DV Journal

(This article first appeared in Broad + Liberty)

For two hours, the residents vented their anger.

“I know we’ve got a tremendous increase that’s being proposed to our taxes. I know what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet and the county, the state, the federal government — everybody has to deal with that. The problem here is the county can at the stroke of a pen, just get more money. You can impose that on every citizen that’s here. Myself and every citizen that’s here can’t do that. We have to seek other means. In other words, we’ve got to tighten our belt and we’ve got to cut the fat.”

Pat Carnevale wasn’t alone. He was one of dozens of voices expressing dismay and frustration last December as Chester County was on the cusp of approving a thirteen percent real estate tax increase — three times larger than the previous four percent tax increase in 2020.

If Chester County had any grace, anything that shielded it from more wrath, perhaps it was only that weeks before, neighboring Delaware County had dropped a whopping 24 percent tax on its citizens. As bad as a thirteen percent tax increase would be, at least it wasn’t Delaware County.

Chester County’s three-person board of commissioners empathized with the frustrated crowd. But when the rhetoric, empathy, and public comment was over, the two Democrats voted ‘yes’ on the tax increase, and the lone Republican voted ‘no.’

Just before casting his ‘yes’ vote, Chairman Josh Maxwell (D) said inflation and other minor issues had nibbled at the edges of the budget, but citizens could rest assured knowing most of the thirteen percent increase was really due to two “big ticket” items: a county-wide refresh of the radios used by every law enforcement agency in the 759-square mile county, and a series of upgrades to the county prison.

The county last updated the radios in 2015, and with a ten-year lifespan, it was time to reinvest.

As for the prison, was there anyone in the county who had forgotten the saga of Danelo Cavalcante, a Brazilian national who escaped from the county prison in the fall of 2023, and remained on the loose for two weeks?

“I don’t want anyone here to think that this county is interested in expanding government tremendously or increasing annual spending in perpetuity,” Maxwell reassured the crowd that had just vented its anger at him. “Those are the two big ticket items that in addition to a little bit of inflation we absorbed this year.”

Despite Maxwell’s reasoning, a Broad + Liberty analysis of the last ten years of budgets for the county seriously undermines that rationale. The county disputes many parts of the analysis, which will be generously incorporated into the story.

The analysis shows for the millions of dollars devoted to prison upgrades, much of that up-front capital was provided by a bond sale — in other words, the county took on debt, and would be paying it off over the course of several years.

As for the radios, a sizable chunk of the money set aside for that category of spending in the budget was coming from federal and state grants.

The county’s prison spending is spread out over ten years which should have spared citizens from the need for a massive, one-year tax hike. And the county’s new law enforcement radios could have been financed to lessen the pain, but officials didn’t examine the possibility.

The Broad + Liberty analysis that follows below asserts the county’s tax increase was needed to cover years of growth in spending across numerous areas of county government, much of which was driven by salary increases and spending growth in the “human services” category.

Prison upgrades

At the December meeting, Commissioner Maxwell listed multiple improvements to the county prison, “about $6 million going towards security upgrades to that prison that hasn’t been touched in decades,” he told the angry crowd.

Those improvements included new security features like specialized fencing, and adding a K-9 unit. Furthermore, the county was investing in the core building by replacing the roof and upgrading features like the air conditioners and air handlers that provide fresh air to the interior. Increasing staff salaries was also a priority.

Before diving further into the prison spending, it’s important to understand a couple of features of large government budgets and how some of those features work in Chester County.

Large purchases or investments are generally called “capital expenditures” or “capital spending.” A good definition can be found at business-standard.com, which says, “Capital expenditure is the money spent by the government on the development of machinery, equipment, building, health facilities, education, etc. It also includes the expenditure incurred on acquiring fixed assets like land and investment by the government that gives profits” or dividends in the future.

Chester County splits its capital spending into two different funds: the Capital Improvement Fund which pays for capital expenditures by borrowing money by selling bonds, and the Capital Reserve Fund, which pays for large investments with cash.

The prison upgrades were largely placed under the Capital Improvement Fund, which, as just explained, means those purchases were financed with debt.

Page 267 of the 2025 final budget document provides a breakout of the Capital Improvement Fund, and shows $3.7 million for the prison roof replacement, and another $3.7 million for heating and air replacements. Together, the two projects total $7.4 million.

According to all of the budgets from 2016 to present, the county’s outlays for its borrowing — usually called “debt service” — was not set to be significantly greater in 2025 than in any of the previous four years. Taking all that context together, it’s correct to say the prison upgrades were expensive, but that the cost is to be spread over many years.

(Source: Chester County budget documents, 2016-2025)

With this in mind, Broad + Liberty asked why a steep increase in taxes was necessary if outlays for debt service for the prison upgrades weren’t significantly increased as well.

“The County drew down the Debt Service fund balance in 2024. The 2025 budget necessitated an increase in debt service millage to cover the budgeted [debt service] expenditures totaling $55.9 million in 2025,” said, Julie Bookheimer, the county’s chief financial officer.

The first part of the answer is incomplete without the context of how much the Debt Service fund balance should be, and where it stood at the beginning of the fiscal year. The second part of the answer merely repeats the question in the form of a statement.

When the county was asked this question again in a different way, the county replied: “While prison facility improvements are in the Capital Improvement Fund, there are more than $3 million in increased prison-related costs within the 2025 operating budget.”

In this response, the county acknowledges that most of the prison one-time improvements will be financed with bonds, and as such, the impact is spread out over many years, but that the prison line-item in the operating budget has gone up by $3 million, meaning that is new spending that will likely be recurring every year.

The county further itemized the $3 million by saying “$2.35 million [is] for medical treatment, and other items such as food and clothing supplies, repair and maintenance, training and staff development, utilities, and vehicles and general expenditures related to the addition of K9s.”

Still, that is only $3 million in “new” spending in the operating budget. The thirteen percent tax increase is set to raise an additional $26.8 million. There’s a long way to go.

Law Enforcement Radios

At the December meeting, Maxwell gave an explanation of payment for new law enforcement radios that would appeal to the fiscally conservative.

“These police radios last ten years, so we’re moving them from one side of the budget to another,” he began.

“Previously the county would take on debt for twenty years to pay for those types of work, but the radios only last ten years. So, next year you’re going to be paying for two radios for your tax bill, one that’s no longer working and one we just bought for our police officers. In eleven years, because we moved it over and now we’re paying it as you go and not taking on bonds for it — eleven years from now, we’ll only be paying for one radio. So we have to make a sacrifice today, but it’s not a choice that this board made ten years ago. But eleven years from now, we won’t be paying for things that we aren’t using anymore,” Maxwell concluded, subtly portraying his Republican predecessors as less responsible.

The undisputed cost of the radio purchase is $12 million dollars. One item left unmentioned by Maxwell, however, was that the county was splitting the purchase across a two-year period, about $6 million in 2025 and another $6 million the following year.

The purchases are listed in the budget’s “Capital Reserve Fund” which, as explained before, is a fund for capital expenditures that are not financed but are on a pay-as-you-go basis, like Maxwell said.

Maxwell’s speech about the radios could be seen as offering a false choice to residents, however. In it, he talks about financing the purchases for 20-year periods. Financing instruments, like bonds, can be issued for a variety of time periods.

Broad + Liberty directly asked why the county did not take on ten-year debt for a ten-year capital investment, or, why the county didn’t take out 20-year bonds and pay them off ahead of schedule. Either option would satisfy Maxwell’s desire to “only be paying for one radio” eleven years from now.

“At that time, the interest rates were higher than in previous years. Therefore, the cost to borrow was (and is) higher. Debt incurred over twenty years should be for assets that have an expected life of twenty or more years. This equipment has an estimated useful life of ten years or less. The County continues to manage debt in a responsible manner as attested to the Triple-A rating by all three rating agencies,” Brookheimer said.

When asked, the county said it did not do any analysis at all on financing the radios, regardless of whether over a ten-year period or otherwise. The county further said it did not shop for loan pricing from the Delaware Valley Regional Finance Authority. The authority is an agency in southeast Pennsylvania created by Philadelphia’s four collar counties to tackle problems just like this. The counties pool their money together into the DVRFA which then gives bond loans at an interest rate lower than the retail market. In essence, the four counties created their own credit union.

Finally, the Capital Reserve Fund — the capital expenditure account that does not borrow but makes investments on a pay-as-you-go basis — is substantially funded from outside sources in the 2025 budget. The county agreed that “the radios are 43.7 paid for by federal and state grants.” This, too, would seem to mitigate the impact to the taxpayer. When Maxwell and the county talk about the radios, they give the full price tag of $12 million to justify the price increase, but seldom mention that grants will pay a considerable portion.

General Growth

Setting aside the issues of the prison and radio improvements, the county has seen growth in the last five years, in population, the tax base, and in the overall size of the county government.

It is important to understand this next part of the analysis focuses exclusively on what’s called the “Operating Budget.” This is the part of the budget over which the commissioners have the most control on an annual or even day-to-day basis. This analysis excludes the “consolidated budget” which contains many items that are done in partnership with the state or federal governments, and which also remain mostly static in cost from year to year.

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Chester County’s population grew from about 534,000 to 561,000 from 2020 to 2024 — a five percent increase.

The county budget has grown at least five times faster than the county’s population since Democrats took the majority on the county board of commissioners in 2020.

The county’s revenue from real estate taxes has grown from $169 million in 2020 to $212 million in the 2025 budget — a 25 percent increase. Not all of that is from tax increases. Some of that comes from new ratable: new residential or commercial developments whose taxes are incremental to the existing property tax base.

However, the Broad + Liberty analysis demonstrates that the incremental spending — and therefore growth in county government — does not stop at 25 percent. In addition to spending $43 million in additional real estate tax receipts, the 2025 budget uses $17 million in funding from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, or ARPA.

Furthermore, the 2025 budget spends $10 million from “appropriated fund balances.” In layman’s speak, this is cash already on hand in reserve funds. It is not regularly recurring revenue, like real estate taxes that are guaranteed to come in every year. Like any savings account, it is drawn down when money is needed to cover operating expenses.

Adding all these pieces together, in order to balance the 2025 budget, the county spent $43M in additional real estate tax revenue, generated primarily from a doubt digit tax increase, $17M in federal covid relief funds, and $10M in reserves, for a total increase in $70M.

By incorporating the ARPA and fund balances, the Broad + Liberty analysis concludes the county’s overall spending has gone from $169 million to $239 million — a 41 percent increase. To put in the plainest terms, since Democrats took a majority in Chester County, county government has grown 41 percent according to our analysis.

The county disputes this analysis, especially the idea that one-time funds are going to recurring expenses.

“Taxes were raised to cover ever-increasing expenditures as well as the large ticket items discussed. Revenues have not been growing at the same rate as expenditures over the last five years despite the County’s efforts to control costs,” Brookheimer said. “Those one-time funds were used primarily for one-time expenditures as explained in previous email responses. In other words, [the] vast majority of those expenditures will end as the one-time funds end.”

What’s indisputable is that many areas of recurring spending in the county budget have seen continual increases in the last five years. Personnel costs for the county have exploded since 2020.

The county noted that in 2023, it took over Community Transit, which added to the overall personnel costs. It should also be noted that Community Transit also came fully funded, so the county did not have to create additional revenue to pay for those employees.

However, an analysis of the county’s 2024 payroll obtained previously by a Right to Know Law request shows that Community Transit accounted for $3.9 million of payroll in 2024. Even when adjusting 2024 and 2025 payroll to exclude Community Transit, payroll is still up by roughly 21 percent when compared to 2022.

The county defended the increase in personnel spending.

“In 2022, many salaries were adjusted as a result of a salary study. The purpose of the salary study was to ensure that Chester County remains competitive with the surrounding counties so that we can maintain our workforce. Also, the cost of benefits increased by [fifteen percent] due to market demand – coming off COVID.”

The county gave two direct examples. “Correctional Officer – Base salary in 2021 – $41,939; Base salary in 2024 – $55,399. Regional Park Ranger – Base salary in 2021 – $39,472; Base salary in 2024 – $46,754,” Brookheimer said.

More changes in personnel spending may be in the offing.

“The County is currently performing a salary study with the plan to potentially implement in 2026. The County wants to continue to attract talented / qualified employees and remain somewhat competitive with surrounding counties and the private sector to continue the services expected to be provided by the County. At this time, the cost is not known since the study is not complete. However, it is not anticipated that the cost will be on the same level as the 2022 study since a study had not been done for twenty years prior to 2022,” Brookheimer said.

The Human Services category has also seen tremendous growth under the Democrats’ watch. The category’s 2020 budget was $234.3 million. By 2025, that figure had ballooned to $312.3 million — an increase of $78 million dollars, or 33 percent. (Some of that category growth could be from salary increases, and as such, could overlap with previous references to growth in personnel costs.)

SUMMARY

Like many other counties or municipal governments, Chester County also says inflation forced many of its budget increases. In an online “information sheet” the county pointed us to explaining the tax hike, the flyer led with the fact that the county was absorbing higher prices. Only after that did it tout the prison upgrades and radio refresh. The county sent similar mailers sent to citizens.

One significant element of the “big ticket” spending remains elusive: What will happen to that new revenue once the “big ticket” items are paid for? If the county raised taxes to pay $12 million in cash for new radios ($6 million in 2025, and $6 million in 2026), then what will the county do with that cash flow once the radios are paid off?

“At this point, we have not started fine tuning the 2026 and 2027 budgets to adequately determine our funding needs. However, with a County of our size, there are always projects surfacing that need immediate attention. One big ticket item paid for in the near future does not necessarily mean there are excess funds available in future years as other projects or needs surface. Inflation and rising costs continue to impact the County service and operational costs.”

If both “big ticket” items were paid for in up-front cash in the 2025 budget, they still wouldn’t add up to the total tax increase. The two “big ticket” items together totaled $18-19 million. The county’s tax increase is scheduled to bring in $26.8 million — a difference of about $8 million.

At a minimum, the county’s communications about the impact of the “big ticket” items — especially the first-year impact and how that would affect taxes and why that necessitated an immediate tax increase — seems to have been incomplete.

The county could have spread out the costs of the radios with debt that was scheduled to last the lifetime of the equipment — ten years — but did not choose even to shop those options. Additionally, state and federal grants are funding a sizable portion of the overall purchase, at least in the first year — a fact rarely, if ever, mentioned by Maxwell or other county officials.

Most of the costs of the prison upgrades are financed, which should lessen the need for an immediate infusion of new cash, but the county has rarely spoken about those projects as payments spread out over time.

The county’s overall growth, meanwhile, is undeniable. As explained above, Broad + Liberty’s assessment is that since 2020, county revenues have grown 41 percent. Although the county disputes our analysis, it concedes that the operating budget is up 29 percent over that same time — an incredible amount of growth that can’t be explained away by just inflation or incremental growth forced on the government by the Covid-19 crisis. A county budget that goes up 29 percent in five years would seem to directly contradict Maxwell’s assertion that the county wasn’t “expanding government tremendously or increasing annual spending in perpetuity.”

(For the sake of story length, Broad + Liberty obviously could not incorporate every response or answer to a question to which the county responded. In an effort to provide the county with as much voice as possible to its answers and comments, Broad + Liberty is publishing both sets of those email conversations available here: SET 1, SET 2. The questions are posed by Todd Shepherd; Chester County CFO Julie B. Bookheimer provided the answers. The 2019-2025 budgets are all available at this county website. Years prior to 2019 can be accessed here.)

(This article first appeared in Broad + Liberty)

Delaware County says it has no documents — not a single email, memo, spreadsheet, text, or voicemail — that could shed light on how $7.6 million dollars magically showed up in the county’s second draft of the 2025 budget, thereby giving the county more breathing room on the massive tax increase it was proposing for the upcoming year.

That $7.6 million infusion into a single spending line is important because it represents most of the difference between the county’s first budget draft proposing a 28 percent tax increase, and the subsequent draft that lowered the proposed tax increase to 23 percent. In other words, the tax decrease between the two versions couldn’t have happened without the additional $7.6 million.

But where that money came from has never been described or explained.

Broad + Liberty reported on Dec. 9 that the county declined to answer questions about the nature of the money, namely, if it already belonged to some earmarked pot of money.

After that request for comment was ignored, Broad + Liberty then filed a Right to Know Law request asking for a copy of any document that would delineate “the source of the additional [$7.6 million]…in the ‘transfers’ category.” The request also asked for any text messages between current council members about the money, as well as any voicemails. But the county says there’s nothing.

If the county borrowed from Peter to pay Paul, that money would have to be replaced at some point, creating the possibility that the county has more tax hikes in its future unless it finds a way to create $7.6 million in savings or budget cuts.

In late November, days before the county would hold its first open meetings about the budget, Broad + Liberty went to county offices to get copies of the first draft. A line of the budget marked “transfers” only showed $510,000 being counted as revenue for 2025.

That same budget iteration required a 28 percent tax increase, which Broad + Liberty immediately reported on.

Days later, however, the county began its budget hearings before the public, and the second draft was put into play.

That second draft had the smaller tax increase thanks to the “transfers” line swelling from $510,000 to $8.2 million — a difference of $7.6 million.

The second draft also showed the county using $2.6 million more in American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) funds, money from the federal government’s Covid response meant to help local governments survive any decrease in revenues due to the pandemic. But that revenue is one-time only, meaning it would still have to be replaced in future years.

County Council, all Democrats, ultimately passed the second draft on a 4-1 vote. Councilman Richard Womack, who is facing re-election this year, was the lone dissenter.

If the county does, in fact, need to shore up the $7.6 million with new revenue, that still may not be the full extent of the problem. The 2025 budget also used $12.9 million in ARP funds and $14 million from the “fund balance” — the county’s rainy day fund. Added together, the county may still need to find $34 million in new revenue for the 2026 budget if spending isn’t decreased.

Democrats in the county began campaigning in the latter half of the 2010s on a platform with two main planks: the creation of a county-level health department, and deprivatizing the county’s prison.

After winning council seats in 2017 and later taking a majority on the council in 2020, they made good on the promises. With both of those goals accomplished, citizens who objected to the proposed tax increase for 2025 argued the council had gone too far.

“Springfield Township resident Mark McGann said health services in the county ‘have been crumbling’ since the health department’s creation,” the Delaware Valley Journal reported. “He pointed to recent hospital closures and couldn’t understand why they were happening.”

“You have to make hard decisions sometimes … You’re spending too easily,” McGann said.

“Nick Weston of Wallingford argued the council is using the budget crisis to play hero at the expense of taxpayers. What the council should do, he said, was examine whether the programs were worth it,” the DVJ report continued.

“We do not need all this stuff. Instead, we’d rather keep the money and not have this wide swath of county programs,” he said.

The county argued taxes had been held low for too long, and that inflationary pressures also could not be ignored. In a comment provided to Broad + Liberty for an earlier article on the budget before it was passed, a county spokesperson said, “We recognize our residents are facing the same inflationary pressures that we are facing, but additional revenue is in our proposed 2025 budget that may be necessary in order for us to continue modernizing Delaware County’s government, repairing county infrastructure, and delivering the quality services that our residents deserve and expect.”

County Executive Director Barbara O’Malley also said the government had implemented numerous cost-saving measures under Democratic control, like pension reform, making gradual reductions in the number of employees, and technological upgrades, like moving the county’s phone system to a new voice-over-internet protocol which O’Malley said will save $1 million a year.

At the same time, it’s indisputable that some projects, like deprivatizing the prison, have been far more costly than council projected.

In 2021, the council considered three future scenarios for the prison budget assuming it took back management of the George W. Hill Correctional Facility after it had been privately run for almost three decades.

The highest of those assumptions had a $49.9 million price tag, while the lowest scenario cost $43.1 million.

The council’s latest budget shows the prison’s annual budget going from $53.4 million in 2023, up to $56.6 million in ‘24, finally up to $59.3 million in 2025.

(This article first appeared in Broad + Liberty)

The first draft of Delaware County’s 2025 budget shows the county operating with a $76 million deficit, according to a Broad + Liberty analysis of county budget documents.

In order to pay for $52 million of that gap, taxpayers are facing a 28 percent real estate tax increase. To fill the remainder, the draft budget spends $10 million in non-renewable funding from the federal government, and also dips into the county’s “fund balance” — essentially the reserve fund — for another $14 million.

The five-member county council, which flipped from a Republican to Democratic majority in 2020, will have the final say on any adjustments or changes to what Executive Director Barbara O’Malley has proposed. Yet the executive director’s draft budget is usually a reasonable predictor of the basic outline of the county’s anticipated spending and revenues.

The proposed 28 percent tax increase would come on the heels of a five percent increase already levied on county residents in 2024.

Warning signs that a subsequent tax increase larger than last year’s have been flashing for some time.

As far back as March, Councilwoman Christine Reuther said in a public meeting that the county was facing a “sizable tax increase” for 2025, but stopped short of giving any estimate.

In June, the credit rating agency Moody’s downgraded Delaware County’s rating, a decision that may have been based at least in part on Reuther’s comments in March.

“As Moody’s Ratings has downgraded Delaware County’s ratings because of the ‘unexpected weakening of the county’s financial position,’ at least one county council member is anticipating a tax increase at the end of the year to balance increasing costs,” the Delco Times reported.

“The downgrade captures the unexpected weakening of the county’s financial position,” Moody’s said when downgrading the rating from Aa1 to Aa2. “The county’s available fund balance is already an outlier to the downside relative to peers, and it expects to run a large deficit in 2024 with the exhaustion of federal stimulus aid.”

The “fund balance” referenced can essentially be thought of as the county’s reserves, or rainy day fund. According to Executive Director O’Malley’s budget, the county would use $14 million from the fund balance in the 2025 budget.

The other spending item lacking a continual revenue stream is $10 million in spending from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), a bill passed in the midst of the pandemic intended to help local governments across the country deal with the turbulence. According to a webpage on the Government Finance Officers Association, ARPA funding “must be obligated by the end of calendar year 2024 and expended by the end of calendar year 2026.”

In other words, the county will not have the ability to dedicate any ARPA funds after this year. This is the same “federal stimulus aid” that Moody’s worried would be a problem for the county once the aid was “exhausted.”

Given that the $14 million from the fund balance and $10 million from ARPA are included in this year’s “operating budget” but are non-recurring sources of revenue, the county would still need to find revenue streams to cover those obligations by the 2026 budget or risk another sizable tax increase. Covering that $24 million in 2026 would equate to roughly an additional 13 percent tax increase, according to a Broad + Liberty analysis.

That worry about reliance on non-recurring revenues was previously detailed by an unidentified county employee who took notes on a county leadership meeting led by O’Malley from February.

“Our county has been in the habit of using one-time funds for ongoing operating costs,” the employee wrote in the four-page memo outlining the meeting. The memo was obtained through a previous Right to Know Law request.

The county charter requires the executive director to submit a budget to council sixty days before the end of the year. Despite the fact that the county has had this draft of the budget since the beginning of November, it hasn’t made the document available online. Broad + Liberty made photos of the executive summary of the budget while in person at the county’s open records office, but was unable to obtain a full copy of the document on Friday. It expects to have a full copy of the document Monday.

Councilman Kevin Madden was one of the first Democrats elected to the Delaware County Council in nearly a century and a half in 2017. One of his first suggestions was to have all county meetings recorded and related documents uploaded to the county website for posterity. “It’s not so much those measures will change things overnight, but they’re emblematic of a system that didn’t employ common sense best practices,” Madden said. “We ran on the idea that single-party rule prevents transparency and this is a time to make structural changes.” Madden also pledged not to raise taxes.

The county responded to issues related to the tax increase, the dwindling fund balance, and posting the draft budget, but did not answer other questions.

“Like many counties across Pennsylvania, we are faced with difficult decisions as the combination of inflation, utilization of one-time federal relief funding, increased demand for services, and flat revenue for more than the past decade has resulted in a structural deficit and dwindling fund balance,” a county spokesperson told Broad + Liberty. “We looked at every possible way to streamline operations and cut costs before asking the public for more support and we do not do so lightly. This County, like many others, incorporated the ARPA Revenue Loss funds into our budget during the past few years to avoid relying on tax increases from residents. Last year, Council made a small increase to revenue to reduce our reliance on one-time funds and minimize reduction of our general fund reserves.

“We recognize our residents are facing the same inflationary pressures that we are facing, but additional revenue is in our proposed 2025 budget that may be necessary in order for us to continue modernizing Delaware County’s government, repairing county infrastructure, and delivering the quality services that our residents deserve and expect. We are continuing to work to reduce any increase from our proposed budget that will be presented at our budget hearing.

“We are committed to putting the County on the path to be self-sustaining and begin restoring our fund balance. We will continue the work of providing the level of service that our residents deserve while keeping costs as low as possible. The County will share details on its budget at both the public hearing and the budget ordinance meeting; both meetings will be livestreamed and recorded for later viewing,” the spokesman concluded.

The county also provided a budget slideshow, pointing specifically to one slide showing that Delaware County’s revenue has remained relatively flat in comparison to its suburban neighbors like Bucks, Chester, and Montgomery counties.

Combining both the 2024 and 2025 budgets, the county will have spent $51.8 million from the fund balance. The county did not respond to a question as to what the fund balance was expected to be at the beginning of the new fiscal year on January 1.

The Democrats, who came to power in 2020 and many of whom still remain on the all-Democratic county council today, campaigned on promises to launch ambitious projects like the creation of a county-run health department and the deprivatization of the county prison.

Republicans warned some of those projects would be more costly than Democrats imagined — predictions that seem to be coming true.

For example, as the county was progressing towards deprivatizing the George W. Hill Correctional Facility, it received a financial analysis from a consultant discussing various cost scenarios. In the most expensive analysis presented, the county was expected to spend about $49.9 million to run the prison, but that assumed a full population. The county could reasonably run the prison for about $43 million if the daily population were significantly lowered, the consultant estimated.

According to the 2024 adopted budget, the net cost of running the GWHCF was $56 million. Additionally, that higher price tag came despite the fact that the county has successfully lowered the daily prison population by at least 20 percent over the last two years.

Other decisions by the county have put upward pressure on the budget.

For example, as Broad + Liberty has chronicled for years now, the county’s use of third-party attorneys as opposed to in-house counsel has skyrocketed under the Democrats’ control. In the last year of Republican governance, spending on outside attorneys was about $400,000. In 2023, that figure had shot up to $4.5 million.

When confronted last week about budget issues, Councilwoman Elaine Paul Schaefer largely blamed inflation, and her Republican predecessors.

“That budget deficit doesn’t come from nowhere,” Schaeffer said, as reported by the Delco Times. “The leadership of this county before this current board did not raise taxes for twelve straight years and then, the thirteenth year before this council came in, they lowered taxes and decreased revenue coming in.

“So, it is no great mystery where the budget deficit came from,” Schaeffer continued. “There’s not a business in the entire world whether it’s profit, nonprofit, or government that can operate for over a decade with no increase in revenue commensurate with inflation. It just doesn’t work.”

Delaware County GOP Chairman Frank Agovino sees things differently.

“I am pleased that council Democrats have finally come clean and admitted what most of us have known for years. Out of control spending by the Biden-Harris Administration in DC and this council have resulted in crushing inflation and massive tax increases at a time when most Delco families can least afford it,” Agovino said.

“No one likes big tax increases, and very few people like one-party rule. Unfortunately, we have both right now in Delco. It’s time for county Democrats to be held accountable for their incompetence. Passing the buck to a Republican Party of yesteryear is pathetic and I’m confident voters will see right through their excuses in next year’s local elections,” he concluded.

It is not clear when the budget will be made available online for public inspection. If the standard for “public inspection” includes publishing on the county’s website, as was suggested previously by many current members of the council, then the Nov. 1 deadline established by the county’s Home Rule Charter was not met.

The county will discuss the budget at a 1 p.m. meeting on Dec. 3, and is expected to vote on a final version at the planned, regular council meeting on Dec. 11.

While Gov. Josh Shapiro spends the next few weeks selling his $48.3 billion spending plan to Pennsylvania, a fiscal watchdog warns the budget proposal will drain the state’s recently replenished finances.

Pennsylvania’s Rainy Day Fund sits around $14 billion. That’s enough to fund the government for almost 50 days in lieu of a government shutdown. “You’re still just pushing it down the road,” Commonwealth Foundation Senior Vice President Nathan Benefield told DVJournal. “It’s unwise to be using that just to go like, ‘Hey, we could use that money this year’ and still have an unbalanced budget.

“Using the one-time reserves for ongoing spending that’s going to be year after year is not sustainable.”

Benefield points out that multiple Shapiro administration officials and the governor himself claim to support fiscal responsibility when it comes to taxpayer dollars.

Shapiro hailed Pennsylvania’s budgeting ability last September after S&P Global Ratings and Moody’s moved the Commonwealth’s outlook to ‘positive.’

“Our commonsense investments and sound fiscal management are setting the Commonwealth up for continued success,” the governor said at the time. “My administration will strive to ensure that our fiscal outlook remains strong by working with leaders in both parties to continue making commonsense investments…all while remaining fiscally responsible.”

Budget Secretary Uri Monson praised sound fiscal management last September, saying it “makes a difference in the lives of Pennsylvanians every day.”

But Benefield pointed out credit rate agencies want Pennsylvania to keep a high balance in the Rainy Day Fund balance. “The credit rate agencies all basically pointed to the fact that Pennsylvania has a reserve and would maintain it in case there is a recession.”

S&P and Moody’s highlighted Pennsylvania’s need to keep its reserve fund high in their credit rating outlook announcements. One S&P analyst said Pennsylvania could see its overall rating go up if it preserved or increased “reserve balances in its budget stabilization reserve.”

Moody’s said it was “particularly important” for Pennsylvania to maintain adequate reserves because of extremely long budget negotiations. The state’s budget wasn’t finalized last year until late December.

There’s also disagreement on whether the Pennsylvania government can use the Rainy Day Fund to fill in the budget hole.

State law says the fund can be used in “emergencies involving the health, safety or welfare of the residents of this Commonwealth or downturns in the economy resulting in significant unanticipated revenue shortfalls…”

Pennsylvania’s government is also blocked from using Rainy Day Fund money to “begin new programs.”

That’s what Shapiro wants to do, according to Benefield. “His proposal, if you look at it, is a lot of new programs,” he said. “They’re not to deal with an emergency. They’re simply to prop up spending.

“The idea that having an ongoing structural deficit year after year is not an emergency. That’s simply poor budgeting,” Benefield added.

Shapiro said during his budget address that the state needed to spend some of the reserve cash as a so-called investment into Pennsylvanians.

“We need to build a more competitive Pennsylvania that starts in our classrooms, runs through our union halls and our small businesses, through our farmlands and our high rises, our college campuses, and leads to a life of opportunity and a retirement with dignity,” he said. “We need to keep people safe, make sure they have access to the medical treatments and care they need, and build communities where they see a future of opportunity.”

Benefield doesn’t believe that Shapiro’s budgetary wishes will come to fruition. Calling the proposals “pie in the sky and even campaign-oriented,” Benefield said that he doesn’t see them getting done this year. “There isn’t a lot of appetite to have that large of a budget deficit of $3 billion-plus this year. I think there probably will still be a deficit this year, but I expect it to be a lot less than what Shapiro proposed.”

The Pennsylvania legislature remains divided, with Republicans controlling the Senate and Democrats holding a small lead in the House.

Neither House nor Senate Republicans appear to desire Shapiro’s proposed spending spree.

“While I can support initiatives that invest in our workforce and help more folks to lay down roots in Pennsylvania, those initiatives cannot be coupled with an endless wish list of spending agendas that are unsustainable and eviscerate our safety nets,” said Rep. Donna Scheuren (R-Montgomery). “That is not good governance, nor is it fiscally responsible.”

“We cannot reverse years of progress with a single-year spending spree that sacrifices our future,” said Sen. Scott Martin (R-Lancaster). “We need a responsible budget that helps grow jobs here and encourages families to put down roots here so we can reverse the negative economic and demographic trends that threaten our future stability. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make that happen.”

An email to the Shapiro administration was not answered.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Gov. Josh Shapiro may soon discover that, as President Harry Truman said, “the buck stops here.”

A new poll from the Commonwealth Foundation and Arc Insights found voters will hold Gov. Josh Shapiro responsible for the state budget impasse.

Fifty-five percent of voters said it is up to Shapiro to get the budget finalized, while just 14 percent say that is the job of Republicans in the legislature.

More than 9 in 10 (93 percent) of Pennsylvanians think it is important that elected officials reach a bipartisan agreement.

A solid majority of voters (57 percent) also say they want Shapiro to continue supporting scholarships for children attending the state’s worst-performing schools. Among Black voters, that number is 76 percent.

Shapiro had promised to support a voucher program both while campaigning and in hammering out a budget deal with state Senate Republicans, only to reverse his position under pressure from House Democrats and teachers unions, leading to the current budget stalemate.

The poll found 65 percent of voters believe Shapiro should honor his agreement, and more than 70 percent believe scholarships for kids to attend better schools should be expanded.

And 54 percent oppose cuts in funding to cyber charter schools.

For a majority of parents, this is a personal issue, with 56 percent saying that if finances were no concern, they would choose to send their kids to schools other than the public school to which they are assigned.

“Pennsylvanians are not only looking for Gov. Shapiro to return to the negotiating table, but they are also expecting him to take responsibility and step up as a leader to finalize a state budget that includes keeping his promise to help kids trapped in failing and unsafe schools,” said Commonwealth Foundation’s Senior Vice President Erik Telford.

After reversing his support for the PASS scholarship program negotiated with the state Senate, Shapiro used a July 6 press conference to shift the blame to the legislature. “It’s now the responsibility of the House and Senate to find a way to work together and iron out those details.”

“It is not too late for Gov. Shapiro to do the right thing and restore a vital lifeline to parents and children while rebuilding his credibility and proving he is a trustworthy leader. State lawmakers should listen to their voters and finish the job they were elected to do,” Telford said.

The poll of 600 likely voters was conducted July 14-16, 2023, and has a margin of error of +/- 4 percent.

Shapiro’s office did not immediately respond when asked to comment.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Gov. Josh Shapiro plans to allow the House to pass a $45.5 million budget without the school choice scholarship program that the Senate approved through negotiations with him.

The budget for the 2023-24 fiscal year was due June 30. But with the Democratic-controlled House refusing to go along with the $100 million earmarked for the PASS scholarships (formerly called Lifeline) for children in failing public schools, Shapiro is now playing ball with the House and leaving the senators to fume.

Previously, Shapiro campaigned on the promise of scholarships for students in failing public schools but teachers’ unions and many of his fellow Democrats opposed the plan. A Commonwealth Foundation poll found 77 percent of Pennsylvanians agreed that the state “has arbitrary school district boundaries that traditionally force underprivileged students into underperforming schools. All kids should have access to the best public schools, regardless of location.”

Shapiro released a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying in part, “Knowing that the two chambers will not reach consensus at this time to enact PASS, and unwilling to hold up our entire budget process over this issue, I will line-item veto the total $100 million appropriation, and it will not be part of this budget bill.

“While I am disappointed the two parties could not come together, (House) Leader (Matthew) Bradford has given me his word — and he has written a letter outlining directly to (Senate) Leader (Joe) Pittman — that he will carefully examine and consider additional education options including PASS, Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC), and Education Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) as we work to address our public education needs in light of the Commonwealth Court’s recent education ruling,” Shapiro said.

The last three budget cycles have seen major increases in education funding, including $567 million for basic education; $100 million level up; $100 K-12 mental health; $125 million school safety/facilities; $50 million special education; $100 Million Lifeline/PASS Scholarships; and free lunches.

Advocates for school choice unloaded on Shapiro over his reversal.

“Governor Josh Shapiro said he supported private school choice and even put it in his education platform before the election. He just sent out a statement indicating he will line-item veto the school choice program in the budget,” said Corey DeAngelis, executive director of the Educational Freedom Institute.

“He played the parents of Pennsylvania.”

House Republican Appropriations Chairman Seth Grove (R-York) said his committee is counting the days, hours, minutes, and seconds Pennsylvania has no budget.

“I think it’s important for Pennsylvanians to know the length of time House Democrats have held the budget hostage over Lifeline Scholarships,” Grove said. “We’re talking about 0.2 percent of the budget, just $100 million to help kids in failing schools. This is what House Democrats have chosen to grind the entire process to a halt over.”

Sen. Anthony Williams (D-Philadelphia/Delaware) said he is “very disappointed.”

“Children who are in these schools need them to prepare them for life, whether that’s public school, charter schools or parochial schools. And we need to do everything we can do to help them.”

Commonwealth Partners President and CEO Matt Brouillette released the following statement this afternoon after Gov. Josh Shapiro said he would veto PASS Scholarships (formerly Lifeline Scholarships).

“Today, Gov. Josh Shapiro not only reneged on his word to the people of Pennsylvania. But worse, at the first sign of opposition he gave up the fight to rescue kids trapped in failing schools.

“He claims he wins big fights, but in the first big fight of his administration—with kids’ futures on the line—he left the court without even taking one shot. Today, Gov. Shapiro shows who really runs this state, and it’s not him.”

Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Lawrence Tabas said, “By vetoing the Lifeline Scholarship Program, not only is Josh Shapiro crushing hope of a better education and a better life for disadvantaged children, but he is shamelessly catering to the teachers unions, which benefit from trapping these children in bad schools. There is no acceptable reason to deny any child, of any color, background, or Zip code the potential that comes with access to a better education.”

Charlie Gerow, a Republican political consultant with Quantum Communications, said about Shapiro’s bypassing the Senate, “Shapiro plays political games. Big shocker. Sadly, this one is at the expense of our kids.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

“Chester’s financial situation is critical, and it is running out of time to find a solution.”

That grim analysis was given last week by the city’s state-appointed receiver Michael Doweary, who added the alternative to a solution could be dissolution — literally. The City of Chester might be incorporated and cease to exist if its fiscal problems aren’t solved.

“Everything is on the table,” Doweary said.

“Everything on the table” has ironically been Chester’s problem for years. The city has maintained a bloated budget with considerably more expenditures than revenue. It has also struggled to accurately keep track of its finances, with officials often unable to produce correct and timely financial reports.

Like many cities in the northeastern U.S., Chester once enjoyed a boom as a manufacturing and distribution hub. The decline of those industries led to years of a shrinking economy and dwindling tax receipts.

Chester first fell under Pennsylvania’s Act 47, the Municipalities Financial Recovery Act, in 1995. A decade later, its fiscal fortunes had not improved. By 2006, city officials had to take out a major deficit-backed loan to pay employees and keep basic services running.

Frank Catania, an attorney for the city’s Chester Water Authority utility concern, told Delaware Valley Journal that state overseers at the Department of Community and Economic Development handled Chester’s management badly.

“During all of this time, the DCED was involved in overseeing the finances, and they were as useful as spectators at a house fire,” he said, adding bluntly: “The Act 47 consultants did nothing.”

Catania was also involved in arbitrating several disputes between the city and emergency responder labor unions. In multiple rulings in favor of increased pension benefits for represented employees, Catania argued that “the city’s ability to pay” the benefits was highly doubtful.

The previous mayor John Linder “could have appealed the payout” and “gone to court,” Catania argued. “He didn’t, and then it just got worse.”

The city’s financial future looked modestly improved by 2007 with the construction of Harrah’s Philadelphia Casino and Racetrack at the site of the former Sun Shipbuilding and Drydock manufacturing facility.

Yet the city’s spending still continued to exceed its income. An amended recovery plan in 2016 projected a roughly $4.5 million surplus in 2019 if the recovery plan were adopted. But the city receiver noted earlier this month that the city saw “a general fund loss of approximately $6.8 million that year.”

The lion’s share of the city’s massive budget goes toward personnel costs. Of the roughly $56.5 million the city projected for the 2016 fiscal year in its recovery plan, over $40 million went to categories such as “salaries and wages,” “overtime,” and “healthcare.”

Its overtaxed budget and cratering revenues pushed the city to shortchange its financial obligations. Doweary’s report from August 2020 said Chester “[had] not made its full minimal municipal obligation to [its] three pension plans since 2013, leading to a severely underfunded pension situation.”

Further complicating the city’s finances has been a lack of transparent accounting of key city funds.

A 2013 independent audit of the city’s finances left the auditors “unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence” about “various classifications of certain revenues and expenditures” related to the city’s general and proprietary funds, among other outlay streams.

Similar shortfalls were found in audits conducted for the years 2015 and 2017.

Other instances of financial mismanagement abound. A state auditor general report in 2021 found the city “failed to deposit its state aid allocations into the police pension plan” in a timely fashion. The receiver’s office, meanwhile, identified a “pattern of pushing a portion of each fiscal year’s obligations into the next one,” which “made it difficult to accurately analyze the [City’s] financial performance on an annual basis.”

The receiver, whose office did not respond to several queries for this story, called the city’s underfunded pensions “the largest and most severe” of its financial crises.

By April 2020, when then-Gov. Tom Wolf announced a Declaration of Fiscal Emergency for the city and implemented an Emergency Action Plan; Chester’s police pension fund had “less than six months of beneficiary payments” in its coffers, the report said.

The receiver, in his report, argued the city government has followed “a pattern of … either failing to adopt a realistic budget, failing to follow that budget or both, which results in consistent, large deficits.”

Though the receiver’s predictions for the city have been dire and foreboding for several years—including last week’s claim it is “running out of time to find a solution”—city leaders have argued the situation is not as bad as the state has made it out to be.

“How can anyone be expected to continue to work with a team that even mentions the possibility of dismantling and dividing the city through disincorporation?” Chester Mayor Thaddeus Kirkland said at a recent press conference.

Kirkland said city leaders will be heading to the state capitol to secure more funds for the beleaguered municipality, in particular from the near-$10 billion surplus the state currently holds in its coffers.

“This mayor and council members will be visiting Harrisburg to find out how we get our share of that $8 billion that sits in Harrisburg,” he said.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Delaware County’s budget is under extraordinary upward pressure, an analysis conducted by Broad + Liberty shows. The general fund total spending spiked from $251 million in fiscal year 2019, the last year a Republican Administration managed county operations, up to $284 million in the adopted 2022 budget — an increase of thirteen percent.

Yet as large as those numbers are, they have been adjusted upwards again since the budget was adopted, and the general fund doesn’t capture large budget edits happening in other departments.

In a special budget meeting in June, the $284 million in spending for the 2022 general fund budget was adjusted upwards by another $6 million, bringing this year’s total budget to $290 million, pushing the aforementioned increase up to an eye-popping sixteen percent. Despite the many revisions to the budget at the June meeting, the county conceded that still more budget revisions were forthcoming, including a review of unanticipated costs associated with de-privatizing the prison in the fourth quarter, as well as requests from the county elections director and the Fair Acres Geriatric Center.

The fact that county Democrats are spending significantly more in 2022 than county Republicans did when they were in the majority in 2019 might be expected. Democrats are ideologically predisposed to tax their constituents to fund expanded government services. Indeed, most members of the current council campaigned on the creation of a county-run health department as far back as 2017 and had actually begun parts of the process as early as 2019, despite the fact that a previously commissioned study conducted by John Hopkins University concluded no such bureaucracy would substantially improve public health outcomes.

As a practical matter, the county received more than $200 million in federal Covid-19 stimulus between the Trump Administration’s CARES Act and the Biden Administration’s American Rescue Plan Act. So, the obvious question for Delaware County taxpayers is: What are they getting for their money? Where is all that stimulus money going?

Broad + Liberty’s analysis of the county budget and subsequent spending revisions is likely to alarm many taxpayers.

For instance, 2019 was the last year the Republicans controlled spending on core government operations funded primarily by real estate taxes. Total departmental expenses that year were $156 million.

In 2022, the Democratic majority adopted a budget that called for $189 million in spending. General Administration spending increased from $16 million to $26 million. Community Health spending, the line item that accounts for the newly created Delaware County Health Department (DHCD) in Yeadon Borough, increased from $377,000 to $8.5 million. In aggregate this represents a 26 percent increase in spending on core operations since the change in partisan control.

Additionally, at the June budget meeting, the county revealed it will adjust the health department budget for fiscal year 2023 from $11.8 million up to $18.2 million. That $6.4 million increase represents a 55 percent increase in its initial projection for next year and a 114 percent increase overall. It’s important to understand that because DCHD is its own category of spending, these increases are not captured in the previously discussed sixteen percent increase to the general budget.

For now, Covid-19 monies from the federal government have helped smooth over most of these costs. By law that money must be completely spent by 2024. So, the issue for taxpayers is whether the county’s operations and current spending trajectory can continue without substantial tax increases — or service cuts — when federal money is no longer available to subsidize a vastly expanded county government.

In the 2022 adopted budget alone, county council used $19 million in federal reimbursements and $6 million in cash reserves to balance a budget they have been unable to adhere to. The general fund and the DCHD, taken together, have seen a total of $12.2 million of edited, post facto spending that the original budget missed.

County officials attribute much of the increases to the creation of a county-run health department as well as the county assuming the management of the George W. Hill prison, which had been privately run for three decades. Budget documents also show the county aims to greatly increase salaries at the county prison, possibly revealing that officials underestimated those costs. At the June budget meeting, Howard Lazarus, the county’s executive director, said the county still intends on raising salaries for prison guards by 50 percent.

Records reviewed by Broad + Liberty show substantial increases to the county’s payroll, well beyond the mere addition of employees to the Department of Corrections or DCHD. Salaries, in general, appear to be a red flag. Using data obtained via a Right to Know request, the Delaware County Republican Party found that in 2020, the first year that the Democrats-controlled County Council, the county employed 832 people making more than $50,000 a year. Those salaries totaled 56.7 million annually.

Two years later in 2022, the county had 1,121 employees earning more than $50,000 which brought the annual total up to $77.9 million — an increase of $21.2 million. A similar analysis by Broad + Liberty largely confirms that thrust from the county Republicans.

Furthermore, every new dollar in salary comes with an additional cost of benefits. When queried by Broad + Liberty, the county said it has a 70 percent “total employee benefit cost,” meaning for every dollar paid out in salary, the county is on the hook for another 70 cents in benefits. For a county employee that earns $100,000, there is an extra $70,000 in benefits costs. That 70 percent benefits rate is far above nearby counties, like Bucks, which says it has a 41 percent total employee benefit cost.

New departments. New operations. New hires. These are not one-time pandemic-related costs, rather, they are long term obligations for which the taxpayer is on the hook in perpetuity, or at least until there is a change in the administration.

Also, these expenses are funded — almost exclusively — by property taxes and fees levied on residents and businesses in need of government services. So, what lingers as a question is: what percentage of federal monies spent to date have been used for one-time government expansion costs versus what percentage is earmarked for multi-year operational costs? How will these operational costs be covered going forward? Are Delaware County homeowners on a similar path as those in the City of Philadelphia?

From the publicly available budget documents, the answers to those questions are unclear. Perhaps intentionally so. Which is why it is worth noting that in May 2022, Philadelphia’s Office of Property Assessment created an uproar when it announced that residential property assessments for tax year 2023 are going up by an average of 31 percent citywide. In some neighborhoods, real estate taxes have doubled. According to the Mayor’s office, the increases are highest in low-income black and brown neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are already grappling with high inflation and even higher crime.

In response to multiple queries on these matters, executive director Lazarus told Broad + Liberty, “The sound financial management practices put in place have resulted in a greater degree of revenue and cost realism and alignment, transparency in the sources and uses of funds, and a decreased reliance on General Fund reserves to balance the budget.”

We hope he’s right. Our analysis, however, tells a very different story about the county’s likely fiscal position when the federal money runs out by 2024. Using Lazarus’ own methodology for the how the tax revenues were calculated for the 2022 budget as a baseline — and assuming the county still leveraged approximately $25 million in federal subsidies and cash reserves — the large incremental cost increases hitting the general fund such as the budgeted county contribution for DCHD and the $6 million mid-year budget adjustment would result in a 21 percent property tax increase. Without subsidies and reserves, the increase could exceed 25 percent.

As the old saying goes, elections have consequences. And as former Chief of Staff to President Obama Rahm Emmanuel once said, you should never let a good crisis go to waste. The strange and unanticipated confluence of those two political realities have left the county — its government, its taxpayers, its voters — in a set of circumstances unlike any in its history. The policy merits of the CARES and American Rescue Plan Acts notwithstanding, county officials are without question in a cash position to make historic investments in county infrastructure and strengthen the balance sheet for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, reckless spending, and poor financial planning in pursuit of fashionable ideologies over functional governance could have devastating socioeconomic effects for generations to come.

The county is at a crossroads. Let the data inform which road is taken.

This article first appeared in Broad + Liberty.

A public finance watchdog group gave Philadelphia an “F’ for its budget numbers and says the city’s attempting to hide a debt burden that totals $25,900 per taxpayer.

In a new report entitled “Financial State of the Cities,” the organization Truth in Accounting (TIA) says dozens of the nation’s 75 biggest cities claim to have balanced budgets, but don’t. Many aren’t fully counting pension obligations, the report said. And that includes Philadelphia.

While these cities may appear to have balanced their books, the reality is very different, says TIA founder Sheila Weinberg.

“They have surpluses and seem to be in good shape. But it is misleading; they are ignoring their debts,” Weinberg told Delaware Valley Journal. “It’s a little like saying, ‘well, you got plenty of cash in your pockets but just ignore those big credit card debts you have in your back pockets.’”

Collectively, these cities have accumulated some $357 billion in debt. That’s despite the fact these cities, unlike the federal government, are legally required to have balanced budgets, the report said.

Sara Durr, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Mayors, didn’t respond to requests for comment about some of her organization’s largest members.

The most common way of clouding budgets, the report said, is overcounting assets and undercounting or hiding debts.

The TIA report said cities are using dubious accounting practices. These include: “Inflating revenue assumptions. Counting borrowed money as income. Delaying the payment of current bills until the start of the next fiscal year so they aren’t included in the budget calculations.”

Both Philadelphia, which was given an “F” for finances, and Boston, which received a “D,” according to the report, have far more in debts than assets, the TIA report said.

A spokesman for Boston Mayor Michelle Wu didn’t respond to requests for comment. But a spokesman for Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said Philadelphia’s finances are improving.

“The city has and—despite ongoing challenges from the financial impacts of the pandemic—continues to make significant progress regarding our financial situation,” spokesman Kevin Lessard said. “The city went into the pandemic with the highest ever fund balance (savings), a recession reserve built into our five-year plan, and a small rainy-day fund.”

The TIA disagreed, and said the city debt burden is $25,900 per taxpayer.

“Philadelphia’s financial problems stem mostly from unfunded retirement obligations that have accumulated over the years,” the report said.

“The city had set aside only 51 cents for every dollar of promised pension benefits and 10 cents for every dollar of promised retiree health care benefits. Philadelphia did not have enough money set aside to weather the pandemic and the city has been in poor fiscal shape for years,” according to the report.

Lessard says city officials are addressing the issue.

“We’ve also increased the funded percent of the pension fund from the mid-40s to over 50 percent as part of a multi-year plan to get funding to 100 percent funding in about a decade,” Lessard says.

“That pension funding plan won an innovation in government award from the Government Finance Officers Association,” he continued, “and an analysis from Pew showed that our approach to pension funding put us in a better position than other cities are to continue to increase our funded percent even in a down market.”

But how and when will taxpayers know that a city could be headed for a New York City 1970s-style fiscal crisis, in which the city needed help to pay its bonds and barely escaped bankruptcy? Or a Detroit situation in which a city went broke?

Weinberg can’t say exactly when cities will go through similar crises. However, she argues credit rating agencies will not be in a position to spot problems ahead of time.

She says cities are using what are called “generally accepted accounting standards,” which allow budget officials to legally present budgets that appear healthier than they are. “These standards are not strict enough,” Weinberg said. Corporations have much stricter accounting standards than those used by bond raters in evaluating cities, she said.

“They (the bond raters) only care if the bonds get paid and bond holders are first ones to get paid when tax dollars come into the city.” She said most ratings aren’t based on the overall financial conditions of cities.

Weinberg says misleading numbers are anti- democratic. “People are making decisions on who to vote for based on the wrong numbers.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal