot of trouble.

When you think about it, it’s kind of amazing that such a little agency attracted so much attention. It's annual operating cost is $2.1 million-- just .05% of the city budget. The fire department spent more money ($2.6 million) just on uniforms last year. Remember all those television trucks parked in front of Geno's when Giuliani came to visit? You could only buy four of them with the money it takes to operate the entire commission.

After almost two years of investigating, the commission found that the sign was not discriminatory. Many wondered it had been a waste of time and effort. So, what do you think? Should the commission have gotten involved in the Geno’s case? Would those resources have been better spent somewhere else? After all, it's our money that was spent on this investigation-- was it worth the cost?

Facing three primary opponents, poor health, and a 139-count indictment for corruption, Senator Vince Fumo announced last week that he would not seek reelection. His announcement was a surprise, if not a shock. Part of that shock began to sink in after people realized that his absence from the Appropriations Committee of the Pennsylvania Senate could mean less money coming to Philadelphia. Because among all the other things he’s known for, Fumo was known for bringing home the state bacon.

His legislative office estimates that the senator has been responsible for providing $8 billion in dollars for projects in Philadelphia. What exactly does that mean? Why is this an accomplishment? Isn’t it a lawmakers job to get money into his district? What makes the difference between someone good at this, and someone not so good?

Tons of money flows into the state’s coffers – from corporate and individual taxes, revenue and other sources – to the tune of about $59 billion. What happens to that money is a big, complicated process, and to try to get a handle on it, we asked Fumo’s office for a list of the recipients of this $8 billion, and then tracked down one of the groups getting money to find out how the process works. (No, the ultimate aim was not to get a piece of it for ourselves.) We also talked to State Rep. Dwight Evans, who chairs the appropriations committee in the House, which makes him Fumo’s counterpart.

In fact, it was Fumo’s role as chair of the Senate Appropriations committee that gave him much of his juice. Fumo not only had a seat at the table during budget negotiations between the governor and the legislature, he often was holding the carving knife, ready to ask who wanted a leg and who wanted white or dark meat.

Fumo used his position to steer money towards projects in Philadelphia. But what does that mean? Everyone has seen footage of a politician delivering an oversized check to a soup kitchen or neighborhood association. But how does an organization go about getting that cash? Elected officials don’t keep huge checkbooks in their offices, right?

Fumo presented one of those big checks for $2 million last year to the Philadelphia Central Library capital campaign fund. Sandra Horrocks, who works for the Free Library Foundation, said that the library applied for a grant directly from Fumo’s office.

“It’s very similar to applying for a grant from a private foundation. We have to make sure that our case for support is clear and well articulated. We had to explain what the outcome of the grant would be. We had to demonstrate that there would be a real need and a positive development for the public,” she said. “Since libraries are free to everyone, it wasn’t a hard case to make.”

From the perspective of a group seeking money, the process is pretty straightforward. A staff member at the library spoke with someone from Fumo’s office about the capital campaign. Fumo suggested that the library apply for a grant available for cultural institutions from the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). The money came from a statewide fund that gives grants to projects recommended by local lawmakers.

Oh, and there isn’t a bank anywhere in the world that would cash that giant check. Horrocks explained that the library didn’t get the money until after the building improvements were made. It’s a reimbursable grant, meaning that the library had to show the state receipts before it saw a dime of the money.

Ok, so that explains how one organization got their hands on state money. But how does an elected official go about bringing home money to their district?

Many of the dollars that come into Harrisburg are earmarked things like debt service, education, social services, and the other big ticket items in a state budget. The governor has priorities for some of the money -- for example, Rendell wanted $1.1 billion for his health plan to cover all Pennsylvanians. Then, individual lawmakers have their own priorities, not only for big state-wide initiatives (like casinos) but for their home districts – the libraries, recreation centers, bridges and hospitals. How much they get of that pie is determined by the guys on the appropriations committee. The process is driven a lot by horse-trading. (“If you give me $250,000 for my community center, I’ll support your bill on bottle caps.”)

It stands to reason if you control the horses, you’re going to get powerful in any horse-trading activity. Lawmakers have to convince to leaders of the appropriations committee to support their pet projects, which gives them a tremendous amount of power. Each appropriations committee (in the House and in the Senate) has leaders from each political party.. For Republicans, it’s Gibson Armstrong in the Senate and Mario Civera in the House. Democrats are led by Dwight Evans in the House . Sen. Gerald LaValle replaced Fumo in the Senate when he was indicted. They meet with the governor every year and negotiate the details of the budget.

Evans, who is from Northwest Philadelphia, believes having power consolidated among a few key elected officials makes things run smoother.

“You got 253 people in that process. The reality of it is that it would be no different than your household if you tried to have everyone make the decision about the budget. So, what happens is, there are representatives from each caucus: the House Democrats, the Senate Republicans, the Senate Democrats, and the House Republicans.”

Fumo held the position for more than 20 years. That means he knew every possible angle and could find money anywhere in the budget. Fumo also hired really smart people who understood how the process worked. Still, Evans doesn’t believe that Fumo’s departure necessarily means Philadelphia will receive less money. How the susage gets made

“Philadelphia has had the chairmanship for a long time. Some people view that as good, some people view that as bad, depending on how you look at it,” said Evans. “This will be something new. I don’t think we should be fearful of things that are new.”

Still, it’s worth asking: is this the best way to manage the money that comes to the state from our wallets? Is there a better way to make sure all that revenue the state gathers and collects doesn’t get translated into sources of power for a small group of lawmakers? Is this system democratic?

Anyone who is familiar with my blogging from The Next Mayor project knows that I am a big fan of statistical evidence. Brace yourself for the ultimate in stat-nerd awesomeness!

In today's Inquirer, the intrepid Patrick Kerkstra brings us an in-depth look at a system that promises to revolutionize the way people think about Philadelphia city government - 311 and "Phillystat."

As you can see, if it works, it's also got some great marketing and branding opportunity. City officials claim that this system (which Kerkstra explains and I will paraphrase) will be set up differently than any similar examples in cities such as Baltimore and New York. Therefore, if it works well, the word "Phillystat" could end up a household name among government innovators throughout the world. Can you say municipal government geek tourist destination?

So what is it? 311 is a phone number that goes to a single call center which will act as a clearinghouse for ALL non-emergency requests for city services and help with regulations. Such requests will be entered into a database that will track their final resolution. It will work in conjunction with Phillystat - a computerized system design to keep tabs on the performance of the various departments using carefully-measured and examined statistics.

Managers will be meet monthly in public meetings to have their dirty laundry aired and their performance reviewed. They will face tough questions about why there are so many potholes on 7th Street (if I'm asking them). Presumably they will also be congratulated if things are going well, perhaps with a gold star or smiley-faced sticker of some sort.

What does this mean for Our Money? Two things:

1. Nutter's latest budget address sets aside $2 million per year to get this in place and operating. They're probably going to need a little more given (a) what it has cost other cities and (b) the example set by the last software related "improvement" - the $18 million then more than $18 million water billing system that took longer to implement than it took water to create the Grand Canyon.

2. With such a system in place, we'll get a better sense of just how effectively Our Money is being spent to provide the services that we request. It will also force many mid and upper level managers to be more accountable for their time. Perhaps I'll try to get the snack stand franchise at the public meetings. The audience should be in for an entertaining time.

We posted two audio files from the interview Dwight Evans gave It's Our Money. Check it out by clicking here.

Who are some other people that we should interview about the budget process? Let us know by responding in the comments or shooting an e-mail to waxmanb(at)phillynews.com.

You don't have to be a fan of HBO's The Wire to know that our prison system is pretty messed up. According to a report from the Pew Charitable Trust, one out of every 100 adults are behind bars. Locally, the city's prison system is holding more people than ever before-- more than 9,000. Last year, the city spent more than $200 million on locking people up.

Let's put that number in perspective. The city spends roughly $22,000 per year on each person behind bars. That's more than double the cost of tuition to attend Temple University. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

Increasingly, the answer seems to be "Yes." Today's Inquirer has an article about the newly created post of Deputy Mayor of Public Safety. Nutter's pick for the office, Everett Gillison, seems ready to push for reform. He addressed the question of how Our Money is being spent:

With an eye toward efficiency, Gillison said his position gives him the perspective to reconsider longstanding practices and question piecemeal programs that might not have lived up to their claims.

"If we just let them go, they're coming back, and what have we really done? We haven't accomplished anything except spending more of the city's money trying to do the same thing, over and over and over again."

Amen!