About Frank Shafroth

Frank Shafroth is the former Director of Legislative Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations for the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). Mr. Shafroth worked with the executive leadership to manage the MSRB's strategic relationships with state, local and the federal government and monitor legislative and congressional activities that affect the municipal bond industry and the authority of the MSRB. He currently serves as the the Director for the Center of State and Local Leadership and Assistant Professor at George Mason University. Mr. Shafroth has more than 30 years of experience on Capitol Hill and representing state and municipal issues before Congress. Previously, he was chief of staff to Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), advising the Congressman on economic, tax, housing and community development legislative issues. He was also director of government relations for Arlington County, Virginia, and has served as director of state and federal relations at the National Association of Governors and the National League of Cities. Mr. Shafroth was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Liberia and Colombia and, early in his career, served as a congressional aide and staffer on various House and Senate offices and committees.

Disparate Fiscal Solvency Challenges

06/23/17

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the serious municipal fiscal challenges in Ohio, where the decline in coal-fired power has led Adams County auditor David Gifford to warn that if its existing power plants close, the county could be forced to raise its property tax rates at least 500% in order to make its requisite school district bond interest payments. Then we turn to the steep fiscal trials and tribulations of implementing San Bernardino’s post-chapter 9 exit, before finally considering the governing challenges affecting the City of Flint’s physical and fiscal future, and then to the criminal charges related to Flint’s fiscal and moral insolvency. Finally, we turn to the potential for a new fiscal chapter for the nearly insolvent Virginia municipality of Petersburg.

Fiscal Municipal Distress in Coal Country. While President Trump has stressed his commitment to try to protect the U.S. coal industry, less attention has been focused on the municipal fiscal challenges for local elected leaders. For instance, in Adams County, Ohio, where the median income for a household is about $33,000, and where approximately 20% of families fall below the federal poverty line, the county, with a population near 22,000, has been in fiscal emergency for more than two years—making it one of 23 such jurisdictions in the state.  But now its auditor, David Gifford, warns that if its coal-fired power plants close, the county could be forced to raise the property tax by at least 500% in order to make the bond payments on its public school districts debt. (In Ohio, when so designated, the average time a municipality spends in fiscal emergency averages about five years.) Since 1980, when the state auditor was empowered to place municipalities in fiscal emergency, Ohio has declared and released 54 communities—with time spent in fiscal emergency averaging five years, albeit the Village of Manchester in Adams County (approximately 2,000 residents) holds the record for time spent in fiscal emergency — nearly 20 years and still counting. Over the past five years, some 350 coal-fired generating units have closed across the country, according to the Energy Information Administration: closures, which have cost not just jobs, but key tax revenues vital to municipal solvency. It is uncertain whether any actions by the White House could make coal viable as a source of energy generation; it is clear that neither the Trump Administration, nor the State of Ohio appear to have put together fiscal options to address the resulting fiscal challenges. Ohio Municipal League Director Kent Scarrett, in testimony before the Ohio Legislature last February, on behalf of the League’s 733 municipal members, in which close to 90% of Ohio’s citizens live, reminded legislators that “a lack of opportunity to invest in critical infrastructure projects” and “the myriad of challenges that present themselves as a result of the escalating opioid epidemic,” would require “reigniting the relationship between the state and municipalities.” 

Post Municipal Bankruptcy Challenges. San Bernardino Mayor Carey Davis this Wednesday declared the city’s municipal bankruptcy process officially over, noting San Bernardino had come “to the momentous exit from that process,” a five-year process which resulted in the outsourcing of its fire department to San Bernardino County, contracting out waste removal services, and reductions in healthcare benefits for retirees and current employees to lessen the impact on pensions. Mayor Davis noted: “The proceedings guided us through a process of rebuilding and restructuring, and we will continue to rebuild and create systems for successful municipal operations,” as the City Council confronted by what City Manager Mark Scott warned was “without a doubt among the lowest in per capita revenues per capita and in city employees per capita,” yet still confronted by what he described as:  “Among California’s largest cities, San Bernardino is without a doubt among the lowest in government revenues per capita and in city employees per capita…Furthermore, our average household income is low and our poverty rate is high.” Nevertheless, the Council adopted its first post-chapter 9 budget—a budget which is projected to achieve a surplus of $108,000, sufficient to achieve a 15% reserve. To give a perspective on the fiscal challenge, Mr. Scott warned the Mayor and City Council: “Among California’s largest cities, San Bernardino is without a doubt among the lowest in government revenues per capita and in city employees per capita…Furthermore, our average household income is low and our poverty rate is high.” Adding that San Bernardino’s property values and business spending are lower than other cities, contributing to its low revenue, he added: “At the same time, it costs roughly the same to repair a street in Rancho Cucamonga as in San Bernardino: California’s tax system rewards wealth.”

Nevertheless, even though San Bernardino’s plan of debt adjustment calls for minimal revenue growth over the next two decades, he advised that the plan is focused on making the city more attractive. Ergo, he proposed three criteria: 1) urgent safety concerns, including the relocation of City Hall to address unreinforced masonry concerns; 2) restoration of public safety, 30 new police officers, vehicle and safety equipment replacement, radio maintenance, and a violence intervention initiative; 3) greater efficiencies, via information technology upgrades, and economic development and revenue growth—to be met by hiring a transportation planner, associate planner, grant-writing, and consulting. In addition to the operating budget, the manager also focused on the city’s capital budget, proposing significant investment for the next two to three years. Some of these increased costs would be offset by reducing the city’s full-time city employees by about 4%. Nevertheless, the Manager noted: “The community’s momentum is clearly increasing, and we are building internal capacity to address our management challenges…We look forward to the next year and to our collective role in returning this city to a more prosperous condition.”

Under its plan of debt adjustment, San Bernardino began making distributions to creditors this month: Mayor Carey Davis noted: “From the beginning, we understood the time, hard work, sacrifice and commitment it would take for the city to emerge from the bankruptcy process,” in asking the Council to adopt the proposed $160 million operating budget and a $22.6 million capital budget.

Moody Blues. The fiscal challenge of recovering from municipal bankruptcy for the city was highlighted last April when Moody’s Investors Service analysts had warned that the city’s plan of debt adjustment approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Meredith Jury would “lead to a general fund unallocated cash balance of approximately $9.5 million by fiscal 2023, down from a $360 million deficit the city projected in 2013 for the fiscal years 2013-23,” adding, however, that the city still faces hurdles with pensions, public safety, and infrastructure. Noting that San Bernardino’s plan of debt adjustment provided more generous treatment of its pension obligations than its municipal bondholders—some of its unsecured creditors will receive as little as 1% of what they are owed—and the city’s pension obligation bondholders will take the most severe cuts—about 60%–or, as Moody’s moodily noted: “The [court-approved] plan calls for San Bernardino to leave bankruptcy with increased revenues and an improved balance sheet, but the city will retain significant unfunded and rapidly rising pension obligations…Additionally, it will face operational challenges associated with deferred maintenance and potential service shortfalls…which, added to the pension difficulties, increase the probability of continued financial distress and possibly even a return to bankruptcy.”

The glum report added that San Bernardino’s finances put its aging infrastructure at risk, noting the deferral of some $180 million in street repairs and $130 million in deferred facility repairs and improvements, and that the city had failed to inspect 80 percent of its sewer system, adding: “Cities typically rely on financing large capital needs with debt, but this option may no longer exist for San Bernardino…Even if San Bernardino is able to stabilize its finances, the city will still face a material infrastructure challenge.”  Moody’s report added: “Adjusted net pension liability will remain unchanged at $904 million, a figure that dwarfs the projected bankruptcy savings of approximately $350 million.”

Justice for Flint? Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has charged Michigan Health and Human Services Director Nick Lyon with involuntary manslaughter and misconduct in office, making the Director the fifth state official, including a former Flint emergency manager and a member of Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration, to be confronted with involuntary manslaughter charges for their alleged roles in the Flint water contamination crisis and ensuing Legionnaire’s disease outbreak which has, to date, claimed 12 lives, noting: “This is about people’s lives and families and kids, and it’s about demonstrating to people across the state—it doesn’t matter who you are, young, old, rich, poor, black, white, north, south, east, west. There is one system of justice, and the rules apply to everybody, whether you’re a big shot or no shot at all.” To date, 12 people have died in the wake of the switch by a state-appointed Emergency Manager of the city’s drinking water supply to the Flint River—a switch which led to an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease that resulted in those deaths. Flint Mayor Karen Weaver, in response, noted: “We wanted to know who knew what and when they knew it, and we wanted someone to be held accountable. It’s another step toward justice for the people Flint,” adding that: “What happened in Flint was serious: Not only did we have people impacted by lead poisoning, but we had people who died.”

In making his charges, Attorney General Schuette declined to say whether he had subpoenaed Governor Rick Snyder—with the charges coming some 622 days after Gov. Snyder had acknowledged that Flint’s drinking water was tainted with lead—and that the state was liable for the worst water tragedy in Michigan’s history—a tragedy due, in no small part, from the state appointment of an emergency manager to displace the city’s own elected leaders.

The state Attorney General has charged HHS Director Lyon in relation to the individual death of Robert Skidmore, who died Dec. 13, 2015, “as a result of [Mr.] Lyon’s failure to warn the public of the Legionnaires’ outbreak; the court has also received testimony that the Director “participated in obstructing” an independent research team from Wayne State University which was investigating the presence of Legionella bacteria in Flint’s water. In addition, four defendants who have been previously charged, former Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley, former Michigan Department of Environmental Quality drinking water Director Liane Shekter-Smith, DEQ drinking water official Stephen Busch, and former City of Flint Water Department manager Howard Croft, each now face additional charges of involuntary manslaughter in Mr. Skidmore’s death—bringing, to date, 15 current or former Michigan or Flint city officials to have been charged.

Attorney General Scheutte, at a press conference, noted: “Involuntary manslaughter is a very serious crime and a very serious charge and holds significant gravity and weight for all involved.” He was joined by Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, Flint Water Investigation Special Prosecutor Todd Flood, and Chief Investigator Andrew Arena. (In Michigan, involuntary manslaughter is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or a $7,500 fine.) The announcement brings to 51 the number of charges leveled against 15 current and former local and state leaders as a result of the probe during which 180 witnesses have been interviewed—and in the wake of the release this week of an 18-page interim investigation report, which notes: “The Flint Water Crisis caused children to be exposed to lead poisoning, witnessed an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease resulting in multiple deaths, and created a lack of trust and confidence in the effectiveness of government to solve problems.”

A New City Leader to Take on Near Insolvency. Petersburg, Virginia has hired a new City Manager, Aretha Ferrell-Benavides, just days after consultants charged with the fiscal challenge of extricating the city from the brink of municipal bankruptcy advised the Mayor and Council the municipality needed a $20 million cash infusion to make up a deficit and comply with its own reserve policies: increased taxes, they warned, would not do the trick; rather, in the wake of a decade of imbalanced budgets that drained the city’s rainy day funds, triggered pay cuts, disrupted the regional public utility, and forced steep cuts in public school funding, the city needed a new manager. Indeed, on her first day, Ms. Ferrell-Benavides said: “To have the opportunity to come in and make a difference in a community like this, it’s worth its weight in gold.” The gold might be heavy: her predecessor, William E. Johnson III, was fired last year as the city fiscally foundered—leading Mayor Sam Parham to note: “We’re looking forward to a new beginning, better times for the city of Petersburg.”

Manager Ferrell-Benavides won out in a field of four aspirants, with Mayor Parham noting: “She was definitely head and shoulders above the other candidates…She had clear, precise answers and a 90-day plan of action,” albeit that plan has yet to be shared until after she meets with department heads and residents in order to get a better understanding of the city’s needs. Nevertheless, City Councilman Charles Cuthbert noted: “Her energy and her warm personality and her expressions of commitment to help Petersburg solve its problems stood out…My sense is that she truly views these problems as an opportunity.” In what will mark a fiscal clean slate, Manager Ferrell-Benavides will officially begin on July 10th, alongside a new city Finance Director Blake Rane, and Police Chief Kenneth Miller, who is coming to Petersburg from the Virginia Beach Police Department. She brings considerable governmental experience, including more than 25 years of work in government for the State of Maryland, the Chicago Public Housing Authority, the City of Sunnyvale, Calif.; and Los Alamos, New Mexico—in addition to multiple jobs with the District of Columbia.

 

Is There a “Right” Structure to Resolve Fiscal Insolvency?

06/19/17

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the ongoing challenges to restoring fiscal solvency in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, so that chapter 9 does not apply—nor does that process provide a mechanism to address the territory’s municipalities, much less the existing federal discrimination against Puerto Rico vis-à-vis other Caribbean nations The challenge, if anything, has been heightened by the absence of mixed messages from Congress-where the PROMESA Oversight Board has sent a letter to Puerto Rico’s leaders warning of what the Board described as a waning resolve to deal with a dire financial situation.

Trying to Shock? House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop R-Utah) has notified PROMESA’s oversight board that its failure to approve the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s restructuring support agreement is seen as “very problematic” by some federal legislators: “It appears there is no consensus from the oversight board in favor of certifying the PREPA [RSA] under…PROMESA…This is troubling, as the decision to implement the RSA had already been made by Congress with the passage of PROMESA. The oversight board’s dilatory tactics run counter to the plain language of PROMESA.” At the same time, PROMESA Board Chair José Carrión III stated that Puerto Rico needs to create implementation plans to reduce government spending and ensure adequate liquidity—writing last  Friday at a key time as the Puerto Rico legislature worked to try to reach consensus on a balanced FY2018 budget, in compliance with a board-approved 10-year fiscal plan. Chairman Carrión wrote: “I write to you out of a concern that some of the progress we appeared to have made in the past few weeks as a result of the close and positive collaboration between the board and the administration–and their respective teams of advisors–may be receding and that the necessary resolve to attain the goals set forth in the certified fiscal plan may be waning…It is equally of concern that some of the narrative taking hold in the public discourse fails to characterize adequately the truly dire fiscal situation the Commonwealth is facing.”  Chairman Carrión, in his epistle to Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, and House of Representatives Speaker Carlos Méndez Núñez, noted it was an incorrect “narrative” for Puerto Rico’s government to say that if the government generates $200 million in additional cash reserves by June 30th, the PROMESA Board would not mandate a government furlough program and reduction or elimination of the Christmas bonus; rather, to avoid these measures, the Board is mandating a spending-reduction implementation plan in addition to the cash reserve intended to ensure ongoing liquidity—with Chairman Carrión warning that if the plan is inadequate or poorly executed, “Puerto Rico is all but certain to run out of money to fund the central government’s payroll come November or December of this year.” The PROMESA Board also called on Governor Rosselló to explain which public services are essential.

The stern warning—to a government where some of the most essential services are lacking—produced a response from Governor Rosselló’s non-voting representative to the PROMESA Board, Elías Sánchez Sifonte: “This administration has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to face this inherited crisis with the seriousness it deserves,” adding that: “We have also been demonstrating implementation plans to ensure we provide resources to cover essential services as required by PROMESA and in accordance with our Certified Tax Plan,” including progress in the Puerto Rico legislature on the budget proposed by the Governor based upon consultation with the PROMESA Board—a budget the Puerto Rican Senate expects to consider later this week.

The discussions came as U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain, who is overseeing Puerto Rico’s Title III municipal bankruptcy process, taking a page from Detroit’s chapter 9 bankruptcy, named U. S. District Court Judges, including the remarkable Judge Christopher Klein, who presided over Stockton’s municipal bankruptcy trial, to help address critical issues. She also named Judge Barbara Houser of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Texas, designating her to lead the mediation team; Judge Thomas Ambro, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit; U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Atlas of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas; and Judge Victor Marrero of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Swain made clear that participation in any mediation will be voluntary and confidential—and that she will not participate in mediation sessions, and mediators will not disclose information about the parties’ positions or the substance of the mediation process to her—with this process—as was the case in Stockton and Detroit’s chapter 9 cases—ongoing concurrently with trial in her courtroom. Judge Swain added that she plans to make final appointments prior to the June 28th Title III hearing in San Juan, where she will further explain the mediation process.

Who’s in Charge? The PROMESA Oversight Board has warned Puerto Rico’s leaders that the Board is apprehensive of a waning resolve to address the U.S. territory’s dire fiscal situation, with Chairman José Carrión III warning that Puerto Rico needs to create implementation plans for reducing government spending and assuring adequate liquidity at all times. The letter—coming between the emerging quasi-bankruptcy proceedings under Judge Taylor and as the Puerto Rico legislature is attempting to put together a balanced FY2018 budget, in compliance with a board-approved 10-year fiscal plan—came as PROMESA Board Chair José Carrión III urged greater resolve, writing: “I write to you out of a concern that some of the progress we appeared to have made in the past few weeks as a result of the close and positive collaboration between the Board and the administration–and their respective teams of advisors–may be receding and that the necessary resolve to attain the goals set forth in the certified fiscal plan may be waning…It is equally of concern that some of the narrative taking hold in the public discourse fails to characterize adequately the truly dire fiscal situation the Commonwealth is facing.” Chairman Carrión, in his epistle to Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, and House of Representatives Speaker Carlos Méndez Núñez, added that there is an incorrect “narrative” that says that if the Puerto Rican government generates $200 million in additional cash reserves by the end of this month, the PROMESA Board would not mandate a government furlough program, nor a cut or elimination of the Christmas bonus. To avoid such a mandate, he added that the PROMESA Board is mandating a spending-reduction implementation plan in addition to a cash reserve plan intended to assure government liquidity, with the Chairman adding that if the plan is inadequate or poorly executed, “Puerto Rico is all but certain to run out of money to fund the central government’s payroll come November or December of this year.” Noting that: “Now we are at a critical juncture that requires that we collectively strengthen…,” the Board demanded that Gov. Rosselló explain which public services are essential.

Does Accountability Work Both Ways? Unlike chapter 9 bankruptcy cases in Detroit, San Bernardino, Central Falls, Jefferson County, and Stockton—Puerto Rico is unique in that the issue here does not involve municipalities, but rather a quasi-state. There have been no public hearings. PROMESA Chair José B. Carrion has not testified before the legislature. Now Puerto Rico Rep. Luis Raúl Torres has asked the Puerto Rico Finance Committee to invite Chair Carrión to appear to explain to Puerto Rico’s elected leaders the demands the PROMESA Board is seeking to mandate—and to justify the $60 million that the Fiscal Supervision Board is scheduled to receive as part of the resolution of special assignments. That Board, headed by Natalie Jaresko, the former Finance Minister of the Ukraine, is, according to PROMESA Chair Jose Carrión, to be in charge of the implementation of the plan, or, failing that, to achieve the fiscal balance of Puerto Rico and its return to the capital markets. (Ms. Jaresko has agreed to work for a four-year term: she is expected to earn an annual salary of $ 625,000 without additional compensation or bonuses, except for reimbursement of travel and accommodation expenses related to the position he will hold, according to PROMESA Board Chair Carrión, who has previously noted: “I know it’s going to be a controversial issue…We have a world-class problem, and we have a world-class person. This is what the rooms cost.”)

The Fiscal Imbalances & Human & Fiscal Consequences of Fiscal Distress

06/16/17

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the lessons learned from Flint—lessons not unrelated to the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history in Detroit.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Scheutte, stating “People have died because of the decisions people made, has charged five Michigan state employees with involuntary manslaughter over their actions and involvement with Flint’s lead-contaminated water, including Nick Lyon, the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, former Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley, former Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Drinking Water Chief Liane Shekter-Smith, state Water Supervisor Stephen Busch, and former Flint Water Department Manager Howard Croft. The quintet is accused of failing to alert the public about an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease in the Flint area related to its contaminated drinking water—contamination which was suspected in the 12 deaths, Legionnaires’ disease sickening 79 others, and near insolvency of the City of Flint. Mr. Scheutte has not ruled out potential charges against Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, and he announced a new list of charges in a sweeping investigation that has already led to cases against 13 officials

Mayor Karen Weaver, in the wake of the press conference, noted: “It’s terrible what has occurred, but it’s a good day for the people of the city of Flint…We’ve had people die as a result of this water crisis. And for justice to be had is wonderful.”

Attorney General Bill Schuette, at the press conference, stated that the state’s health Director had failed to protect the residents of Flint, resulting in the death of at least one person, 85-year-old Robert Skidmore of Genesee Township. He also charged Michigan’s Chief medical officer, Dr. Eden Wells, with obstruction of justice and lying to a police officer, noting: “People have died because of the decisions people made…There are two types of people in the world: Those who give a damn and those who don’t. This is a case where there has been willful disregard.”

Mr. Scheutte’s charges mark the first time investigators have drawn a direct link between the acts of state government officials in Flint’s water contamination crisis and the deaths of residents which followed. Since 2014, when this city switched water suppliers, partly to save money, the water has been linked to the lead poisoning of children and the deaths of 12 people and 79 other residents of the city sickened by Legionnaires’ disease in 2014-15, which experts have linked to the contaminated water after the city, on the directions of the Governor’s then appointed Emergency Manager, Darnell Earley, switched to Flint River water in April of 2014.

At the press conference, Attorney General Schuette indicated he has not ruled out possible charges against the Governor. His actions came in the wake of his earlier charges of obstruction of justice against Michigan’s chief medical officer, Dr. Eden Wells, charged with obstruction of justice and lying to a police officer, noting: “People have died because of the decisions people made,” so that his actions were critical to the restoration of trust and accountability. “There are two types of people in the world: Those who give a damn and those who don’t. This is a case where there has been willful disregard” for the health and safety of others, Flood said.

The charges against Mr. Earley, the gubernatorially appointed former emergency manager on whose watch the city switched to Flint River water, include false pretenses, conspiracy to commit false pretenses, misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty while in office—charges which a carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Attorney General Schuette noted: “The health crisis in Flint has created a trust crisis in Michigan government.”

Governor Snyder issued a statement of support for Mr. Lyons and Dr. Wells; he appeared critical of the legal process, noting that other state employees had been charged more than a year ago, but had yet to have their cases tried in court: “That is not justice for Flint, nor for those who have been charged.”

The state actions do not address the fundamental underlying fiscal issue of equity—or what Grand Rapids Mayor Rosalynn Bliss notes is the state’s broken state system of funding municipalities, or, as she told her colleagues at the Mackinac Policy Conference the week before last, she had been forced to adopt more local taxes and cut staff in order to make up for consistent cuts in state revenue sharing. Noting a lack of any fiscal bridge to address fiscal disparities, she told her colleagues that even as her city’s population has continued to grow towards the 200,000 mark, it has been forced to cut its staff by 25% since 2005: she reported the city has 100 fewer police officers now than there were 15 years ago—meaning that during Grand Rapids’ budget discussions this year, the city’s voters and taxpayers, to bridge gaps in state funding, agreed to taxes for public safety, streets, and parks. She described this “shift to the local units, because people care about their local services and what’s available to them, because we know that’s what makes cities great. That’s what attracts families to want to live in cities and businesses to move to cities: people want to live in safe neighborhoods. They want to drive on streets where the tires don’t pop from potholes. They want to be able to walk to a park that’s safe where their kids can play on a playground. Where the swimming pool is actually open. Those are decisions we grapple with at the local level every single day. And the decisions being made in Lansing impact every single city, including Grand Rapids…People move to Michigan for the quality of life – but funding issues can impact what services cities are able to provide to residents that they value…Long-term, relying on local taxes to keep up quality of life initiatives isn’t the answer: It’s inequitable, not every city has those resources.”

In Michigan, a municipal financial emergency is defined as a state of receivership. The state’s financial  emergency status, along with the Emergency Financial Manager was first created in in 1988, but replaced in 2011, and then, in 2012, voters replaced that with Public Law 436, the Local Financial Stability and Choice Act, which includes several triggers for a preliminary review:

  • board requesting a review via resolution,
  • local petition of 5 percent of gubernatorial election voters requesting one,
  • creditor’s written request,
  • missed payroll,
  • missed pension payments,
  • deficit-elimination plan breach or lack of such a plan within 30 days after its due day,
  • a legislative request.

The Indelicate Challenge of Restoring Political Authority in the Wake of Municipal Insolvency

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the historic Civil War municipality of Petersburg’s, Virginia’s steps back to solvency and restoration of municipal control, and then to the indelicate imbalance of fiscal power in Puerto Rico—and whether the federal preemption might be causing more fiscal damage to its fiscal future.

Returning to Solvency. The Petersburg, Virginia City Council last night approved its FY2018 budget, a budget which includes outsourcing jobs—with more than a dozen city employees slated to lose their jobs as a result. The new municipal budget includes an increase in water rates—an increase of nearly 15%–an increase the city’s elected officials deemed necessary in order to finance needed repairs, as well as to update its systems for billing and collections—and to cover its past due arrears of $1.9 million. The session came as the Council began discussions with regard to hiring a new city manager and police chief—and whether to beef up is personal property tax enforcement: the city estimates it could be losing as much as $7 million annually from inadequate collection efforts. The actions by the Mayor and Council reflect a restoration of municipal authority in the wake of state intervention.

The Unpromise of PROMESA? Neither the government of Puerto Rico, nor the PROMESA Oversight Board has been able to state how much in municipal bond interest payments will be made for the next fiscal year—even as the gates of the University of Puerto Rico have been locked, depriving the U.S. territory of the jewel in its crown. The University, which has relied upon 30% of its financing from the government—financing critical to Puerto Rico’s hopes to keep its most promising future generation on the island, rather than incentivized to leave for New York City or Miami—increasingly threatening to leave behind an older and less educated population, more dependent on governmental services, but less able to pay taxes. However, as the PROMESA Board struggles over its preemptive decision with regard to what percent of Puerto Rico’s debt obligations to its municipal bondholders should be mandated, (according to the Board’s March approved fiscal plan, the bonds most closely associated with Puerto Rico’s government would pay $404 million in debt service in the coming fiscal year—approximately one-eighth of the $3.28 billion debt service due), the question with regard to investing in Puerto Rico’s fiscal and physical future remains murky—indeed, murky enough that the balance between Puerto Rico’s $404 million in debt service costs versus investments in its future has been left hanging.

Part of the challenge of preemptive governance is, as we perceived in the first instance of the Michigan takeover of Flint, that there can be signal human and fiscal damage to life, property, and fiscal solvency. Thus, the imbalance where the federal takeover under PROMESA, the Act intended to serve as the fiscal guide through FY2026, is to what extent disinvestment in Puerto Rico’s physical infrastructure and its municipalities might aggravate, rather than restore the territory’s solvency and create a fiscal foundation for its future. And that future is at stake—a future where the gates of its premier university are locked, and where demographers report the loss of population of 61,874 in one year—and where last Sunday’s plebiscite witnessed a drop of more than 50% in voter participation, with markedly reduced percentages in Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities—where participation was 23%, less than a third the level of 1998. Demographer Raúl Figueroa noted: “The population is declining…To give people an idea, from 2015 to 2016, the loss of population was 61, 874,” adding that every year between 1% and 2% of the population is lost. The Mayors of Yauco (a municipality which lost nearly 10% of its population over the last decade) and Ponce, Puerto Rico’s second largest city, known as the City of Lions (population of 194,636), founded in 1692, an important trading and distribution center, as well as a key port of entry—indeed, one of the busiest ports in the Caribbean, which has seen a 9.36% decline in its population—a decline which Mayor Maria Mayita Meléndez, attribute to emigration: Mayor Meléndez notes that since 2006, more than 25,000 Puerto Ricans have left Ponce.

Elections, Federalism, & Inequitable Fiscal Outcomes

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider yesterday’s overwhelming vote in Puerto Rico for statehood—and why that will likely be ignored with less equitable fiscal implications.

Federally Sanctioned Fiscal Inequity? In the fifth such vote on a non-binding referendum, Puerto Ricans, yesterday, overwhelmingly, voted for statehood—sending the issue back again to Congress—which, last time, in 2012, opted not to act.  In order for Puerto Rico to become the nation’s 51st state, Congress would have to act. 502,616 voted for statehood, against 7,779, who voted in favor of independence, and 6,821 to retain the current territorial status 6,821. Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, in the wake of the vote, noted: “Today Puerto Ricans are sending a strong and clear message to the world, claiming equal rights as American citizens…It is now up to us to bring those results to Washington with the strength of democratic exercise, supervised by a Mission of National and International observers: this mission will be reporting to Congress and the federal government on this historic election.”  

Since Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory after the Senate, on February 20, 1917, voted in support of H.R. 9533, to “provide a civil government for Puerto Rico.” The Act, falling between statehood and colonial status, has meant that Puerto Rico has remained in quasi-colonial status, with less favorable shipping laws than neighboring nations and less equitable treatment under Medicaid for its citizens—notwithstanding their U.S. citizenship. Moreover, it has meant Puerto Rico is entitled to no representation in the U.S. Senate—and has only a non-voting delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. Similarly, because it is not defined as a state, Puerto Rico does not receive entitlement funding for Medicare—as do the fifty states.

The outcome is almost certain to be ignored by the White House and Congress. It leaves Puerto Rico’s efforts to restructure its nearly $120 billion in debt—some six times what Detroit faced in the largest municipal bankruptcy in. U.S. history—in a quasi-colonial status, where current federal laws provide competing Caribbean nations with more favorable trade status, but less favorable costs for shipping, as well far less in Medicaid assistance compared to states.

The British Broadcasting Service, the Beeb, posits that a GOP-led Congress is wary of acting on the vote, because it would likely mean adding two Democratic votes in the closely-divided U.S. Senate—as well as opening the fiscal gates for equitable treatment on a par with the other 50 states.  

Getting Back in like Flint

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the lessons learned from Flint—lessons that were not unrelated to the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S, history in Detroit.

Immunity for State & Municipal Employees: What Does it Mean in Flint? U.S. Judge Judith Levy, in her 101-page decision this week, held that Flint and Michigan employees can be sued over the city’s lead water contamination; however, she found that Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and the State of Michigan have governmental immunity. The ruling came in response to a suit brought by a resident of Flint, against Gov. Snyder and 13 other public officials. Judge Levy dismissed many of the counts; however, she concurred that Flint resident Shari Guerin, who had brought the suit against the city and the other public officials, had had both her and her child’s “bodily integrity” unknowingly exposed by the dangerous levels of lead in Flint’s drinking water—levels of which the state was aware, but had hidden from the public. Indeed, the Judge wrote: “The conduct of many of the individual governmental defendants was so egregious as to shock the conscience.” Despite dismissing the charges against the Governor, the Michigan Departments of Environmental Quality and Health and Human Services—and the city’s water treatment plant operator, Judge Levy found that some key state leaders, including the state’s Chief Medical Executive and Health and Human Services Director could be sued in their individual capacities—and that Flint officials have no state governmental immunity, writing: “As this case highlights, the more governmental actors that are involved in causing a massive tort in Michigan, the less likely it is that state tort claims can proceed against the individual government actors given the way the state immunity statutes operate…Because the harm that befell plaintiffs was such a massive undertaking, and took so many government actors to cause, the perverse result is that none can be held responsible under state tort law.”

A Vicious Fiscal Whirlpool? For the city, the severe water contamination had not just physical fiscal implications, but also fiscal ones. Indeed, one of the plaintiffs was one of nearly 8,000 homeowners who was in danger of losing homes under tax foreclosure proceedings (Real property tax delinquency in the state entails a three-year forfeiture and foreclosure process)—proceedings which had been scheduled to commence last week until the Flint City Council approved a one-year moratorium—a moratorium which covered residents with two years of unpaid water and sewer bills going back to June 2014. While that temporary reprieve is in question, confronting an unknown outcome before the state-appointed Receivership Transition Advisory Board, which has monitored Flint’s finances since the city’s emergence from state oversight in two years ago last April—and is scheduled to vote on the moratorium at its June meeting; the outstanding water liens and inability to collect have further emptied the city’s coffers—even as, unsurprisingly, assessed property values  have become the latest fiscal hardship as an impoverished Flint still reels from a lead-in-water crisis which was first publicly acknowledged less than two years ago.

According to a recent Michigan State University study, “Flint Fiscal Playbook: An Assessment of the Emergency Manager Years, 2011-2015),” Flint has lost nearly 75 percent of its tax base—and of that base, assessed property valuations reeled to a 50 percent drop from $1.5 billion to $750 million.  Thus, unsurprisingly, more than 100 residents showed up at this week’s Council meeting—understandably upset that they face foreclosure even as they have been confronted by bills for drinking water, which they could neither drink, nor use in any way that might jeopardize the health and safety of their children. Those citizens received a temporary, one-year reprieve from the city—but the reprieve implies greater fiscal challenges to the city.

With liabilities high and revenues and property taxes struggling, Flint Mayor Karen Weaver reports that Flint has trimmed $2 million in annual garbage collection expenses by rebidding the service; expects to cut annual water expenses to $12 million from $21 million; and, due to federal grants, is hiring 33 more firefighters. The city is proceeding with a $37 million renovation of the Capitol Theatre downtown, seeking to create a central, historic space which could enhance the downtown—or, as the Mayor puts it: “I don’t think people should take their eyes off Flint.”

But assessing the dimensions of this disaster, created in no small part under the state’s original takeover of the city via the appointment of the emergency manager who had made the fatal decisions to change the city’s sourcing of drinking water, also includes looking back to the critical governmental decisions—especially Flint’s opting to abandon reliance on the  Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) and instead rely upon the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA), a regional water authority created as part of Detroit’s chapter 9 plan of debt adjustment—meaning Flint’s citizens will keep drawing Detroit water from their taps—or, as the Mayor put it: “Staying with our water source gives us reassurance our water is good…It gets us out of our $7 million (annual) debt to the KWA. We did not have the finances to be able to do that.” Under the city’s 30-year agreement with the  30-year deal with GLWA, the city will receive a $7 million annual credit equal to its annual municipal bond payment to KWA for as long as Flint remains current with scheduled debt service. In addition, the agreement also enables the city to redirect water plant improvements to upgrading the city’s water distribution system—or, as Mayor Weaver notes: “We have pipes going into the ground now (referring to the planned replacement of lead service lines).We’re addressing this water crisis. The water quality is better. There are some good things going on.”

Mayor Weaver notes Flint has cut its $2 million in annual garbage collection expenses by rebidding the service; the city expects to cut annual water expenses to $12 million from $21 million; and the city continues to work with the Governor to address the public health concerns associated with the Flint water crisis. To try to become an economic magnet or hub, rather than a city to be avoided, the city is focused on a $37 million renovation of the Capitol Theatre, creating a central, historic space which could draw folks to events, restaurants, and bars. As the Mayor puts it: “I don’t think people should take their eyes off Flint…They should know the rest of the story. One of the things I’ve learned is we were going to get more done if we work together. If people are going to help you, why would you not sit down and work things out?”

Are There non-Judicial Avenues to Solvency?

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the increasing threat to Hartford, Connecticut’s capitol, of insolvency; then we look at the nearing referendum in Puerto Rico to address the U.S. Territory’s legal status.

Can Chapter 9 Be Avoided? As the Connecticut legislature nears ending its session, House Majority Leader Matthew Ritter (D-Hartford) has been taking the lead in efforts to commit tens of millions of state dollars to rescue the city—but, as the Leader noted: “There are going to be strings;” the price to the municipality will be greater state control—however, what that control will be and how implemented remains unclear. One key issue will be the city’s looming pension challenge: the city’s current $33 million in annual obligations is projected to increase to $52.6 million by FY2023—ergo, one option for the state would be to utilize an oversight board to re-negotiate union contracts, a move used before by the state for Waterbury—and a step Mayor Luke Bronin had proposed last year—only to see it rejected. His efforts to seek a commitment for $15 million in givebacks by the unions this year succeeded in getting only one tenth that amount, $1.5 million—and came as the local AFSCME Council recently rejected a contract which could have saved the city $4 million.

The inability to agree upon voluntary steps to address the nearing insolvency has pushed state leaders, increasingly, to discuss the creation of a state financial control board as a linchpin to any state bailout of the city—with leaders discussing a board composed evenly of state, local, and union representatives. Connecticut’s law (§7-566) requires the express prior written consent of the Governor—obligating him to submit a report to the Treasurer and General Assembly—actions taken twice before in the cases of Bridgeport (1991) and the Westport Transit District; however, each case was resolved without going through the legal process and submission of a plan off debt adjustment. Indeed, there is, as yet, little consensus in the state legislature with regard to what oversight governance would include: one option under consideration would impose a spending cap, while another would provide for state preemption of the city’s authority to negotiate with its unions: the Majority Leader notes: “I think that if we could get these concessions agreed to and reach the savings that have been targeted…it would go a long way to limiting the amount of oversight in the city of Hartford.” Whatever route to restoring solvency, tempus fugit as the Romans used to say: time is fleeing: the city’s deficit is just under $50 million, even as the departure of one of its biggest employers, Aetna, looms—and, as we had reported in Providence, the city has a disproportionate hole in its property tax base: state and local government agencies, hospitals, and universities occupy 50% of the city’s property. Add to that, the city’s current authority to levy property tax limits such collections to an assessed value of 70 percent.

Mayor Bronin, recognizing that state help is critical, notes his “goal and hope is that legislators from around the state of Connecticut will recognize that Hartford cannot responsibly solve a crisis of this magnitude at the local level alone.” State aid will be critical for an additional reason: absent such assistance, the city’s credit rating is almost certain to deteriorate, thereby driving up its costs for capital borrowing.  Adding to the urgency of fiscal action is the pending departure of Aetna from the city: even though city leaders believe the giant health care corporation will keep many of its 6,000 employees in Connecticut, notwithstanding its negotiations with several states to relocate its corporate headquarters from Hartford, Aetna has stated it remains committed to its Connecticut employees and its Hartford campus. (Aetna and Hartford’s other four biggest taxpayers contribute nearly 20% of the city’s $280 million of property-tax revenues which make up nearly half the city’s general fund revenues.) The companies have imposed a fiscal price, however: Aetna, together with Hartford Financial Services and Travelers have offered to contribute a voluntary payment of $10 million annually over the next five years to help the city avoid chapter 9 municipal avoid bankruptcy, but only on the condition there are comprehensive governing and fiscal changes. But the companies have said they want to see comprehensive changes in how Hartford is run—including vastly reducing reliance on the property tax—a tax rate which the city has raised seven times in the past decade and a half to rates 50% greater than they were in 1998. Thus, with time fleeing, the city confronts coming up with the fiscal resources to finance nearly $180 million in debt service, health care, pensions, and other fixed costs for its upcoming fiscal budget—an amount equal to more than half of the city’s budget, excluding education; that is, the city’s options are increasingly limited—and the Mayor has made clear that he will not reduce essential public safety. As the Majority Leader describes it, it is in the state’s best interest to make sure the city has a sustainable future, noting that a municipal bankruptcy would not “just affect Hartford: It would affect neighboring communities, it would affect the state, it would probably affect our credit ratings.”

Eliminating local power? Hartford City Council President Thomas Clark is apprehensive with regard to state preemption of local authority, noting hisconcern has always been if this bill is passed–in whatever form it gets passed–what does that do to the elected leadership at the local level?…And I think until we see what that actually includes, we’re just going to be uncomfortable with this concept.” From the Mayor’s perspective, he notes: “Understandably, Connecticut residents do not want their hard-earned tax dollars being used wastefully, or simply funding an increase in the cost of city government…I don’t mind anybody looking over my shoulder…and I don’t mind having the books open. I’m confident in the decisions that we’ve made.” That contrasts with his colleagues on the City Council—and the city’s unions, who have previously charged: “The Governor and this mayor are clutching at their last chance at unconditional and overreaching power.” The unions have claimed there are measures which could be taken without resorting to negating collective bargaining rights and municipal bankruptcy; yet, as we have seen in Detroit, San Bernardino, etc., those efforts were ineffective compared to the pressure of a U.S. bankruptcy judge.

Chartering a Post Insolvency Future? Voters and taxpayers in the U.S. Territory of Puerto Rice go to the polls this Sunday to vote on a referendum on Puerto Rico’s political status—the fifth such referendum since it became an unincorporated territory of the United States. Although, originally, this referendum would only have the options of statehood versus independence, a letter from the Trump administration had recommended adding “Commonwealth,” the current status, in the plebiscite; however, that recommendation was scotched in response to the results of the plebiscite in 2012 which asked whether to remain in the current status—which the voters rejected. Subsequently, the administration cited changes in demographics during the past 5 years as a reason to add the option once again, leading to amendments incorporating ballot wording changes requested by the Department of Justice, as well as adding a “current territorial status” as provided under the original Jones-Shafroth Act as an option. Notwithstanding what the voters decide, however, it remains uncertain what might happen—much less how a Trump Administration or how Congress would react. The referendum was approved last January by the Puerto Rico Senate—and then by the House, and signed by Gov. Rossello last February.