What Are the Fiscal Conditions & Promises of Recovery?

March 30, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the potential impact of urban school leadership; then we try to assess the equity of federal responses to hurricanes, before trying to understand and assess the status of the ongoing quasi chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy PROMESA deliberations in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.

Schooled in Municipal Finance? As we wrote, years ago, in our studies on Central Falls, Detroit, San Bernardino, and Chicago; schools matter: they determine whether families with kids will want to live in a central city—raising the issue, who ought to be setting the policies for such schools. In its report, five years ago, the Center for American Progress report cited several school districts like Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore—but not Detroit, were examples of municipalities where mayoral governance of public schools has had some measure of success in improving the achievement gap for students, or, as the Center noted: “Governance constitutes a structural barrier to academic and management improvement in too many large urban districts, where turf battles and political squabbles involving school leaders and an array of stakeholders have for too long taken energy and focus away from the core mission of education.” In the case of Detroit, of course, the issue was further addled by the largest municipal bankruptcy in the nation’s history and the state takeover of the Motor City’s schools.

Thus, interestingly, the report stated “mayoral accountability aims to address the governing challenges in urban districts by making a single office responsible for the performance of the city’s public schools. Citywide priorities such as reducing the achievement gap receive more focused attention.” In fact, many cities and counties have independent school boards—and there was certainly little shining evidence that the state takeover in Detroit was a paradigm; rather it appeared to lead to the creation of a quasi apartheid system under which charter schools competed with public schools to the detriment of the latter.

In its report, the Center finds: “[T]he only problem is this belief about mayoral control of schools has not worked well for Detroit. It has done just the opposite since the 1999 state takeover of the schools under former Gov. John Engler, which allowed for the mayor of Detroit to make some appointments to the school board. Since the state took over governance of the schools, when it was in a surplus, the district has been on a downward spiral with each year returning ballooning deficits under rotating state-appointed emergency managers. The district lost thousands of students to suburban schools as corruption and graft also became a hallmark of a system that took away resources that were meant to educate the city’s kids. Such history is what informs the resistance to outside involvement with the new Detroit Public Schools Community District that is now under an elected board with Superintendent Nikolai Vitti. His leadership is being received as a breath of fresh air as he implements needed reforms. That is what is now fueling skepticism and reservation about Mayor Mike Duggan’s bus loop initiative to help stem the tide of some 30,000 Detroit students he says attend schools in the suburbs.” Because of the critical importance to Detroit of income taxes, Mayor Duggan has always had a high priority of sending a message to families about the quality of the Motor City’s schools.  Superintendent Vitti noted that previous policies had “favored charter schools over traditional public schools.” Superintendent Vitti said he believes this issue is less about mayoral control than the Mayor Duggan’s leadership efforts to entice families with children back to the city, adding that he is not really concerned about mayoral control of the schools, noting: “I have no evidence or belief that the mayor is interested in running schools…I honestly believe the Mayor’s intent is to recruit students back to the city.”

Double Standards? The Capitol Hill newspaper, Politico, this week published an in-depth analysis of the seeming discriminatory responses to the federal responses to the savage hurricanes which struck Houston and Puerto Rico., reporting that while no two hurricanes are exactly alike, here, nine days after the respective hurricanes struck, “FEMA had approved $141.8 million in individual assistance to Hurricane Harvey victims, versus just $6.2 million for Hurricane Maria victims,” adding that the difference in response personnel mirrored the discriminatory responses, reporting there were 30,000 responders in Houston versus 10,000 in Puerto Rico, adding: “No two hurricanes are alike, and Harvey and Maria were vastly different storms that struck areas with vastly different financial, geographic and political situations. But a comparison of government statistics relating to the two recovery efforts strongly supports the views of disaster-recovery experts that FEMA and the Trump administration exerted a faster, and initially greater, effort in Texas, even though the damage in Puerto Rico exceeded that in Houston: Within six days of Hurricane Harvey, U.S. Northern Command had deployed 73 helicopters over Houston, which are critical for saving victims and delivering emergency supplies. It took at least three weeks after Maria before it had more than 70 helicopters flying above Puerto Rico; nine days after the respective hurricanes, FEMA had approved $141.8 million in individual assistance to Harvey victims, versus just $6.2 million for Maria victims. The periodical reported that it took just 10 days for FEMA to approve permanent disaster work for Texas, but 43 days for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  Politico, in an ominous portion of its reporting, notes: “[P]residential leadership plays a larger role. But as the administration moves to rebuild Texas and Puerto Rico, the contrast in the Trump administration’s responses to Harvey and Maria is taking on new dimensions. The federal government has already begun funding projects to help make permanent repairs to Texas infrastructure. But, in Puerto Rico, that funding has yet to start, as local officials continue to negotiate the details of an experimental funding system that the island agreed to adopt after a long, contentious discussion with Trump’s Office of Management and Budget. The report also notes: “Seventy-eight days after the two hurricanes, FEMA had received 18 percent more applications from victims of Maria than from victims of Harvey, but had approved 13 percent more applicants from Harvey than from Maria. At the time, 39 percent of applicants from Harvey had been approved compared with just 28 percent of applicants from Maria.”

Finally, the report notes that, as of last week,  six months after Hurricane Harvey, Texas was already receiving federal dollars from FEMA for more than a dozen permanent projects to repair schools, roads, and other public infrastructure which were damaged by the storm, while in Puerto Rico, FEMA has, so far, “not funded a single dollar for similar permanent work projects.”

Elected versus Unelected Governance. Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló yesterday reported he was rejecting the PROMESA Oversight Board’s “illegal” demands for labor law reforms and a 10% cut in pension outlays, stating: “The Board pretends to dictate the public policy of the government, and that, aside from being illegal, is unacceptable.” Gov. Rosselló was responding to demand letters from the Board for changes to the fiscal plans he had submitted, along with the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, and the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority earlier this month. Gov. Rosselló noted that §205 of the PROMESA statute allows the Board to make public policy recommendations, but not to set policy, adding that the PROMESA Board’s proposed mandates would make it “practically impossible” to increase Puerto Rico’s minimum wage, as he contemplated the Board’s demand of a $1.58 billion cut in government expenditures, nearly 10% more than he had proposed, and adding he would be “tenaz” (tenacious) in opposing the proposed 10% cut in public pension outlays demanded by the PROMESA Board—with the political friction reflecting governing apprehension about the potential impact on employment at a time when Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate is more than 300% higher than on the mainland—and, because of perceptions that such decisions ought to be reflective of the will of the island’s voters and taxpayers, rather than an outside board.

Who’s on First? The governance challenge in Puerto Rico involves federalism: yesterday, House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-Utah), criticized the Puerto Rico Oversight Board and the Governor over their failure to engage with bondholders in restructuring the Commonwealth’s debt, writing to PROMESA Board Chairman José Carrión: “The Committee has been unsatisfied with the implementation of PROMESA and the lack of respect for Congressional requirements of the fiscal plan…And now, due to intentional misinterpretations of the statute, the promise we made to Puerto Rico may take decades to fulfill,” adding he had become “frustrated” with the Board’s unwillingness to engage in dialogue and reach consensual restructuring agreements with creditors: he noted that both the Rosselló administration and the PROMESA Board must show “much greater degrees of transparency, accountability, goodwill and cooperation,”  amid seemingly growing apprehensions on his part that Puerto Rico government costs will increase, even as its population is projected to decline, and that he was becoming increasingly concerned with the “extreme amount” being spent on Title III bankruptcy litigation. He said that Board should make sure it is the sole legal representative of Puerto Rico in these cases—and asked that the PROMESA Board define what constitutes “essential public services” in Puerto Rico: “I ask that you adhere to the mandates of PROMESA and work closely with creditors and the Puerto Rican government as you finalize and certify the fiscal plans…“My committee will be monitoring your actions closely; and as we near the two-year anniversary of the passage of PROMESA, an oversight hearing on the status of achieving PROMESA’s goals will likely be merited.”

For its part, the PROMESA Oversight Board has rejected fiscal plans presented by Gov. Ricardo Rosselló and the island’s two public authorities and has demanded the territory reduce public pensions by 10% , writing, this week, three letters outlining its demands for changes in fiscal plans submitted this month by the central government, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, and Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority. Under the PROMESA statute, the federal court overseeing the quasi-chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy is mandated to accept the fiscal plans, including their allotments for debt—plans which the PROMESA Board has demanded, as revised, be submitted by 5 p.m. next Thursday. The Board is directed there should be no benefit reductions for those making less than $1,000 per month from a combination of their Social Security benefits and retirement plans and that employees should be shifted from a defined-benefit plan to a defined-contribution plan by July 1st of next year; it directed that police, teachers, and judges under age 40 should be enrolled in Social Security and their pension contributions be lowered by the amount of their Social Security contribution, directing this for the PREPA, PRASA, Teachers, Employees, and Judiciary retirement systems. In its letter concerning the central government, the PROMESA Board directed Gov. Rosselló to make many changes: some require more information; some are “structural” changes focused on reforming laws to make the economy more vibrant; at least one adds revenues without requiring a greater burden; and many of them require greater tax burdens, or assume lower tax revenues or higher expenditures—noting that any final plan, to be approved, should aim at achieving a total $5.66 billion in agency efficiency savings through FY2023, but that Puerto Rico’s oil taxes should be kept constant rather than adjusted each year.

The Board directed that a single Office of the CFO should be created to oversee the Department of the Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Administration and Transformation of Human Resources, General Services Administration, and Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority—adding that Puerto Rico will be mandated to convert to legally at-will employment by the end of this year, reduce mandatory vacation and sick leave to a total of 14 days immediately, and add a work requirement for the Nutritional Assistance Program by no later than Jan. 1st, 2021—and that any increase in the minimum wage to $8.25 must be linked to conditions—and, for Puerto Ricans 25 or younger, such an increase would only be permitted if and when Puerto Rico eliminated the current mandatory Christmas bonus for employers.

Advertisements

The Fiscal & Legal Challenges of Smaller Municipalities

eBlog

March 28, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the ongoing fiscal, physical, intergovernmental, and legal challenges to Flint, Michigan—as too many parties seek to plead innocent to state actions, which have wreaked such devastating fiscal and physical costs. Then we head east to one of the nation’s oldest municipalities, Bristol, Virginia, which appears to be on the precipice of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy.

Fiscal Fraud & Unfiscal Federalism? Andy Arena, the FBI Detroit office’s former director, and lead investigator into the City of Flint’s water crisis, this week testified before the Michigan Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government that he has launched a new probe amid allegations of “financial fraud” and “greed” as critical factor behind the fateful decision years ago to switch the city’s water source, stating: “Without getting too far into depth, we believe there was a significant financial fraud that drove this,” adding that the alleged scheme benefited “individuals.” Or, as he testified: “I believe greed drove this.”

His testimony came as Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette continued the investigation he started in the wake of Gov. Rick Snyder’s declaration, two years ago, of a state of emergency in the wake of the severe and life threatening lead water contamination, as the criminal probe, which has already led to charges against 15 local and state officials—charges resulting in four plea deals and preliminary exams involving six defendants, including state Health and Human Services Director Nick Lyon and Chief Medical Executive Eden Wells continue. Now, the investigation is focusing on the potential motivation behind the decision to switch the City of Flint from the Detroit area water system to the new Karegnondi Water Authority—a decision which, when Flint opted to join the regional authority, had terminated its arrangement with the Detroit water system and opened the fateful portals to drawing water from the Flint River as an interim source, e.g. the dreadful step which resulted in contaminated drinking water and calamitous drops in assessed property values—not to mention grave governing questions with regard to the culpability of state appointed emergency managers preempting local elected leaders. (Within 17 months, the decision, made while the city was run by state-appointed emergency managers, was reversed after outbreaks of Legionnaires’ and increased levels of bacteria, total trihalomethanes and lead were found in water. Five years ago, in March, Flint’s City Council members voted 7-1 to join a new regional provider, rather than remain a customer with the Detroit system—as it had for decades. Three days earlier, Flint Emergency Manager Ed Kurtz had approved the agreement, notwithstanding then-State Treasurer Andy Dillon’s skepticism with regard to whether the new regional authority made financial sense.).

Last week, when Sen. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) asked whether the probe involved local, state, and federal entities, Mr. Arena responded: “It kind of cuts across all lines right now…I don’t know that they were working so much in concert, but the end game was people were trying to make money in different ways.” He reiterated that his FBI team has been heading the Flint criminal investigation for more than two years; however, he testified he was uncertain when it might end, adding: “We’re moving at lightning speed…I can assure everyone here that we are working as quickly as we possibly can: Our bottom line is we want justice for the people of Flint, and we have to do that methodically.” Unsurprisingly, he did not detail what “justice” might mean: would it mean reparations for the fiscally and physically devastated city and its taxpayers?

The case, as we have previously written, commenced after the Governor, five years’ ago, preempted all municipal authority via the appointment of Ed Kurtz as the city’s Emergency Manager, effectively preempting any municipal authority for the brewing fiscal, physical, and health catastrophe; Mr. Kurtz, in this preemptive capacity then signed off on the fateful order in June of 2013 to allow the “upgrading of the Flint Water Plant to ready it to treat water from the Flint River to serve as the primary drinking water source for approximately two years and then converting to KWA delivered lake water,” a source which the city used from April of 2014 until October 2015, when the city was reverted to the Detroit system in the wake of an outbreak of Legionnaires’ cases and evidence of elevated levels of lead in the city’s children—a most ill omen, as it signaled to parents the prohibitive cost of health and safety to continue to reside in the city—and the unlikelihood of any ability to sell their homes at any kind of a reasonable price. Mayhap worse, last October, a federal judge dismissed objections by Flint’s City Council and paved the way for Flint officials to move forward with a long-term contract with the Detroit area Great Lakes Water Authority—a position supported by Mayor Karen Weaver as vital to avert chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. Thus, Mayor Weaver, Gov. Snyder, and the EPA supported a proposed 30-year agreement with the Great Lakes Water Authority—a position on which the Flint City Council did not agree—leading to a successful suit by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to compel approval of the agreement.

Concurrently, in a related trial on these physical and fiscal event, before a Genesee District Court Judge in a trial where the state’s Chief Medical Officer has been charged with crimes related to the Flint water crisis, a researcher, Virginia Tech Professor Marc Edwards, testified before Genesee District Court Judge William Crawford yesterday that Dr. Eden Wells had sought to “get to the truth of the matter,” and that had seen no evidence of Dr. Wells having committed crimes during her preliminary examination on potential charges including involuntary manslaughter.(Prosecutors charge that Dr. Wells, a member of Gov. Snyder’s cabinet, failed to protect the health and welfare of Flint area residents, including victims of Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks in the Flint area while the city used the Flint River as its water source in parts of 2014 and 2015: Dr, Wells is charged with attempting to withhold funding for programs designed to help the victims of the water crisis and with lying to an investigator about material facts related to a Flint investigation by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.) 

Professor Edwards is among those who believe that Flint’s switch to river water without proper treatment to make it less corrosive triggered both elevated lead and increased Legionella bacteria in large buildings in Flint at the time, adding that he disagreed with the approach taken by the Flint Area Community Health and Environment Partnership, which contracted with the state to find the root cause of the Legionella outbreaks, which officials have reported lead to the deaths of at least a dozen people in Genesee County while the river was in use. Thus, Professor Edwards notes, instead of focusing on the potential for the bacteria in water filters, state fiscal resources would have been put to better use if directed to investigate cases tied to large buildings, particularly hospitals, where his own testing showed very high levels were present. Moreover, in response to the query whether Dr. Wells did anything to discourage his research, Prof. Edwards responded: “To the contrary. She seemed interested, and she encouraged it.”

The Fiscally Desperate State of a Small Municipality. Far to the east of Flint, in one of the nation’s oldest municipalities, Bristol, Virginia, a municipality which, in 1880, had a population of 1,562—a population which gradually grew to 19,042 in 1980, before waning to 16,060 by 2016. The area of what is, today, Bristol, was once inhabited by early Americans, Cherokee Indians, with the name, according to legend, because numerous deer and buffalo met there to feast in the canebrakes; it was subsequently renamed the site Sapling Grove, and then, in 1890, finally settled upon as Bristol. It used to have a fort on a hill overlooking what is now downtown Bristol: it marked an important stopping-off place for notables, including Daniel Boone and George Rogers Clark, as well as hundreds of pioneers, who found Bristol, a former trading post, way station, and stockade, to be a cornerstone to opening up a young nation to the West.  Now, a Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) new report has found the municipality may require state fiscal assistance to address its significant debt tied to The Falls development and landfill operations—having, at the end of last week, in its fiscal distress monitoring report of local governments, assessed the small city as scoring poorly on a set of financial metrics, including debt overload, cash flow issues, revenue shortfalls, deficit spending, billing issues, and a lack of qualified staff. The small municipality today has a median household income of $27,389. Approximately 13.2% of families and 16.2% of the population fall below federal poverty levels–including 25.8% of those under age 18. The Auditor’s report notes: “During follow-up with the City of Bristol, we observed two primary issues that we concluded are contributing to a situation of fiscal distress at the city: issues specific to the operational sustainability of its solid waste disposal fund and the debt and future revenues related to The Falls commercial development project,” positions which Bristol City Manager Randy Eads noted “exactly” portrayed the city’s financial problems, as opposed to preliminary findings released last year which included some incorrect information. Specific findings found that the city does not have unrestricted reserves to use for a revenue shortfall or unforeseen situations, and that the city is not in the “most desirable” position to meet its fiscal obligations without obtaining additional revenues.

As part of the report, the APA issued written notification to Gov. Ralph Northam, the General Assembly’s money committees, the Secretary of Finance, and city officials detailing these specific issues and recommending that Bristol may warrant further assistance from the state to help assess and stabilize areas of concern—with such potential state assistance including an independent consultant reviewing the viability of landfill operations and developing long-range financial forecasts for revenue—each items sought by the city. Or, as Manager Eads noted: “That’s something we requested from the APA. It’s our understanding there’s $500,000 the state has set aside to help low-scoring localities with some of their financial issues…We requested funds for a detailed financial analysis of the landfill and requested funds for a financial planning firm to help us with a three-, five- and 10-year financial forecast.” Manager Eads reports he plans to meet with Virginia legislators to seek support. Bristol’s solid waste fund has $33.5 million in long-term bond debt; the municipality’s general fund continues to transfer funds to pay bills, according to the report. The report notes that city officials completed a significant refinancing of all short-term debt earlier this year; however, debt remains a challenge: “However, the city’s increasing debt service costs continue to be a concerning factor, as Bristol’s ability to pay the debt service will be contingent upon sufficient future revenues received from The Falls project,” according to the report. The auditor’s office notes the city is entitled to additional sales tax revenues under provision of a state law, but notes “Bristol continues to experience some uncertainty with its long-term revenue stream and future growth after all phases of The Falls project are implemented.”

Intergovernmental Federalism Fiscal Recovery Challenges

March 26, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the ongoing fiscal challenges to Connecticut’s capitol city of Hartford, and the fiscal challenges bequeathed to the Garden State by the previous gubernatorial administration, before wondering about the level of physical and fiscal commitment of the U.S. to its U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.

Capitol & Capital Debts. The Hartford City Council is scheduled to vote today on whether to approve an agreement between the city and the state on a fiscal arrangement under which the state would pay off Hartford’s general obligation debt of approximately $550 million over the next two decades as part of the consensus seemingly settled as part of the Connecticut state budget—an agreement under which the state would assume responsibility to finance Hartford’s annual debt payments, payments projected to be in excess of $56 million by 2021, while the city would continue to make payments on its new minor league ballpark, about $5 million per year—a fiscal pact described by Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin as the :”[K]ind of long-term partnership we’ve been working for, and I’m proud that we got it done.” Mayor Bronin is pressing Council to vote before April Fool’s Day, which happens to be the city’s deadline for its next debt payment: if executed by then, the state would pay the $12 million which Hartford currently owes, under the provisions in the current state fiscal budget which, when adopted, had pledged tens of millions of dollars in additional fiscal assistance to the state capitol, fiscal assistance regarded as vital to avert a looming chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy—and, under which, similar in a sense to New Jersey’s Atlantic City, the aid provided included the imposition of state oversight. The effect of the state fiscal assistance meant that in the  current fiscal year, Connecticut would assume responsibility for Hartford’s remaining debt of $12 million; in addition, the state is to provide Hartford another $24 million to help close the city’s current budget deficit—and, in future years, assume the city’s full debt payment. The agreement provides that the state could go further and potentially finance additional subsidies to the city. Mayor Bronin had sought approximately $40 million in extra aid each year, in addition to the $270 million the city already receives—albeit, the additional state aid comes with some fiscal strings attached: a state oversight board, as in Michigan and New Jersey, is authorized to restrict how the municipality may budget, and finance: contracts and other documents must be run by the panel, and the board will have final say over new labor agreements and any issuance of capital debt. Going further, under the provisions, even if the oversight board were to go out of existence, Hartford’s fiscal authority would still be subject to state oversight: e.g. if the city wished to make its required payment to the pension fund, such payment(s) would be subject to oversight by both the Connecticut Treasurer and the Secretary of Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management—where a spokesperson noted: “Connecticut cannot allow a city to default on its bond obligations or financially imperil itself for the foreseeable future: This action will ultimately best position Hartford to move into a better financial future.”

Mayor Bronin, in reflecting on the imposition of state fiscal oversight, noted that while the state assistance would help offset Hartford’s escalating deficits, deficits now projected to reach $94 million by 2023, noted: “This debt transaction does not leave us with big surpluses: “We’re looking to achieve sufficient stability over the next five years, and we can use that period to focus on growth.” Hartford Council President Glendowlyn Thames likewise expressed confidence, noting: “This plan is really tight, and it’s just surviving: We have to focus on an economic development strategy that gets us to the point where we’re thriving.”

State Fiscal Stress. For its part, with less than a week before the state enters its final fiscal quarter, the Connecticut legislature still has its own significant state debt issue to resolve—with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy warning he still expects the state legislature will honor a new budget control it enacted last fall to help rebuild the state’s modest emergency reserves, stating: “I don’t think I have given up any hope, or all hope” that legislators will close the $192 million projected shortfall in the fiscal year which ends June 30th; however, the Governor also said legislative leaders professed commitment to both write and commit to a new, bipartisan budget may be waning, stating: “The grand coalition seems to be fraying, and I think that’s what gives rise to the inability to respond to the budget being out of balance,” he said, referencing last October’s grand bargain under which there was bipartisan agreement on a new, two-year plan to balance state finances—an agreement achieved in a process excluding the Governor, who, nevertheless, signed the budget to end the stalemate, despite what he had described as significant flaws, including a reliance on too many rosy assumptions, hundreds of millions of dollars swept from off-budget and one-time sources, as well as unprecedented savings targets the administration had to achieve after the budget was in force. Indeed, meeting that exacting target is proving elusive: the fiscal gap in January exceeded $240 million in January, before declining to the current $192 million: it has yet to meet the critical 1% of the General Fund threshold—a threshold which, if exceeded, mandates the Comptroller to confirm, and triggers a requirement for the Governor to issue a deficit-mitigation plan to the legislature within one month.

The new state local fiscal oversight arrangement provides that, even if the state oversight board goes away, the city’s fiscal practices would remain subject to state oversight—where any perceived failures would subject the city fiscal scrutiny by the Connecticut Treasurer and the Secretary of Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management, a spokesperson for which noted: “Connecticut cannot allow a city to default on its bond obligations or financially imperil itself for the foreseeable future: This action will ultimately best position Hartford to move into a better financial future.” Hartford City Council President Glendowlyn Thames asserted her confidence with regard to the contract, but noted more work needed to be done: “This plan is really tight, and it’s just surviving: We have to focus on an economic development strategy that gets us to the point where we’re thriving.”

Post Christie Garden State? New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, in his first post Chris Christie fiscal challenge is targeting state tax incentives as a potential source of revenue for the cash-starved state, noting, in his first fiscal address earlier this month that $8 billion in corporate state tax credits approved by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority under former Gov. Chris Christie had made the state’s fiscal cliff even steeper to scale, noting that one of his first fiscal actions was to sign an executive order directing the state Comptroller’s office to audit the New Jersey Economic Development Authority’s tax incentive programs, dating back to 2010 (the current program is set to expire in 2019), describing the programs as “massive giveaways, in many cases imprecisely directed, [which] will ultimately deprive us of the full revenues we desperately need: “These massive giveaways, in many cases imprecisely directed, will ultimately deprive us of the full revenues we desperately need to build a stronger and fairer economic future,” as the new Governor was presenting his $37.4 billion budget to the Garden State state legislature, noting: “We were told these tax breaks would nurse New Jersey back to health and yet our economy still lags.” Under his Executive Order the Gov., in January, had directed Comptroller Philip James Degnan to examine the Grow New Jersey Assistance Program, the Economic Redevelopment and Growth Grant Program, and other programs which have existed under the NJEDA since 2010 when former Gov. Christie assumed office: the audit is aimed at comparing the economic impact from projects that received the tax breaks with the jobs and salaries they created: it is, as a spokesperson explained: “[A]n important opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the State’s existing incentive programs.” New Jersey Policy Perspective, in its perspective, notes that the $8.4 billion of tax breaks NJEDA approved under former Gov. Christie compared to $1.2 billion of subsidies awarded during the previous decade, subsidies which the organization frets have hampered New Jersey’s fiscal flexibility to fund vital investments such as transportation and schools. Indeed, a key fiscal challenge for the new Governor of a state with the second lowest state bond rating—in the wake of 11 downgrades under former Gov. Christie, downgradings caused by rising public pension obligations and increasing fiscal deficits—will be how to fiscally engineer a turnaround—or, as Fitch’s Marcy Block advises: “It’s always a good idea for a new administration to see what the tax incentives program is like and what potential revenue they are missing out on,” after Fitch, last week, noted that the new Governor’s budget proposes $2 billion in revenue growth, including $1.5 billion from tax increases,” adding that the Governor’s proposed plan to readjust the Garden State’s sales and use tax back up to 7% from the 6.625% level it dropped to under former Gov. Christie was a “positive step” which would provide $581 million in additional revenue, even though it would impose strict fiscal restraints: “These increased revenues would go to new spending and leave the state with still slim reserves and reduced flexibility to respond to future economic downturns through revenue raising: The state has significant spending pressures, not only due to the demands of underfunded retiree benefit liabilities, but also because natural revenue increases resulting from modest economic growth in recent years have gone primarily towards the phased-in growth in annual pension contributions.”

For his part, Gov. Murphy has emphasized that while he opposes many of the state tax expenditures doled out by the former Christie administration, a $5 billion incentives program that the NJEDA’s Grow New Jersey Program is offering Amazon to build its planned second headquarters in Newark would be a positive for the state. (Newark is on Amazon’s short list of 20 municipalities it is considering for a new facility that could house up to 50,000 employees: the city is offering $2 billion in tax breaks of its own to create $7 billion in total subsidies.) The Governor noted a win here would be “a transformative moment for our state: It could literally spur billions of dollars in new investments, in infrastructure, in communities and in people,” as he noted that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has grown jobs at a rate seven times greater than New Jersey in recent years, despite only spending $22,000 in economic incentives per job compared to $160,000 for each job in New Jersey, noting that other priorities beyond taxes are important to lure businesses, such as investments in education, workforce housing, and infrastructure: “Even with these heralded gifts, our economic growth has trailed almost every other competitor state in the nation in literally almost every category: “Massachusetts and our other competitor states are providing businesses a greater value for money and with that value in hand they are cleaning our clocks.”

Free, Free at Last? Announcing that “We’ve reached an agreement that is beneficial both for the taxpayer and for the people of Puerto Rico,” referring to a pact that is to lead to the release of some held up $4.7 billion in federal disaster recovery assistance reached between Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the pair has announced at the end of last week agreement on the release of some $4.7 billion in disaster recovery loans which Congress had signed off on six months ago—but funds which Sec. Mnuchin had delayed releasing on account of disagreement over the terms of repayment, describing it as a “super-lien” Community Disaster Loan. After a meeting between the two, the new, tentative agreement would allow Puerto Rico access to the fiscal assistance once the cash balance in its treasury falls below $1.1 billion—a level more than the Secretary’s initial request of $800 million. (As of March 9th, U.S. territory had about $1.45 billion in cash.) The agreement ended half a year of tense negotiations over what were perceived as discriminatory loan conditions compared to the terms under which federal assistance had been provided to Houston and Florida in the wake of the hurricanes. Indeed, Gov. Rossello had written to Congress that the Treasury was demanding that repayment of those loans be given the highest priority, even over the provision of essential emergency services in Puerto Rico—even as the Treasury was proposing to bar Puerto Rico’s eligibility for future loan forgiveness. Under the new agreement, the odd couple have announced that the revised agreement would grant high priority to repayment of the federal loans—not above the funding of essential services, but presumably above the more than $70 billion Puerto Rico owes to its municipal bondholders. From his perspective, Sec. Mnuchin noted: “We want to make sure that the taxpayers are protected: It’s not something we’re going to do for the benefit of the bondholders, but it is something we would consider down the road for the benefit of the people if it’s needed,” opening the previously slammed door for access by Puerto Rico to the full amount approved by Congress, more than double the amount the Trump Administration had sought to impose. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the agreement, the terms must still be agreed to by Puerto Rico’s legislature, the PROMESA oversight board, and the federal court overseeing the quasi-chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings. Under the terms of the agreement, Puerto Rico may borrow up to $4.7 billion if its cash balances fall below $1.1 billion. (Puerto Rico’s central bank account had $1.45 billion as of March 9th.) Governor Rosselló described the federal loan as one which will have a “super lien: There will be a lien within the Commonwealth, but it won’t be a lien over the essential services…I think both of our visions are aligned. We both want the taxpayer to be protected, but we also want the U.S. citizen who lives in Puerto Rico to have guaranteed essential services. And both of those objectives were agreed upon,”  noting that the U.S. government frequently forgives these types of loans. For his part, Secretary Mnuchin said the topic of loan forgiveness would be dealt with later “based on the facts and circumstances at the time,” and that, if and when the topic came up, the Treasury would consult with FEMA, the Congressional leadership and the administration, noting: “It’s not something we’re going to do for the benefit of bondholders, but it is something we would consider down the road for the benefit of the people of Puerto Rico.” The discussions come as the Commonwealth continues in the midst of its Title III municipal-like bankruptcy process affecting more than $50 billion of Puerto Rico’s $72 billion of public sector debt—with a multiplicity of actors, including: Puerto Rico’s legislature, the PROMESA Oversight Board, and Title III Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Under the terms, Puerto Rico would be allowed to draw upon the money repeatedly, as needed, according to Gov. Rossello, who noted that the U.S. Virgin Islands has already taken four draws totaling $200 million. The access here would be to fiscal resources available until March 2020.

Municipio Assistencia. In addition to the federal terms worked out for the territory, the new terms also provide that the U.S. Treasury will be making loans available for up to $5 million to every Puerto Rico municipality. FEMA is planning to make more than $30 billion available for rebuilding, while HUD is considering grants of more than $10 billion—leading Sec. Mnuchin to add: “There’s a lot of money to be allocated here, and I think it is going to have an enormous impact on the economy here: I think we are well on the path to a recovery of the economy here.” The Secretary added he would be returning to Puerto Rico on a quarterly basis to meet with the Governor, assess progress, and examine the island’s economy. His announcement came as the federal government is scaling back the number of contractors working on Puerto Rico’s electrical grid—critical work on an island where, still today, an estimated 100,000 island residents still lack power, with, last week, the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing testimony from U.S. officials about bureaucratic challenges to power-restoration efforts, leading to bipartisan questioning about the drawdown of personnel there by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps, which brought in Fluor and PowerSecure as contractors to spearhead reconstruction of damaged transmission and distribution lines, has already reduced the number of contract workers by nearly 75%, according to tweets from the official Army Corps Twitter account, even as nearly 100,000 customers still lack service. Worse, of the restoration challenge remaining, the bulk is projected to fall mostly on Puerto Rico’s bankrupt public power utility, PREPA, especially after, last week, Fluor halted its subcontract efforts. Despite the Corps pledge to “do all possible work with the funds available” before the contractors leave Puerto Rico, access to vital construction materials, such as concrete poles, transformers and conductors were in short supply, and the Army Corps struggled to purchase and transport materials quickly enough, hindered, no doubt, in part by the discriminatory shipping rules (the Jones Act), increasingly forcing linemen to scrounge for replacement parts. The Corps has acknowledged the supply shortages, noting that natural disasters last year in Texas, Florida, and California strained supplies of construction materials across the U.S. Twelve Democratic Senators have written to Army Corps officials to inquire whether keeping its contractors in place would accelerate the timetable for power restoration—PREPA, last week, reported last week that 32% of the 755 towers and poles that were downed by Hurricane Maria still have not been repaired, and that, of 1,238 damaged conductors and insulators, 28% have not. Rep. Jenniffer González-Colón, Puerto Rico’s Republican delegate to Congress, in a letter to Army Corps officials last week, wrote: “The average citizen on the street in those communities cannot tolerate even the perception that at this point we will begin to wind down the urgent relief mission and that the process of finishing the job will slow down.”

The Motown Comeback

March 23, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the un-decaying of Detroit, as the Motor City takes steps to transform its future from its core out. Then we return to the frigid northern steppes of northern Michigan to assess the ongoing physical, fiscal, and governing challenges in Flint.

Pending City Council approval, Detroit will purchase 142 acres of the historic the historic Michigan State Fairgrounds, property which could become the home of a major employer, a regional transit hub, and a new focal point for the post-chapter 9 city’s vibrant fiscal recovery, with the decision coming after Michigan state officials give the city a green light. The Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority Board of Directors approved proposals Wednesday to sell the Detroit property where the Michigan State Fair was once held, as Mayor Mike Duggan, standing in front of the former site of the Michigan State Fair, which closed after more than century in 2009 stated: “Detroiters need jobs. There is no reason we can’t have 1,000 to 2,000 people working here.” Under the proposals, the city will purchase approximately 142 acres of the property for $7 million. Magic Plus plans to buy 16 acres, Detroit officials said the city will lead the redevelopment of the property with input from the community. Josh Burgett, the Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority’s director, said: “The historic State Fairgrounds is an important site for residents, the City of Detroit, and the entire region: All parties involved have worked hard to bring redevelopment to the site, and this public/private agreement is marrying two visions for the State Fairgrounds to create jobs and provide commercial destinations for those new employees and current residents.” If and when the City Council approves the proposed purchase, the City of Detroit will take ownership of the land this summer and Magic Plus will take ownership of its land in May. Joel Ferguson, principal of Magic Plus LLC, said his company will work with the city and area residents to determine the best use of the property. A number of uses have been suggested, such as a movie theater and restaurants, and Mr. Ferguson said he has a list of businesses interested in the site, stating: “(Residents) want a number of different stores that would service that immediate area. We don’t know what that will be. We’re working with the city and community, and they’ll highlight what they want us to do.” For his part, Mayor Duggan said he was confident the Council will approve the purchase, under which the city will pay an initial $3.5 million and another $3.5 million when the development is near completion, adding that he has been approached every day by employers who want to return to the city:  “I don’t see us going out for a (request for proposal) for housing or strip malls or anything like that: I see us talking to the major employers, looking at designing the land around regional transit and a major employment center. That’s what we hope to do.”

The purchase is the culmination of legislation Gov. Snyder signed into law nearly six years ago to allow for the transfer of the site to the Michigan Land Bank to be returned to productive use. Since then, the Land Bank has been working with Detroit and Magic Plus LLC to redevelop the site. St the same time, in what could be a related development, the Ford Motor Co. is reported to be pursuing a deal to purchase the abandoned Michigan  Central Station, a beautiful old building just outside of the historic downtown area–a station which has been abandoned and empty for nearly three decades–predating Detroit’s historic chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. Crain’’s is reporting that the deal between Ford and the current owner, the Moroun family, could be announced as soon as next month–likely paving the way for Ford’s second recent investment in Detroit’s historic Corktown neighborhood, after, three months ago, Ford announced it would put 200 employees in The Factory, a building less than a half a mile from Michigan Central Station. A redeveloped train station could house 1,000 Ford employees. (The automobile company currently houses most of its employees in facilities around the Detroit suburb of Dearborn.) This would mark Ford’s second recent investment in Detroit’s Corktown neighborhood, after, three months ago, the company had announced it would put 200 employees in The Factory, a building less than a half a mile from Michigan Central Station. A redeveloped train station could house 1,000 Ford workers. The deal could profoundly mark a vital step in the Motor City’s remarkable recovery from the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history–especially with the downtown core already experiencing a revival in business and culture–even as, to date, the surrounding neighborhoods have struggled to keep up. Indeed, the news of the redevelopment Corktown has ample room for new housing and businesses and redeveloping Michigan Central Station would throw the neighborhood the attention and money it needs to grow has reignited discussions about the future of Corktown, the consequences of having such a powerful company as an anchor in the community, and, most significantly, what possible bigger shifts are in store for property in the area. A search of available records, using Loveland Technologies mapping service, found that of the 86 properties closest to the old depot, nearly 20% are owned by the City of Detroit. Given the city’s history of working with developers to encourage construction, the surrounding area may undergo a range of infrastructure and aesthetic improvements. In addition to Roosevelt Park, which sits in front of the depot, the city owns four massive plots of land to the west of the train station, 10 small plots on 18th Street and one property on 17th Street. Jed Howbert, of Mayor Duggan’s Jobs and Economy Team, noted: “To state the obvious, we love all corporate investment in the city that creates jobs. So we’d be as enthusiastic about Ford as any other tenant looking at major  investments.” What remains to be fleshed out are how a community benefits agreement would shape any Ford agreement. To date, in the Motor City, only six projects have been subjected to the law — four of them Dan Gilbert initiatives. The end results, according to a new report from WDET, found that “after 12 weeks of community benefits talks with residents across the four projects, Bedrock committed to two community benefits in its agreements with the city. The first: Bedrock would communicate with residents about construction-related activity. And the second: Bedrock would support job training initiatives, something the company has been doing for years.”  Rashida Tlaib, a former Michigan state Representative who also is part of the Equitable Detroit Coalition, hopes that even without public funding, Ford would meet with the community. “I just hope there is an actual sit-down and agreement on whatever future development Ford Motor Co. would like to have there,” said Tlaib, adding that it was difficult to speak about the future as so much of the process has been obscured. “It’s unfortunate a lot of these deals are done behind closed doors and often the role of the city is much more prominent than they’re revealing to all of us,” she said. 

Out like Flint? Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said that eradicating lead from drinking water is one of his top priorities three years after the Flint water crisis; however, he reported he was worried Americans are not “sufficiently aware” of the threat: “I really believe that we ought to set a goal as a country that, over the next 10 years, that we ought to work with respect to investments in our infrastructure to eradicate lead in our drinking water…It can be achieved. Some of the mental-acuity levels of our children are being impacted adversely as a result of this.” Administrator Pruitt is concerned that parents and citizens do not understand the threat of lead in drinking water or toys, noting the Administration is “looking at ways we can contribute to that dialogue: I do think that what happened in Flint is something that could happen elsewhere. We just simply need to take steps to do all that we can to address it prospectively and proactively,” adding that the White House proposal to bolster the nation’s infrastructure over the next decade would include investments in aging water infrastructure; however, that federally unfunded plan includes no provisions for replacing the thousands of lead service lines throughout the country–a cost estimated around $40 billion to $45 billion, even as it stresses the need for state and local governments to invest in such upgrades. Administrator Pruitt noted he would “love” to see local governments investing more in water infrastructure: “These water treatment facilities – they have authority to bond out, to raise fees, to invest in corrosion control, the replacement of service lines and the rest…And some of them just aren’t doing it.” The EPA Administrator was silent on the enormous fiscal disparities which so adversely affect fiscally stressed municipalities like Flint with vastly disproportionate levels of poverty. 

More constructively, Gov. Rick Snyder has proposed having water customers across Michigan pay a $5 annual fee to help upgrade aging infrastructure and replace lead pipes in their local communities. His proposal, however, has gained little traction in the Republican-controlled Legislature, while U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Flint Township) said what Administrator Pruitt has described was not really a plan: “When it comes to Mr. Pruitt, nice words don’t replace pipes. It takes money. What they have proposed is really nothing when it comes to infrastructure,” Rep. Kildee said of the Trump administration proposal. Rep. Kildee added that what would make a meaningful difference would be for EPA to support amending the nation’s Clean Water Act to reduce the acceptable amount of lead in drinking water to 5 parts per billion. (The current federal action limit is 15 parts per billion.) Rep. Kildee noted: “Force federal and state governments to stare this in the face by adopting a level that is science-based that says there is no acceptable level of lead.” EPA has spent a decade trying to update the rule—a rule which Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder called “dumb and dangerous” after the Flint disaster. The state has proposed draft rules to drop the acceptable amount of lead in drinking water to 10 parts per billion by 2024.

Five years ago a Center for American Progress report cited several school districts like Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore—not Detroit—as examples of places where mayoral governance of public schools has had some measure of success improving the achievement gap for students. “Governance constitutes a structural barrier to academic and management improvement in too many large urban districts, where turf battles and political squabbles involving school leaders and an array of stakeholders have for too long taken energy and focus away from the core mission of education,” the report stated. Consequently, the report added, “Mayoral accountability aims to address the governing challenges in urban districts by making a single office responsible for the performance the city’s public schools. Citywide priorities such as reducing the achievement gap receive more focused attention.” But the only problem is this belief about mayoral control of schools has not worked well for Detroit. It has done just the opposite since the 1999 state takeover of the schools under former Gov. John Engler, which allowed for the Mayor of Detroit to make some appointments to the school board. Since the state took over governance of the schools, when it was in a surplus, the district had been on a downward spiral with each year returning ballooning deficits under rotating state-appointed emergency managers. The District lost thousands of students to suburban schools as corruption and graft also became a hallmark of a system that took away resources that were meant to educate the city’s kids.

Such history is what informs the resistance to outside involvement with the new Detroit Public Schools Community District which is now under an elected board with Superintendent Nikolai Vitti. His leadership is being received as a breath of fresh air as he implements needed reforms. That is what is now fueling skepticism and reservation about Mayor Mike Duggan’s bus loop initiative to help stem the tide of some 30,000 Detroit students he says attend schools in the suburbs. During his State of the City address, Mayor Duggan cited transportation as critical to connecting both Detroit district and charter school students and ensuring that students succeed in the city. Many believe the Mayor is right that losing students to suburban districts is impacting the district and the urgent need to reverse or tackle this trend. It is also reasonable to expect the Mayor to be supportive of the school district—there is widespread recognition that the city will not be able to succeed fiscally over the long-term without a functioning school system that will act as an incentive to draw families back into the city.

“The district is ready to support the initiative, but we need to review additional information to justify cost,” Superintendent Vitti said in an email response to questions about the Mayor’s plan. “The information is related to knowing how many school age students live near the schools and are not attending DPSCD? What percentage is already using our provided transportation lines that attend the schools? If they are not attending schools, where are they attending?” Under the proposal, it would cost between $90,000-$150,000 to embark on the project involving six Detroit schools, according to Superintendent Vitti. But he said concern about outside interference with the school system is not misplaced: “The district has not been respected by outsiders for decades and children have suffered. This includes policies that have favored charter schools over traditional public schools,” Superintendent Vitti said. “As a district, we need to listen and reflect on the concerns that have been raised. In the end, if we move forward with the initiative, we need to ensure that it is in the best interest of the district.” Superintendent Vitti also said this was not about mayoral control of the schools: “I have no evidence or belief that the Mayor is interested in running schools…I honestly believe the Mayor’s intent is to recruit students back to the city.”

Chris White, a community activist who has watched the district evolve over the years, remains skeptical about anything involving the school district and the Mayor, noting: “I strongly feel the Mayor’s priority should be crime reduction: His responsibility is managing the city, and when you examine the state of Detroit, he definitely has not been responsible.” Mr. White said the district can get back those students they are losing to outside schools by “keeping them safe and making sure the district is a partner to the community. People need stability when it comes to their child’s education.” Superintendent Vitti asserts he is doing just that. And he said the new bus initiative would not take away resources from the district: “As you know, competition with charter schools is not going away and we need to compete. I believe that through a bus loop we can recruit students who live in the area and are attending schools outside of the district and even charter schools…We would only support a one-year pilot before extending to future years. This would be a lot easier if fully funded outside of district resources.”

Fair Investment in the Motor City’s Future? Pending City Council approval, Detroit will purchase 142 acres of the historic Michigan State Fairgrounds—property which could become the home of a major employer, a regional transit hub, and provide amenities to area residents after state officials gave the City of Detroit and Earvin “Magic” Johnson’s development company the go ahead to buy the property. The Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority Board of Directors Wednesday approved proposals for the sale of the Detroit property where the Michigan State Fair was once held to the city and Magic Plus LLC. Mayor Mike Duggan noted: “A property of this size should be a major employment center for Detroiters,” speaking in front of the coliseum, which shuttered its doors when the Michigan State Fair ended its 104-year run on the site in 2009. Mayor Duggan said: “Detroiters need jobs. There is no reason we can’t have 1,000 to 2,000 people working here.”

Under the proposals, the City will buy about 142 acres of the property for $7 million. Magic Plus plans to purchase 16 acres: officials said the City will lead the redevelopment of the property with input from the community. Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Authority Director Josh Burgett noted: “The historic State Fairgrounds is an important site for residents, the City of Detroit, and the entire region: All parties involved have worked hard to bring redevelopment to the site, and this public/private agreement is marrying two visions for the State Fairgrounds to create jobs and provide commercial destinations for those new employees and current residents.”

The proposed purchase requires approval by the Detroit City Council—which, provided it is given, would pave the way for the city to take ownership of the land this summer, while Magic Plus will take ownership of its land in May. Joel Ferguson, principal of Magic Plus LLC, said his company will work with the city and area residents to determine the best use of the property, with possibilities including a movie theater and restaurants. Mr. Ferguson reports he has a list of businesses interested in the site, noting: “There’s not going to be any housing from us for sure…(Residents) want a number of different stores that would service that immediate area. We don’t know what that will be. We’re working with the city and community, and they’ll highlight what they want us to do.”

Mayor Duggan reported he was confident the City Council will approve the purchase, under which the city will pay an initial $3.5 million, and another $3.5 million when the development is near completion, adding that he has been approached every day by employers who want to return to the city. He added: “I don’t see us going out for a (request for proposal) for housing or strip malls or anything like that: I see us talking to the major employers, looking at designing the land around regional transit and a major employment center. That’s what we hope to do.”

The development could not only revitalize a key downtown area where I had been informed it was too dangerous to even walk alone outside on the day Detroit filed for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, but also, as Councilman Roy McAlister noted, become a metropolitan center due to the site’s proximity to Oakland and Macomb counties, so that, as the Councilmember put it: “We’re also bringing our region together to make sure that we’re prosperous.” The site was the locus for the Michigan State Fair from 1905 until 2009; then, six years ago, Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation to permit the transfer of the site to the Michigan Land Bank to be returned to productive use. Since then, the Land Bank has been working with Detroit and Magic Plus LLC to redevelop the site.

Getting Back on Track. In a related development in the Motor City, there are reports that the Ford Motor Co. is pursuing a deal to purchase the abandoned Michigan Central Station, a massive, vacant structure located just outside downtown Detroit, which has been empty for about 30 years—an all too ominous emblem of the past decaying Motor City, with Crain’s reporting that the potential between Ford and the current owner, the Moroun family, could be announced as early as next month. If completed, this would mark Ford’s second recent investment in Detroit’s Corktown neighborhood: three months ago, Ford announced it would put 200 employees in The Factory, a building less than a half a mile from Michigan Central Station. A redeveloped train station could house 1,000 Ford workers; currently, Ford houses most of its employees in facilities around the Detroit suburb of Dearborn. Corktown is a neighborhood just outside the downtown core of Detroit–Amtrak last used the station 30 years ago; today it is owned by the Moroun family, which spent more than $8 million on the building, installing more than 1,100 windows and adding a freight elevator. This new development could result in still another remarkable change for downtown Detroit, where the downtown core is already experiencing a revival in business and culture, but where the surrounding neighborhoods have, to date, largely been left out. But, Corktown, with its ample room for new housing and businesses, combined with the redeveloping Michigan Central Station, could well result in pulling the neighborhood to a much brighter future. Such a proposed agreement between Ford and the current owner, the Moroun family, could be announced as soon as next month. It would mark Ford’s second recent investment in Detroit’s Corktown neighborhood, after, three months ago, Ford announced it would put 200 employees in The Factory, a building less than a half a mile from Michigan Central Station. A redeveloped train station could house 1,000 Ford workers. (Ford currently houses most of its employees in facilities around the Detroit suburb of Dearborn.) The possibility of the purchase of the long-vacant Michigan Central Station has reignited discussions about the future of Corktown, the consequences of having such a powerful company as an anchor in the community, and, most significantly, what possible bigger shifts are in store for property in the area. Currently, according to a search of available records, using Loveland Technologies mapping service, found that of the 86 properties closest to the depot, nearly 20%, or about 46 acres, are owned by the City of Detroit. Now, given the city’s history of working with developers to encourage construction, the surrounding area may undergo a range of infrastructure and aesthetic improvements. In addition to Roosevelt Park, which sits in front of the depot, the city owns four massive plots of land to the west of the train station, 10 small plots on 18th Street and one property on 17th Street. The Moroun family, which currently owns the train station, also owns two massive properties east and west of the old depot, and four smaller plots on 17th Street, next to the one owned by the city. Thus, unsurprisingly, Jed Howbert, a member of Mayor Mike Duggan’s Jobs and Economy Team told the Detroit Free Press: “To state the obvious, we love all corporate investment in the city that creates jobs. So we’d be as enthusiastic about Ford as any other tenant looking at major  investments.”

Out like Flint? Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt this week said that eradicating lead from drinking water is one of his top priorities, three years after the Flint water crisis, adding that he is worried Americans are not “sufficiently aware” of the threat, and adding: “I really believe that we ought to set a goal as a country that, over the next 10 years, that we ought to work with respect to investments in our infrastructure to eradicate lead in our drinking water: It can be achieved. Some of the mental-acuity levels of our children are being impacted adversely as a result of this.” Administrator Pruitt is concerned that parents and citizens do not understand the threat of lead in drinking water or toys, noting the Administration is “looking at ways we can contribute to that dialogue: I do think that what happened in Flint is something that could happen elsewhere. We just simply need to take steps to do all that we can to address it prospectively and proactively,” adding that the White House proposal to bolster the nation’s infrastructure over the next decade would include investments in aging water infrastructure; however, that federally unfunded plan includes no provisions for replacing the thousands of lead service lines throughout the country – a cost estimated around $40 billion to $45 billion, even as it stresses the need for state and local governments to invest in such upgrades. Administrator Pruitt noted he would “love” to see local governments investing more in water infrastructure: “These water treatment facilities – they have authority to bond out, to raise fees, to invest in corrosion control, the replacement of service lines and the rest…And some of them just aren’t doing it.”

Meanwhile, Gov. Rick Snyder has proposed having water customers across Michigan pay a $5 annual fee to help upgrade aging public infrastructure and replace lead pipes in their local communities; however, his plan has, so far, failed to gain much momentum in the Republican-controlled Legislature. U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Flint Township) noted that what Administrator Pruitt had described was not really a plan. “When it comes to Mr. Pruitt, nice words don’t replace pipes. It takes money. What they have proposed is really nothing when it comes to infrastructure.” Rather, Rep Kildee said would help would be Administration support for his proposed bill to reduce the acceptable amount of lead in drinking water to 5 parts per billion. (The current federal action limit is 15 parts per billion.) The Congressman noted: “Force federal and state governments to stare this in the face by adopting a level that is science-based, that says there is no acceptable level of lead.” EPA has spent a decade trying to update the rule—a rule which Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has called “dumb and dangerous” in the wake of the Flint disaster. The state has proposed draft rules to drop the acceptable amount of lead in drinking water to 10 parts per billion by 2024.

Fiscal Surgery to Restore Stability & Accountability

March 20, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider options for addressing serious fiscal challenges in Connecticut, before journeying to the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, where we try to assess whether there might be too many fiscal cooks in the kitchen.

The State of the Constitution State. In the wake of the unveiling of a series of diverse and likely fiscally painful recommendations, the Connecticut Commission on Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth has challenged the state’s legislature to adopt the proposal. Moreover, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, notwithstanding that full adoption could jeopardize state aid to local governments in the state, endorsed the full report, finding it would offer more long-term benefits for the state and its municipalities. The Commission report recommendations focused on new long-term benefits for the state and its communities, with its recommendations focused on new revenue-raising options for cities and towns and collective bargaining changes which could prove to be vital reforms which could more than offset the steep reduction in the state budget. The Conference’s Executive Director Joe DeLong noted: “Connecticut has long been the land of steady habits, but the precarious fiscal condition that still plagues the state budget demands that Connecticut change key core public policies—now,” adding the Commission report echoes many of the recommendations the Conference proposed to state legislators just one year ago: “We can wait no longer for substantive change that will set the state on a sustainable economic path that will benefit hard-pressed residents and businesses.”

The 14-member Commission, which was created last October as part of the new state budget, was charged with the task of helping to navigate Connecticut through one of its worst fiscal crises in modern history: the state not only lagged the majority of states in recovering from the great Recession, but also is confronted by surging public retirement benefit costs tied to more than 70 years of inadequate contributions—creating a fiscal challenge projected to place unprecedented pressure on state finances for at least the next 15 years.

Unsurprisingly, the growing costs of financing retirement pensions of post-retirement health care benefits has acted like a python in squeezing aid to the state’s cities and towns. Thus, the Conference found some solace from the commission recommendations, which might grant greater fiscal flexibility to the state’s communities to manage their own budgets and programs. Among the key recommendations: 

  • Authorizing municipal coalitions to add one-half of 1 percentage point to the sales tax rate to fund regional services and diversify local budgets that rely excessively on property taxes.
  • Allowing regional coalitions of municipalities to raise supplemental taxes for capital projects by special referendum.
  • Allowing communities, through regional councils of government, to charge fees on nonprofit colleges and hospitals, which currently are exempt from local property taxation.
  • Permitting towns to increase fees for use of the public rights of way, storm water fees, hotels, car rentals, restaurants, and other services.
  • Urging the state to increase the grants it already provides to restore some of the funds communities lose because state property is exempt from local taxation.

The fiscal stability panel also proposed several changes to collective bargaining, which could help the state’s local governments, including:

  • Allowing communities to use non-union labor on rehabilitation projects costing less than $1 million;
  • Providing communities with a single, neutral arbitrator for labor negotiations;
  • And exempting a city or town’s emergency budget reserve from being used to pay for labor contract settlements.

The Commission’s recommendation that the Legislature reduce the state annual operating budget approximately 5%, or about $1 billion per year left unclear what areas would be targeted, albeit the co-Chairs said that recommendation is not intended to target the nearly $3 billion Connecticut spends annually on major statutory grants to cities and towns; rather, their intent appears to be that the Legislature could achieve these savings via privatizing more services, seeking other efficiencies, and trimming labor costs wherever possible. The Connecticut Business and Industry Association and other business leaders have been urging lawmakers to revisit six reports prepared in 2010 and 2011 by a business coalition known as The CT Institute for the 21st Century. The coalition outlined strategies to cut state spending by hundreds of millions of dollars in total spread across several areas, including reductions in public-sector benefits. These strategies, many of which would take several years, also involved prisons, long-term health care, public-sector benefits, and use of technology to deliver public services. Nevertheless, a number of state legislators questioned the reality of a $1 billion reduction, given that nearly two-thirds of the state budget involves retirement obligations, payments on bonded debt, Medicaid, and other largely fixed costs, without constraining aid to cities and towns.

A Consulting Estado de Emergencia? (State of Emergency) Puerto Rico’s Executive and Legislative branches, during the Hurricane Maria state of emergency, agreed to 1,408 consulting and professional contracts totaling $ 70.1 million, according to an analysis of El Nuevo Día. That effectively translates into approximately 16 contractual agreements for each of the 88 days in which 3.5 million Puerto Ricans were almost in survival mode in the wake of last September’s hurricane—all contracts which were subject to the scrutiny of the Chamber and the Senate of Puerto Rico, as well as the PROMESA Oversight Board with regard to any contract which exceeded $10 million. It appears that nearly half of the consulting and professional services agreements agreed upon during the emergency period registered with the Office of the Comptroller were given mainly to individuals and several dozen firms which provide services to the government under an “administrative consulting” agreement and services: agreements totaling $24 million, with the largest contracts provided via three amendments to agreements of the Department of Health and the Special Program of Supplementary Nutrition for Pregnant, Lactating, Postpartum, Infants and Children from 1 to 5 years old (WIC) with the company to ManPower for temporary employment services. In addition, there is a $ 3.1 million contract from the Office of Management and Budget (OGP) with Deloitte & Touche for financial consulting—which has subsequently signed another contract with the office which will be in charge of administering the federal funds Puerto Rico receives for recovery from Hurricane Maria. Meanwhile, the firm KPMG received an amendment to a contract with the Public-Private Partnerships Authority (AAPP) of $ 947,189. Based on data from the Comptroller, during the emergency, when it was known that the agencies and schools were not operating properly and the courts recessed their work substantially, the agencies also granted 123 contracts for “legal consulting” and “legal services” for $ 4.6 million—with another 31 contracts valued at $2.6 million to accounting firms.  The list of administrative consultants also includes several contracts with amounts close to $1 million, with some of the largest granted by the Bureau for Emergency Management and Disaster Management to the firms Consul-Tech Caribe and DCMC LLC for $ 900,000 each.

Exiting from Municipal Bankruptcy

eBlog

March 16, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the Motor City’s final steps in its successful exit from chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy; then we worry about lead level threats in Flint, before journeying to the warmer climes of the Caribbean to update the fiscal challenges for Puerto Rico.

Early Departure from Chapter 9. The City of Detroit this week dipped into its budget surplus to devote some $54.4 million to finance paying off the outstanding municipal bonds it had issued as part of its plan of debt adjustment four years ago, with the borrowing then issued by the city to settle debts with municipal bond insurers related to the Motor City’s pension-related debt—here the payments were to finance the remaining principal and interest owed on $88 million in 12-year Financial Recovery, with the city formally moving to pay off $54 million of its 2014 financial recovery bonds. The unexpected payments might make the leprechaun jump to celebrate still another demonstration of improved fiscal health. Here, the payment had the support of the Detroit Financial Review Commission, as well as the Detroit City Council, clearing the way for the city Wednesday to issue a 30-day redemption notice and report it had fully funded an escrow to retire $52.3 million of remaining principal and $2.1 million of accrued interest to fully redeem the 2014C bonds effective April 13th—an action projected to save Detroit’s taxpayers some $11.7 million in interest savings. CFO John Hill noted: “The Mayor and City Council have again shown their commitment to the city’s long-term financial sustainability by taking action to authorize the resolution for the redemption of the entire outstanding principal on the city’s Financial Recovery Bonds, Series 2014C.”  In this case, the C series of unrated, taxable municipal bonds totaled $88.4 million; they carried an interest rate of 5% interest, with the bonds secured by Detroit’s limited tax general obligation pledge and payable from city parking revenues. According to Detroit Deputy Chief Financial Officer John Naglick, approximately $54 million remains outstanding after early maturities amortized and the $15 million sale of a parking garage triggered a mandatory redemption. The C series was part of $1.28 billion of borrowing Detroit closed on in December of  2014 to fund creditor settlements, as well as raise revenues for revitalization efforts, thereby paving the way for its exit from the largest chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy in American history—and mayhap bring the luck of the Irish that the city could exit from direct state oversight within the next few months—especially in the wake of Mayor Mike Duggan recently proposed $2 billion balanced budget—the approval of which could facilitate Detroit’s exit from active state oversight, or. As Mr. Naglick put it: “I expect in April or May we’re going to see the Financial Review Commission vote to end oversight and return self-determination to the city of Detroit.”

The Motor City’s $1 billion general fund, according to the Mayor, continues to be healthy, because the city’s most important source of revenues, its income tax, is producing more revenues. Indeed, the city’s budget maintains more than a 5% reserve, which is projected at $62.3 million. At the same time, the city is continuing to set aside fiscal resources to address higher-than-expected pension payments starting in 2024 when annual payments of at least $143 million begin. Payments of $20 million run through 2019 with no payments then due through 2023 under U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes’ approved plan of debt adjustment. Detroit’s bond ratings, albeit still deep in junk territory, were upgraded last year, with, just before Christmas, S&P Global Ratings slipping down the chimney to upgrade Detroit’s credit rating to B-plus.

Not in Like Flint. Recent tests of the Michigan City of Flint’s drinking water at elementary schools have found an increase in samples with lead levels above the federal action limit. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality determined that 28 samples tested last month were above 15 parts per billion of lead. DEQ spokesman George Krisztian reported the increase may be due to changes in testing conditions, such as the decision to collect samples prior to flushing lines. (Samples collected before flushing tend to have higher lead levels because the water has been in contact with the pipes longer.) Thus, according to Mr. Krisztian, the overall results are encouraging, because they meet federal guidelines for lead if treated like samples collected by municipal water systems. Most of the more than 90 Legionnaires’ disease cases during the deadly 2014-15 outbreak in the Flint area were caused by changes in the city’s water supply — and the epidemic may have been more widespread than previously believed, according to two studies published Monday. The risk of acquiring Legionnaires’ disease increased more than six-fold across the Flint water distribution system after the city switched from the Detroit area water system’s Lake Huron source to the Flint River in April 2014, according to a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Despite the improvement in lead levels over the last 18 months, federal, state, and local officials have advised city residents to continue using bottled water—as the city continues its costly efforts to extract at least 6.000 lead lines from houses this year and next—with Mayor Karen Weaver reporting that state-funded bottled water should be available to residents until the work is completed; the effort to test the drinking water in the city’s schools has yet to be completed. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality this week defended its outreach efforts in the city, after the Flint Journal reported on a new report which found that 51% of bottled water users surveyed here said they either had no faucet filter or are not confident they know how to maintain the equipment they do have. Mayor Weaver urges the State of Michigan to continue to finance the distribution of bottled water until the last of the leaded lines are removed.

Even as fears remain about the health of the city’s schoolchildren, the State of Michigan has selected a former emergency manager for two Michigan school districts to serve as interim Superintendent of Flint’s public schools after the school board removed the superintendent and two other senior officials. Thus, Wednesday, Gregory Weatherspoon was unanimously approved for the post by the Flint Board of Education, one day after the Board that Bilal Tawwab, Assistant Superintendent Shawn Merriweather, and the school district’s attorney had been placed on leave. It appears the school district’s roughly 4,500 students, an enrollment that has been falling steadily since 1968, when there were 1000% more students, are still at risk. The lower numbers and ongoing safe drinking water fears augur badly for assessed property values in a city where the population suffered a serious decline from 1970 to 1980, losing nearly 40,000 residents—a loss from which Flint never recovered—and a population which has declined continuously—so much so that an August 2015 WalletHub study revealed that Flint placed dead last, as one of the least healthy real estate markets out of 300 U.S. cities.

Arriba? In Puerto Rico, where about 60% of the U.S. territory’s children live below the federal poverty level, it appears there might be some rising optimism—even amidst growing frustration at the exorbitant costs of the Congressionally-imposed PROMESA process. The optimism comes in the wake of disclosures that Puerto Rico’s earlier estimates of the fiscal and financial impact of Hurricane Maria appear to have been overly pessimistic. The rising optimism appears to be reflected by the rally in Puerto Rico’s municipal bond prices. At the same time, Christian Sobrino, Governor Ricardo Rosselló’s representative before the PROMESA Oversight Board, Wednesday said that the Board’s letter regarding lawyers and advisers high fees in PROMESA Title III cases did “not reflect the truth,” adding he found it “laughable that there are unnecessary expenses on behalf of the government of Puerto Rico:  To start with, the structure of Cofina (the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation) and central government agents was not an invention of Puerto Rico in Title III,” Mr. Sobrino said, referring to the mechanism suggested by the Board to determine whether the Sales and Use tax collection belongs to the corporation which issued the debt or to the central government. He noted that the attorneys and counselors assisting these agents billed, all together, $17 million of the total $ 77.7 million in fees claimed during the first five months of the federal PROMESA law: “These letters reflect imprudence and a ridiculous use of these expressions and do not reflect the truth of what we have done in the government to avoid this. It is out-of-place.”

That led the PROMSEA Board to write to the Congressional leadership to indicate that high expenses for lawyers and advisers fees, participating in that process, are due to the PROMESA—or, as PROMESA Board President José B. Carrión noted: “Historically, the people of Puerto Rico have suffered a problem of wasteful spending, admitting that there has been duplication of efforts in Title III cases.” Representative Sobrino stressed that the government has tried not to duplicate efforts with the Board, but that drawing the fiscal plan and budget, as well as its implementation, are the government’s responsibility, adding that the government agreed that Citibank would act as the leading banker in the Electric Power Authority (PREPA) case, as suggested by the Board, and that only a firm hired by the Board would conduct the audit of the bank accounts. However, Rep. Sobrino stressed that there have been times when the government had to use its lawyers to ensure success in Court, as was recently the case with a claim by the Highway and Transportation Authority bondholders: “We have been forced to hire our lawyers to preserve self-government,” adding that the government intervention prevented that, after Hurricane Maria, Noel Zamot from being appointed as a PREPA de-facto trustee.

States Roles in the Wake of Fiscal and Physical Storms

March 13, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the federalism challenges within Puerto Rico, where aid to local governments or muncipios for hurricane recovery appears nearly as derelict as federal aid to the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rico, before trying to untangle the perplexing fiscal challenges of public education in Detroit.

Unpromising? Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló yesterday noted that from the “beginning, we (the government of Puerto Rico) have established that this is a time where you have to see the effectiveness of each penny invested. And we are all subject to that crucible,” with his comments coming in reaction a request from 11 conservative organizations demanding, in a letter to Congress, the dismissal of Natalie Jaresko, the Director of the PROMESA Oversight Board. No doubt, part of the concern relates to the exceptional disparity in pay: His claim is based on Ms. Jaresko’s salary of $625,000 per year compared to the median income in Puerto Rico of $19,429, or approximately 60% less than on the mainland. The organizations have also requested that “the basic precepts established in PROMESA‒‒precision, transparency, and the creation of a credible plan for the return of the people of Puerto Rico to the capital markets,” urging Congress to schedule a hearing to determine whether the Board is in compliance with the intent of the PROMESA provisions. The epistle was signed by the 60 Plus Retirement Association, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the Frontiers of Freedom, the Market Institute, the Americans for Limited Government, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, the Independent Women’s Voice, the Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, and the Independent Women’s Forum. There is apprehension that the letter could jeopardize efforts by the New Progressive Party and the Popular Democratic Party to provide an immediate financial injection to Puerto Rico’s municipios to assist in the ongoing fiscal and physical recovery from Hurricane Maria. Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, who, last year, was elected to a second term as President of the Senate, thereby becoming the only reelected Senate President during the past 28 years, and the only Senate President ever elected as such to non-consecutive terms, said he would amend the Governor’s proposed legislation to grant immediate and direct financial assistance to the 78 municipal governments, as he was presiding over a public hearing of the Commission on Federal, Political and Economic Relations. The Senate President has identified a $100 million fund to be distributed among all municipios, albeit imposing a cap of $5 million to any recipient, and conditioning the aid, granted as a loan, to be administered by the Financial Advisory Authority and Fiscal Agency of Puerto Rico (Aafaf), the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of the Treasury to authorize it.

Sen. Schatz asked his colleagues: “Who can deny that all the municipalities had losses? The hurricane devastated the island. Everyone knows that (the damage) exceeds a million dollars. If the governor of Puerto Rico has identified $ 100 million, then we have them. If we have them, I do not think it is appropriate to establish a loan and application mechanism that is a tortuous, long, and uncertain route.” In a public hearing, Rolando Ortiz and Carlos Molina, presidents of the Association and the Federation of Mayors, respectively, insisted that the municipalities should receive an allocation of funds, rather than a loan, arguing the island’s municipios lack the funds to repay the money, with Mayors Lornna Soto of Canovanas, Edwin Garcia of Camuy, and Javier Carrasquillo of Cidra, who reviewed the number of occasions in which they have had to withdraw funds from the municipal coffers to make expenses related to the process of emergency and recovery, even as distributions to the municipios from Puerto Rico’s sales and use tax were reduced.

The La Fortaleza project establishes that the Fiscal Oversight Board will have to approve the disbursement of funds—with the revised proposal coming in the wake of an earlier proposal vetoed by the PROMESA Board, because it was not tied to income and liquidity criteria of the municipios. However, Sen. Schatz argued that in the wake of Hurricane Maria, the Board had authorized the government to redirect $1 billion of the current budget for response and emergency tasks. That is, what is emerging is a consistent issue with regard to governance authority—a difference, moreover, not just between the PROMESA Board and the U.S. territory, but also between the Governor, Puerto Rico House, and Senate—differences potentially jeopardizing the proposed legislation to inject as much as $100 million into the municipal coffers damaged by the Hurricanes Irma and María: Sen. Schatz does not favor the granting of loans to municipalities for up to $5 million to mitigate the effects of hurricanes on their collections, or reductions by patents, taxes or remittances from the Municipal Revenues Collection Center; rather he favors helping municipalities with uniform allocations of $1 million, with his proposal providing that the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, the Fiscal Oversight Board, and the Financial Advisory Authority and Fiscal Agency of Puerto Rico must authorize the loans.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Puerto Rico House Finance Committee Chair Antonio Soto disagrees: he argues that rather than a formula allocation, each municipio should be required to justify the amount it is requesting, noting: “That justification can be part of the project. It is not to give them $100 million, but to say: ‘I have this situation, the collections have fallen, I continued to provide these services,’” even as he acknowledged that PROMESA Board would have to authorize a project such as the one promoted by Sen. Rivera Schatz. 

Presión. The intergovernmental debate is under pressure as the U.S. territory’s cash position has been determined to be 24% below the pre-Hurricane Maria projection, according to cash flow data from EMMA as of the end of last month, showing increased financial pressure after earlier reports had shown limited deterioration. According to a cash flow summary, Puerto Rico’s primary central government account, the Treasury Single Account, contained $1.56 billion as of three weeks ago; whereas, prior to Hurricane Maria’s devastation, the government had projected that on that date there would be $2.061 billion. Puerto Rico Treasury Secretary Raúl Maldonado Gautier reported that January General Fund revenues were 12.2% below pre-Maria projections, no doubt further complicating the PROMESA Board’s efforts to certify a five-year fiscal plan for Puerto Rico: In the draft submitted last month by the Rosselló administration, the government anticipated sufficient cash flow to finance close to 20% of its debt service; however, according to the Puerto Rico Treasury, General Fund net revenues were down 5.2% in the first seven months of the fiscal year compared with projections, with the largest shortfalls compared to expectations coming from foreign corporation profit taxes ($135.4 million) and sales and use taxes ($80 million): in January, net revenues were 12.2% below projection. According to Treasury Secretary Raúl Maldonado Gautier, income taxes were above expectations, because Hurricane Maria had caused employers to postpone payments for the first few months of the fiscal year.

Let There Be Light! Puerto Rico’s Electric Power Authority (AEE) now projects electricity service will be restored to at least 95% by the end of May, with PREPA interim Director Justo González announcing, moreover, that the public utility will locate solar panels in certain high mountain parts of the island, which, he noted, was “part of what FEMA has in its hands and agrees to do so.”

Schooled on Recovery? On June 8, 2016, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof (R-West Olive), in urging his colleagues to vote for a significant bailout of Detroit’s public schools, said the plan would be sufficient to pay off the District’s debt, would provide transition costs for when the district splits into two districts and returns the district to a locally elected school board in January, stating: “This represents a realistic compromise for a path to the future: At the end of the day, our responsibility is to solve the problem…Without legislative action, the Detroit Public Schools would head toward [municipal] bankruptcy, which would cost billions of dollars and cost every student in every district in Michigan.” Yesterday, Jonathan Oosting, writing for the Detroit News, wrote that U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said Sunday she “does not know if traditional public schools in Michigan have improved since she and others began pushing to open the state up to choice and charter schools. Recent analyses show Michigan students have continually made the least improvement nationally on standardized test scores since 2003, and it is one of only five states where early reading scores have declined over that span.” His article came in the wake of the Secretary’s interview with “60 Minutes,” where she had been pressed on her assertion that traditional public schools in places like Florida improved when students were given more choice to attend different schools, with CBS’s Lesley Stahl asking: “Now, has that happened in Michigan? “We’re in Michigan. This is your home state: “have the public schools in Michigan gotten better?” In response, the Secretary said: “I don’t know. Overall, I, I can’t say overall that they have all gotten better.” Ms. Stahl followed up, telling Secretary DeVos the “whole state is not doing well,” and that “the public schools here are doing worse than they did.” In response, Secretary DeVos said: “Michigan schools need to do better. There is no doubt about it.” Ms. Stahl then asked the Secretary if she has seen the “really bad schools” and attempted to try to figure out what has been happening in them—to which Secretary DeVos responded said she has “not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming.”

The interview resurrected a long-running debate in Michigan, which opened the door to publicly funded charter schools in 1994 and is now a leading state for charter academies; indeed, Detroit today ranks third in the nation for the percentage of students who attend charter schools, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (Flint ranks second.) Today, according to a recent Education-Trust Midwest analysis of National Assessment of Education Progress standardized test scores, Michigan students ranked 41st in the country for fourth-grade reading performance in 2015, down from 38th in 2013, and 28th in 2003; in an analysis by University of Michigan Professor Brian A. Jacob, he found that Michigan students were at the bottom of the list when it comes to proficiency growth in the four measures of the exam; according to the NAEP results, in 2015, the average math score of eighth-grade students in Michigan was 278 out of 500, compared with the national average score, 281: the average Michigan score has not significantly changed from 280 in 2013 and 277 in 2000. Professor Jacob’s analysis found that 29% of Michigan students performed at or about the “proficient level” on the NAEP exam in 2015—results not significantly different from the 30% found in 2013, or the 28% recorded in 2000. Secretary DeVos, who had taken the lead in launching the Great Lakes Education Project to lobby for school choice in Michigan, and who has consistently said the government should invest in students, not buildings or institutions, in response to Ms. Stahl’s follow up query: “But what about the kids who are back at the school that’s not working? What about those kids?;” said: “[S]tudies show that when there is a large number of students that opt to go to a different school or different schools, the traditional public schools actually, the results get better, as well.”

Last week, the Detroit Public Schools Community District announced the launch of the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Project for minority males in grades 6 through 12: a project designed to develop a leadership pipeline for young men utilizing school-based and community mentors and role models through various methods of support, including themed weekly meetings, a monthly speaker series, community service projects, and college access support. The Detroit Board of Education members voted 7-0 to launch the 5000 Role Models Project in an effort to “create and develop a pipeline of leadership from within the walls of the District’s schools, describing thus as a proven mentoring program that prepares young men for success, generated by role models in our schools who are supported by male mentors in the community.”