The Human & Fiscal Prices of Insolvency

October 20, 2017

Good Morning! In today’s Blog, we consider the spread of Connecticut’s fiscal blues to its municipalities; then we consider the health and fiscal health challenge to Flint; before, finally, observing the seemingly worsening fiscal and human plight of Puerto Rico.

Visit the project blog: The Municipal Sustainability Project 

The Price of Solvency. It appears that the City of Hartford would have to restructure its debt to receive the requisite state assistance to keep it out of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy under the emerging state budget compromise between the Governor and Legislature. Under the terms of the discussions, the State of Connecticut would also guarantee a major refunding of the city’s debt, as well as cover a major share of the city’s debt payments, at least for this fiscal year and next, with House Majority Leader Matt Ritter (D-Hartford) indicating this was part of a bipartisan compromise the legislature recognizes is needed to avert municipal bankruptcy: “This budget gives the city all of the tools it needs to be on a structural path to sustainability…This solution truly is a bipartisan one.” According to the city’s Mayor Luke Bronin, Hartford needs about $40 million annually in new state assistance to avert bankruptcy. The emerging agreement also includes $28 million per year for a new Municipal Accountability Review Board, likely similar to what the Commonwealth of Virginia has used so effectively, to focus on municipalities at risk of fiscal insolvency and to intervene beforehand: approximately $20 million of that $28 million would be earmarked for Hartford. The new state budget would require Hartford to restructure a significant portion of its capital debt, but the state would guarantee this refinancing, an action which—as was the case in Detroit—will help Hartford have access to lower borrowing costs: the agreement also calls for the state to pay $20 million of the city’s annual debt service—at least for this fiscal year and next.

The state actions came as Moody’s Investor Service this week placed ratings of 26 of the state’s municipalities, as well as three of the state’s regional school districts under review for downgrade, citing state aid cuts in the absence of a budget, warning those municipalities and districts face cuts in state funding equal to 100% or more of available fund balance or cash—with those cities most at risk: Hartford (which currently receives 50 percent of its revenues from the state), New Haven, New Britain, West Haven, and Bridgeport. Moody’s was even fiscally moodier, dropping the credit ratings of an additional 25 Connecticut cities and towns, and three other regional school districts, while maintaining the existing negative outlook on the rating of one town. Moody’s list did not, however, include Hartford. The down-gradings come as the state has continued to operate under Executive order in the absence of an approved fiscal budget, now more than a fiscal quarter overdue. Gov. Dannel Malloy, at the beginning of the week, had submitted his fourth FY2018-19 budget to lawmakers, a $41.3 billion spending plan in the wake of his veto last month of the version approved by the legislature, reporting that his most recent fiscal plan would eliminate some revenue proposals, including new taxes on second homes, cell phone surcharges, ridesharing fees, and daily fantasy sports fees—instead, he has proposed an additional $150 million in spending over the biennium, while simplifying the implementor language. According to Moody’s, under the Governor’s new executive order, state aid to local governments will be nearly $1 billion below last year’s level—or, as Moody’s put it: “The current budget impasse highlights the ongoing vulnerability of funding that Connecticut provides to its local governments.” Connecticut traditionally has provided significant funding to its local governments, largely through education cost sharing grants, but also through payments in lieu of taxes and other smaller governmental grants. Connecticut’s GO bond prices have deteriorated with 10-year credit spreads around 80 basis points, well above historical levels, according to Janney Capital Markets Managing Director Alan Schankel: “A state’s fiscal stress tends to flow downstream to local governments, and Connecticut is no exception.” The fiscal irony is that despite the state’s high per capita wealth, the state’s debt, at 9.2% of gross state product, is highest among the states, lagging only behind Illinois.

Not in Like Flint. U.S. District Court Judge David Lawson has ordered Flint’s City Council to choose a long-term water source for the city by Monday after it spent more than three months refusing to make a decision. In his 29-page opinion, he took Flint’s City Council to task for sitting on an April agreement backed by Mayor Karen Weaver, the state and the federal Environmental Protection Agencies that would see the city stay on the Detroit area water system through a new 30-year contract with the Great Lakes Water Authority, writing:. “The failure of leadership, in light of the past crises and manifold warnings related to the Flint water system, is breathtaking.” Judge Lawson’s decision came in response to a suit filed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality last June in the wake of the Flint City Council ignoring the state’s deadline for a water supply decision, arguing the delay would “cause an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health in Flint.” The Council, in hearing and filings, had requested more time from the court; however, Judge Lawson wrote that the state had demonstrated potential for “irreparable injury” in Flint and that there was an urgency to act, because the city’s short-term water agreements have expired and the long-term agreement is time sensitive, concluding: “The City Council has not voted on the negotiated agreement, it has not proposed an alternative, and the future of Flint’s fragile water system—its safety, reliability, and financial stability— is in peril…Because of the city’s indecision, the court must issue its ruling.” Judge Lawson’s order likely ensures the City Council will approve the proposed contract with the Great Lakes Authority that it had been resisting though it was negotiated with Mayor Karen Weaver’s approval. The city could choose to risk defying the court order; however, the State of Michigan has warned that tens of millions of dollars in extensive repairs and updates need to be made to the inactive Flint water plant—repairs which would take three and a half years to complete.

The warnings of Wayne State University Professor Nicholas Schroeck with regard to the risk to public health and the financial stability of the water supply system appeared key to persuading Judge Lawson to side with the state and issue a pre-emptive order. The Judge, in early August, had appointed a mediator in an effort to try gain an agreement between the city and the state Dept. of Environmental Quality; however, when the sides were unable to settle, he warned that  extending Flint’s contract with the Detroit area water system beyond 30 days could result in funding problems: “It seems to me that inaction is inviting intervention.” The Weaver administration analyzed various long-term water options for Flint, and the Mayor said Tuesday the Great Lakes agreement “proved to be in the best interest of public health by avoiding another water source switch, which could result in unforeseen issues.” The Michigan DEQ praised Judge Lawson for “recognizing there is no need to wait…and remains committed to working with the City of Flint to implement a plan once a source water determination has been finalized to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.” In its arguments before Judge Lawson, the State of Michigan had warned: “The City Council’s failure to act will result in at least a 55-63% increase in the water rate being charged to Flint residents, create an immediate risk of bankrupting the Flint water fund, will preclude required investment in Flint’s water distribution system, and create another imminent and substantial endangerment to public health in Flint.” That was similar to a statement from a key aide to Gov. Rick Snyder who had warned that stalling the water contract decision was costing the City of Flint an extra $600,000 a month, because it was paying for two sources—Great Lakes, from which it currently gets its treated water, and Karegnondi, from which it contractually would receive water by 2019 to 2020. Under the 30-year agreement with Great Lakes, Flint would no longer have to make payments to Karegnondi.

Unresponsiveness. President Trump last week awarded himself a perfect rating for his response to the hurricane that devastated Puerto Rico: “I would give myself a 10,” he responded when asked by reporters how he would score his efforts, on a one to 10 scale. He told Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera that Puerto Rican governments “owe a lot of money to your friends on Wall Street, and we’re going to have to wipe that out. You can say goodbye to that.” A comment to which OMB Director Mick Mulvaney noted: “I wouldn’t take it word for word.” Indeed, a week later, Congressional Republicans unveiled a relief plan that would only add to Puerto Rico’s unsustainable debt load. In his meeting this week with Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló, who was in Washington to press for federal disaster relief, the President claimed: “We have provided so much, so fast.” Yet, today nearly 80 percent of the island remains without electricity, and almost 30 of the island still does not have access to clean water, according to Puerto Rican government figures.

In contrast with Texas after Hurricane Harvey and Florida after Irma, where thousands of repair workers rushed in to restring power lines, only a few hundred electrical workers from outside Puerto Rico have arrived to help: it was not until last Saturday that the Puerto Rican government said it had the federal funding needed to bring in more workers. That compares to some 5,300 workers from outside the region who converged on coastal Texas in the days after Hurricane Harvey to restore a power loss about a tenth of the size that struck Puerto Rico. Similarly, in Florida, 18,000 outside workers went in after Hurricane Irma knocked out electricity to most of the state last month, according to Florida Power and Light; whereas, in Puerto Rico, the challenge of restoration has fallen on the shoulders of about 900 members of local crews—an outcome industry experts report to be a result of poor planning, a slow response by power officials, and Puerto Rico’s dire fiscal situation—a sharp contrast to the President’s claim that his administration deserved a 10 for its response to the hurricanes which struck Puerto Rico and other parts of the United States.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, charged by FEMA with restoring Puerto Rico’s power, estimated that it needed at least 2,000 additional workers. So far, the Corps has brought only about 200 workers, and most of them were dedicated not to restoring power, but to installing generators at crucial locations. In the wake of major storms, such as Katrina, power companies typically rely on mutual aid agreements to get electricity restored: such outside companies send thousands of workers, and electric companies pay for the service with funds from FEMA. However, providing such assistance to Puerto Rico is not just logistically a greater challenge—but also a discriminatorily greater challenge: the Jones Act—which the President only suspended for ten days—means that the time and cost of shipping comes at a 20% premium.  

The Human Storm. Maria risks accelerating the trend of the last decade of economic decline and depopulation, described as “a slower-moving catastrophe,” which is wreaking a devastating toll: The number of residents had plunged by 11 percent, the economy had shrunk by 15 percent, and the government has become fiscally insolvent. Already ranked among the worst cycles of economic decline and depopulation in postwar American history, the aftermath of Maria threatens an acceleration of residents fleeing en masse: accelerating economic decline and potentially accelerating a vicious cycle. Lyman Stone, an independent migration researcher and economist at the Agriculture Department notes: “We are watching a real live demographic and population collapse on a monumental scale.” At a news conference last week, Gov. Rosselló warned that without significant help, “millions” could leave for the U.S. mainland: You’re not going to get hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans moving to the States—you’re going to get millions…You’re going to get millions, creating a devastating demographic shift for us here in Puerto Rico.” Puerto Rico Treasury Secretary Raúl Maldonado has warned, meanwhile, that without more aid, the government could suffer a shutdown by the end of the month.

Today, only about 40 percent of Puerto Ricans in the territory are employed or seeking work—more than 33% below levels on the mainland. The danger, now, is of increased flight—but flight by the young and those with college degrees. After all, with the PROMESA Board charged with fashioning a fiscal plan to pay off more than $70 billion in Puerto Rico’s municipal debt calling for efforts to raise taxes and significant cuts to the government, the Board has predicted continuing shrinkage of the Puerto Rican economy. Thus, there is a real apprehension

As a result, for Washington and Puerto Rican officials planning a recovery, the ongoing exodus poses a multifaceted dilemma. “They’ve got to start from the ground up,” a former U.S. Treasury official said of any new plan for the island. In the short-term, at least, the island is likely to see an economic boost; rebuilding after a hurricane often injects a jolt of spending into local economies. But, according to recent research of 90 years of natural disasters in the United States, published as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, major natural disasters also have unfavorable effects: They increase out-migration, lower home prices, and raise poverty rates. Like many on the island, Sergio M. Marxuach, policy director for the Center for a New Economy, a San Juan-based think tank, said a massive federal investment is necessary. “We’re going to need some significant government intervention — essentially a big rescue package, not only to rebuild the economy but get it growing…People are saying, ‘I don’t want my children to grow up in a place where the economy is going to be devastated for the next 10 years.’ If enough people think that way, it’s going to be a self-reinforcing downward spiral.”

In addressing complaints about ongoing struggles on the island, President Trump noted this week that the disaster in Puerto Rico in many ways had begun years ago. Puerto Rico “was in very poor shape before the hurricanes ever hit. Their electrical grid was destroyed before the hurricanes got there. It was in very bad shape, was not working, was in bankruptcy.”

At the Level of a Muncipio. While many have considered the fiscal and physical impact on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, fewer have considered the fiscal challenge to Puerto Rico’s municipalities. Consider, for instance, Juncos, one of Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities: it is located in the eastern central region of the island; it is spread over 9 wards and Juncos Pueblo (the downtown area and the administrative center of the city). The city, one of the oldest in the United States,was founded on the request of Tomas Pizarro on August 2, 1797, having previously been a village which evolved from a small ranch, the Hatillo de los Juncos. Hurricane Maria has changed this municipality forever: more than 1,000 families in Juncos lost it all that unforgettable September 20th, when Hurricane Maria struck. Yet, in a remarkable effort, residents of the La Hormiga sector of Las Piñas neighborhood, in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, organized to help recover the humble community that is often highlighted by criminal incidents in the area: one of the community leaders of the sector, Wanda Bonilla, highlighted the deed of the trash rescuers: “Thanks to them, they have also relieved the pick up of the rubble.” The city’s community board worked immediately to install a shelter in the neighborhood community center given the circumstances that some 17 families, with between five and seven members each, where the storm tore the roofs off their homes—and most of those homes have single mothers. She noted: “Our president, Ivelisse Esquilín, who also lost everything, is helping us through the Municipality and with other donations.” Juncos Mayor Alfredo Alejandro noted that, in the wake of the storm, crossing arms was not an option for anyone “in the neighborhood” even though many of the 60 families living in the sector experienced the grief of having lost their home: “You have to do it because imagine …right now, look here, I have these pieces of a car to see if I invent a type of small generator to, even be, to turn on a fan.” The Mayor described Maria’s devastation to be of “great proportions:” Out of population of 42,000 people, more than 1,000 lost their homes and a comparable number suffered major damage to their structures; 85% of the city’s residents are still without potable water, while there are few expectations that electricity will soon be restored.

Advertisements

The Political & Fiscal Challenges of Recovery

September 19, 2017

Good Morning! In today’s Blog, we consider the uncertain fiscal outlook for Hartford – and Connecticut, the ongoing recovery in Detroit from the nation’s largest municipal bankruptcy, municipal fiscal erosion in Pennsylvania, and some of the fiscal and physical impacts of Hurricane Irma on Puerto Rico.

Visit the project blog: The Municipal Sustainability Project 

On the Edge of a Fiscal State/Local Cliff. Connecticut lawmakers passed a $40.7 billion two-year state budget early on Saturday; however, Governor Dannel Malloy could veto the legislation and leave the state racing toward severe spending cuts next month. The budget uncertainty came as the state’s capitol city Hartford is approaching debt repayment deadlines this month and next—and now the state budget uncertainty is becoming a major threat to the city; Moody’s noted: “The city owes $3.8 million in September, followed by $26.9 million in October,” with October the “heaviest debt service month this year,” apparently the result of the city’s borrowing $20 million last April to cover its cash flow problems.  Thus, with the Legislature and Gov. Dannel Malloy unable to agree on a balanced state budget, the credit rating agency notes this could be a potentially huge problem for Hartford, writing: “Approximately half of the city’s general fund revenues are derived from state aid, leaving Hartford heavily exposed to the state’s budget delay: If the delay continues, Hartford is in danger of depleting its already weak reserves between now and the end of this calendar year.” And this could become a municipal fiscal cancer—not just for Hartford, but also Bridgeport and New Haven. Mayor Luke Bronin noted: “The absence of a state budget significantly exacerbates Hartford’s fiscal crisis and accelerates our cash flow challenge.” While Gov. Malloy has issued a temporary plan to cover for the lack of a state budget, that plan would sharply cut state aid to cities and towns. Mayor Bronin said that plan, if continued through the rest of FY2018, would mean Hartford “would face a shortfall of about $100 million out of a municipal budget of $329 million.” Thus, he noted: “While we’re focused on managing our liquidity and maintaining basic services, there’s obviously no way to manage a shortfall of that magnitude indefinitely…We are exploring all of our options to restructure Hartford’s obligations and put our Capital City on a sustainable path.” Moody’s, in its assessment, described Hartford’s “path to fiscal sustainability” as one “likely require debt restructuring along with some combination of labor concessions, other expenditure cuts, and new revenues,” albeit not opining on whether debt restructuring to extend the city’s repayment schedule or bankruptcy would be the likelier outcome, but noting that the city’s debt service costs are expected to “ramp up” from $44 million in the current fiscal year to $57 million in 2018-19, and will then continue to grow almost steadily through 2020-21. Thus, Av Harris, a legislative aide to Bridgeport Mayor Joseph P. Ganim, warned Bridgeport, which had filed for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy in 1991 (§7-566), worried: “The major impacts haven’t hit yet,” referring to apprehension with regard to the potential fallout if the city does not receive the first big installment in state school aid, noting that state aid represents about 40% of Bridgeport’s current $550 million city budget. Nearby, New Haven Mayor Toni Harp has ordered city agencies to come up with budget cutting contingency plans in case the General Assembly fails to pass a state budget by September. The Mayor said additional spending reductions would be needed to avoid local tax increases, in the event the state budget impasse continues. (New Haven’s Board of Aldermen adopted a $539.9 million city budget on June 6.) Mayor Harp has said New Haven is hoping to receive at least the $30 million in state aid that it got in the fiscal year that ended June 30, and is looking to get an additional $18 million in promised state funding, adding that failure to get that money would put New Haven in a short-term cash crisis.

Observers were surprise that the Republican-backed budget won prevailed in a legislature narrowly controlled by Democrats; yet the fiscal outcome remains uncertain, as Gov. Malloy has said he would veto the bills as they first passed through the Senate before moving to the House of Representatives, noting: “The amended budget that passed in the Senate today is unbalanced, and if it were to reach my desk I would veto it,” last Friday night, stating that the budget “relies on too many unrealistic savings, it contains immense cuts to higher education, and it would violate existing state contracts with our employees, resulting in costly legal battles for years to come.” The passage came with the state budget action two months’ overdue and, currently under emergency control: Under the Governor’s executive order, some schools and cities would see state aid slashed after October 1 unless a budget is enacted before then—burdened by some $73 billion of pension and debt obligations, high taxes, out-migration, and falling revenues—and under a now lame duck governor. Now the legislature has sent him a budget which contains provisions he says he cannot abide, including reductions to the University of Connecticut. Under the proposed budget, general fund appropriations would grow 3.5 percent in FY 2018 to $18.5 billion and 0.6 percent in FY2019 to $18.6 billion; the transportation fund, the next largest, would grow by about 11 percent over the two years, according to the legislature’s Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA); the bill would also limit general obligation bond allocations to $2 billion a year beginning in fiscal 2018, then apply that same cap to issuances and spending starting in fiscal 2019.  

The budget, if agreed to, It would establish a Municipal Accountability Review Board to allow state oversight of fiscally troubled cities, potentially including its capital city, Hartford, with former U.S. Comptroller General and now gubernatorial candidate David Walker stating: “I think (Malloy) is likely to put the ball back in the court of the state Legislature…I think the last thing we need right now is to increase taxes.” Nevertheless, on Saturday, Gov. Malloy described the GOP budget package as “unbalanced” and “unrealistic: If the responsible solution I negotiated with Democrats isn’t going to pass, then it is incumbent on the legislature to reach a new agreement soon—one that is realistic and, ideally, bipartisan.” Nevertheless, State Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (D-Fairfield) was one of six House Democrats to break ranks, called for a bipartisan fix to the state’s fiscal woes: “We all await the Governor’s next steps and will go forward from there…The challenges confronting us were a long time in the making. We need to figure out a solution working together as leaders. I support every effort that will bring us closer to the kind of compromise we need to successfully adopt a state budget.” However, Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney (D-New Haven) said Gov. Malloy has given his assurances that he would immediately veto what is a “short-sighted” budget that undercuts collective bargaining and public education, noting: “So much for allegedly responsible and realistic budgeting,” adding there was a “substantial danger” that no budget gets passed by Oct. 1, defaulting to the Governor’s cuts: “I think we have to look forward rather than backward and keep our focus on getting a budget.”

It seems an irony that both Republican gubernatorial hopefuls who spoke at yesterday’s rally could become casualties of the proposed elimination of the decade-old Connecticut Citizens’ Election Program, which was adopted after the resignation and imprisonment of former Gov. John Rowland for corruption. Under the program, candidates for governor are eligible for $1.4 million in public funds in the primary and $6.5 million in the general election. (They must raise $250,000 in increments of $100 or less to qualify.) One such candidate, State Rep. Prasad Srinivasan (R-Glastonbury), who has already raised the requisite $250,000—and who voted for the budget, noted: “It’s going to be a different ballgame for all of us…Is this a perfect budget? The answer is, no. Is it a good budget? Yes. We have lived in excess all of these years.” Candidate Walker said if publicly-funded elections, which could cost more than $40 million in 2018, were eliminated, he would be able to more than make up for it, adding, however, that to be fair to those gubernatorial candidates who are far along in qualifying, the subsidy should be kept for the state’s highest office. Mr. Walker is running against House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin).

The Steep Road to Chapter 9 Recovery. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan likens the gathering regional bid to land Amazon’s second headquarters to delivering Detroit Super Bowl XL more than a decade ago; however, the, as a Detroit News editorial by the ever insightful Daniel Howes noted: “It’s not even close. The hunt for Amazon is far larger, far more competitive and far more likely to tax the ability of just about anyone to corral business, political and civic leaders around a deadline measured in weeks, not years. (The deadline is Oct. 19 to proffer a plan to compete for a $5 billion investment worth 50,000 jobs.) Mayor Mike Duggan noted that with fewer than five weeks to put together its proposal: “We’re up against really tough competition from really good cities.” Or, as the editorial notes: “Yes, we are—as Detroit Regional Chamber CEO Sandy Baruah learned this week when he flew to Toronto for a speech on trade between Canada and the United States. On the minds of the Canadian CEOs: luring Amazon’s massive economic play north of the border, no mean feat in the era of Trump.” Nonetheless, as the editorial added: “That’s not deterring Detroit’s mayor, facing re-election. It’s not deterring Quicken Loans Inc. Chairman Dan Gilbert, who quickly accepted Mayor Duggan’s offer to chair the regional effort to prepare an Amazon bid. And it’s not deterring local and state politicians, or a business community that is far more active in economic development efforts than their predecessors a decade ago…It shouldn’t: In fundamental ways, this region is different than the one industrialist Roger Penske shepherded through the process of bidding for a Super Bowl (at the personal request of Bill Ford Jr., whose family owns the Lions). It’s more competent, more confident and often more regionally cooperative. It has witnessed the deep costs of division and political corruption, of big business that worries more about bragging rights with competitors than being competitive. It’s tasted the ignominy of financial dissolution, and seen how private capital can breed renewal: Weathering the near-collapse of two Detroit automakers, the Great Recession, and the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history can do that. Seeing the crucial importance of individual leaders in a broader mosaic of leadership can, too. So can national embarrassment.”

Southeast Michigan is legendary for parochial infighting pitting city against suburb, for measuring solutions to difficult civic problems in decades, not years, for fixating on why change cannot happen instead of pushing to make it happen. Which raises a critical point that will be answered by the success of Gilbert & Co. to rally disparate leaders quickly around a cohesive bid: Were the speed and decisiveness of the auto restructuring, of the city’s financial workout, of the revitalization of downtown just historical aberrations? 

Or are they harbingers of a can-do future liberated from the confrontational zero-sum game that helped drive Detroit and its hometown auto industry to the edge of complete financial collapse? Look, no one should kid themselves: For a bid that seeks access to regional transit with connections to an international airport, the region that put America on wheels is woefully behind. For a bid that aims to create a second headquarters hub for one of 21st-century America’s iconic corporate brands, southeast Michigan isn’t too far removed from the stain of bankruptcy, municipal and corporate.

How indelible are those stains, if at all?

We’re about to find out.

“This is a no-lose proposition for southeast Michigan,” according to CAO Baruah of the Chamber. “Best case is we prevail under some very heavy competition. Even if we don’t win, but come close. It’s still a win for us. We learn how to do this well.” Whatever happens, business and political leaders arguably are more aligned around the economic way forward than any time in decades. The Democratic mayor of Detroit and the Republican governor coalesce around common problems, and more often than not so do their respective lawmakers.

Business leaders are more predisposed to dig into civic problems, with a dozen or so of their top leaders coming together in a new, still-unnamed group to champion reform. For the first time in a decade or more, Detroit’s automakers are led by longtime Michiganders — Mary Barra at General Motors Co. and Bill Ford and Jim Hackett at Ford.

Poverty declined and incomes rose last year in the Motor City, marking the first significant income increase recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau since the 2000 census, with Detroiters’ median household income up last year by 7.5% to $28,099 in 2016, according to U.S. Census’ American Community Survey estimates; ergo poverty dropped 4 percentage points to 35.7%‒the lowest level in nearly a decade—perhaps offering

Keystone Municipal Fiscal Erosion. Hazleton a small city of just over 25,000 in Luzerne County, is the county’s second largest city and the seventeenth largest city in the Keystone State—it was incorporated as a  borough 160 years ago, and then as a city on December 4, 1891. Now, Department of Community and Economic Development Secretary Dennis Davin has signed documents declaring Hazleton a “financially distressed” municipality under the state’s Act 47, effectively providing the Department the ability to solicit proposals on behalf of the city for professional management services. Mayor Jeff Cusat and City Council President Jack Mundie have been notified: the development puts the city in a position to apply for a $850,000 no-interest emergency loan that the state would make available via a revolving fund; Pennsylvania officials anticipate receiving a loan request from the city, since a consultative report that the Department prepared last month projects that Hazleton will face a $895,267 cash-flow shortage by the end of the year: a cash flow analysis projects $9,782,659 in expenses outpacing $8,887,392 in revenue for the year, according to the report—a report which unsurprisingly concludes: “This clearly is not fiscally sustainable, and it is projected that an extraordinary cash flow deficit will continue to exist.” Secretary Davin will have the final say whether to grant a loan to Hazleton; prior to that, she noted the City Council must adopt a resolution in support of the funding.

Council President Jack Mundie said that although he believes the city would have avoided Act 47 if the Mayor had followed the Council’s budget, the declaration leaves the city with little choice but to participate in the program. The city would have realized about $500,000 had the Mayor followed through with a plan to sell delinquent taxes to a collection agency and accepted another $220,000 payment from Hazleton City Authority in advance of land it expects to sell as the state looks to extend Route 424 into Humboldt Industrial Park. Mayor Cusat, however, has opposed paying fees related to the tax sale and has said he has seen no evidence that the land sale would take place this year to justify accepting the upfront payment—and, he has warned on several occasions that cash-flow issues put the city at risk of missing payroll; ergo, he believes it vital for the city to secure an emergency loan so that it may continue meeting payroll. He believes the city can make payroll on October 6th, provided the municipality takes advantage of a 30-day grace period for paying health insurance, explaining that is the date “when our quarterly health insurance payment is due, which is approximately $300,000. The only chance we have of making the Oct. 6 payroll is if I do not pay health insurance and I take advance of the 30-day grace period.” Council President Mundie added that he also does not want to see city workers go unpaid.

The $850,000 loan resolution was, thus, placed on yesterday’s meeting agenda: an offer Council President Mundie believed to be hard to refuse: “It’s payable over 10 years; there’s no interest; and payments are once a year: How can you refuse that money?” And, as Mayor Cusat noted: The city would confront severe repercussions if Council did not approve the loan resolution: “If they don’t pass it, the state has notified me that it’s almost guaranteed the city will be sent into immediate receivership—which has only happened once in the history of Pennsylvania: “I’m hoping that Council finally realizes how serious this problem is and agrees to the resolution,” adding there is a time element: the process for securing emergency funds could take up to 30 days, leaving no room for delays.  He also cited a recently released Communities in Crisis report prepared by Pennsylvania Economy League, “Communities in Crisis: The Truth and Consequences of Municipal Fiscal Distress in Pennsylvania, 1970-2014,” which he views as “critical” of Act 47: the report found that tax burdens have grown for all types of municipalities since 1990, even as municipal tax bases have been steadily shrinking since 1970: the report states that:

  • only one of the 14 municipalities which have participated in Act 47 had a tax base in 2014 that was at least on par with the tax base for communities that never participated;
  • that the tax burden for most Act 47 municipalities increased at a rate higher than non-Act 47 municipal averages; and
  • that six boroughs that exited Act 47 between 1990 and 2007 had tax bases that were significantly below the non-Act 47 borough average for 2014.

Or, as the report concludes: “This indicates that Act 47 was not successful in restoring tax base value to the boroughs that exited the program.” Thus, unsurprisingly, Council President Mundie fears the program would result in tax increases and the sale or lease of municipal authority assets—which the Council does not support, or, as he put it: “The state is going to force us into doing things we don’t want to do…I think [it] wants to sell the water and sewer (authorities).”  For his part, Mayor Cusat said the declaration of distress should not come as a surprise: when, previously, he tried to get the city to participate in the Early Intervention Program, he said that he learned the city had met two criteria to meet distressed status, ergo: “I’ve been warning council of this for the past year and a half, that we were headed in this direction: It shouldn’t come as a shock that Secretary Davin signed the documents.”

Shutting the Spigot? But tempus fugit: Pennsylvania state officials who confirmed Hazleton’s participation in Act 47 are expressing apprehensions with regard to how the House Republican’s fund transfers could impact the business community, specifically pointing to the removal of money from the Act 47 Revolving Aid Fund, a step which, if enacted, could pull the fiscal safety net out from under the state’s distressed communities: “Without this funding, cities would have a much more difficult time exiting Act 47,” according to Secretary Davin.

The Pennsylvania Economy League reports that fiscal decay has accelerated in all sizes of municipalities throughout the in its new report: “Communities in Crisis: The Truth and Consequences of Municipal Fiscal Distress in Pennsylvania, 1970-2014,” a report which examines 2,388 of the state’s 2,561 municipalities where consistent data existed from 1970, 1990, and 2014, considering, as variables, the available tax base per household, as well as the tax burden, a percentage of the tax base taken in the form of taxes to support local government services‒after which the municipalities were then divided into five quintiles, from  the wealthiest and most fiscally healthy to the most distressed—with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh excluded due to their size and tax structure. The League found that the tax burden has grown on average for all municipalities since 1990, but that the tax base has fallen, on average, in the state’s municipalities since 1970. In addition, the study determined that municipalities in Pennsylvania’s Act 47 distressed municipality program generally performed worse than average despite state assistance.

The study also found that communities which finance their own local police force, as opposed to those which rely solely on Pennsylvania State Police coverage, had double the municipal tax burden and ranked lower. (Readers can find the report in its entirety on the Pennsylvania Economy League’s website.) The League’s President, Chairman Greg Nowak, noted: “The first part of understanding and doing something about a crisis is understanding what it is,” adding that clearly the League believes the state’s local governments are in a fiscal crisis, comparing the new report to one the League released in 2006, which had warned of oncoming fiscal distress—a report, he noted, which had not galvanized either the state or its municipalities to take action. Gerald Cross, the Executive Director for Pennsylvania Economy League Central, said the study also found that tax bases in cities largely remained stagnant even as the local tax burden increased from 1990 to 2014, noting that all the state’s cities were in bottom-quintile rankings in 2014—and that while tax base generally grew in boroughs and first-class townships, the tax burden there also grew from 1990 to 2014; he added that the trend for second-class townships was mixed: while the tax base increased and more second-class townships moved into healthier quintiles, the tax burden also climbed from 1990 to 2014. Or, as Kevin Murphy, the President of the Berks County Community Foundation put it: “Pennsylvania’s system of local governments is broken and is harming the people living in our communities: It’s a system that was created here in Harrisburg [the state capitol], and it is Harrisburg which needs to fix it.” Pennsylvania has 4,897 local governments, including 1,756 special districts, cities, towns, and first, second, and third class townships.

Physical & Fiscal Destruction. Municipal fiscal analysts are apprehensive that Hurricane Irma’s physical and fiscal impact on Puerto Rico’s economy may be worse, because of the U.S. territory’s physical, fiscal, and capital debt—or, as Howard Cure of Evercore Wealth Management described it: “Entities that suffer a natural disaster need a strong balance sheet to take care of immediate clean-up and assessment needs until funding from the federal government and insurance companies becomes available.” The island lacks the requisite resources to recover on its own in the wake of a decade of fiscal deterioration—and now it is seemingly transfixed in the middle of a decade of fiscal decline, even as it is attempting to restructure its roughly $69 billion of public sector debt—and restore electricity to some 70% of the Puerto Ricans in the wake of Irma. Mr. Cure described Puerto Rico’s need to repair its power and water systems to be made more vital in the wake of many years of neglect, warning: Irma’s damage “could expedite the downward spiral of the economy and could cause even more of the workforce to leave.” Moody’s Investors Service senior credit officer Rick Donner added in his own fiscal apprehensions, writing: “Reports of widespread power outages that may persist for weeks in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Irma highlight longstanding liquidity pressures and an aging infrastructure that have beleaguered [the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority] for many years: Long-term power outages will have negative impacts on PREPA’s revenues and will pose added challenges in Puerto Rico’s overall recovery from this natural disaster; Any damage from the storm will also add to the stress related to PREPA’s recent default and could impact ultimate recovery for bondholders.” Some fiscal and physical help could come from the PROMESA Oversight Board, where Executive Director Natalie Jaresko said, “We are working closely with Gov. Rosselló to coordinate support for Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the storm. We have also reached out to the federal government to activate Title V, which allows the board to work with agencies to accelerate the deployment of grants and loans following a disaster.”

On the Steep Edge of Chapter 9

September 12, 2017

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s Blog, we consider the increasing risk of Hartford going into municipal bankruptcy, the Nutmeg State’s fiscal challenge—and whether the state’s leaders can agree to a bipartisan budget; then we consider the ongoing fiscal challenges to Detroit’s comeback from the nation’s largest ever chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy: the road is steep.

Visit the project blog: The Municipal Sustainability Project 

On the Edge of Chapter 9. Connecticut legislators plan to move forward with a state budget vote this week—one which is not expected to include a sales and use take hike and which may not get much support from their Republican colleagues. In his declaration, last week, Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, in warning the city may be filing for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy within sixty days pending state budget action, noted Hartford “believes that a restructuring of its outstanding bond indebtedness will be necessary to assure the fiscal stability of the city in the future regardless of any funding received from the State.” Nevertheless, as Municipal Market Analytics noted: “It’s unclear that the city will be able to satisfy the standard conditions for entry into bankruptcy protection such as proving itself insolvent,” albeit MMA noted that in the absence of a state bailout cash, the city will unable to make payments to its bondholders, nevertheless, noting that Connecticut fiscal changes enacted last summer “would reasonably allow the city to refinance its outstanding debt under provisions that not only purport to provide a statutory lien to bondholders, but also allow principal to be back-loaded and extended for 30 years. Under Connecticut law, municipalities may secure refunding bonds with a statutory lien if they provide for such in the resolution. MMA adds that even without a lien, Hartford “could also refinance, at a minimum, approximately 80% of its outstanding general obligation debt covered by bond insurance policies,” noting that “While this would not eliminate principal currently owed, it would avoid the expense of a chapter 9 bankruptcy.” However, as William Faulkner used to write of the “odor of verbena,” the reputation of chapter 9 can create contagion: MMA notes that “some municipal investors will still not loan capital to Bridgeport for its attempted bankruptcy filing twenty-six years ago.” Thus there is apprehension in the state house that Connecticut’s own interest rates could be adversely affected were Hartford to default or file for chapter 9—adding that such a filing would thus have fiscal adverse reverberations for the state, but also undermine business complacency about remaining in the city: “It is hard to expect that declaring bankruptcy would help the city retain its current employers or attract new ones. Amazon is unlikely to locate its headquarters in a bankrupt city.” Unsurprisingly, Connecticut legislators may be considering some sort of fiscal evaluation model like Virginia’s as a quasi- oversight and/or restructuring regime for local governments.

Meanwhile Connecticut House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz (D-Berlin) said a proposal to raise the sales and use tax as high as 6.85% has been removed from the Democratic budget proposal after facing strong opposition from moderates in his party, as the Speaker’s draft budget proposal sought to close a two-year $3.5 billion deficit, advising his colleagues: “The Senate was not comfortable with that, so it was our opinion as House Democrats that we would drop that off of our proposal in an effort to come to an agreement that would pass in both chambers.’’ Nevertheless, a proposal to raise the sales tax on restaurant meals to 7% remains under consideration—drawing strong opposition from the Farmington-based Connecticut Restaurant Association, and raising apprehensions from the industry, because it was unclear exactly which meals would be covered by the increased tax—even as restaurants now confront stiffer competition from ready-made meals at supermarkets, raising questions with regard to the definition of food and beverage—something to be resolved, according to officials, by the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services.

The fiscal dilemma has, moreover, not just been between the parties, but also between Gov. Malloy and Democrats, with the Governor opposed to many of the tax hikes they have proposed, albeit late last week he said he would agree to a small sales tax increase. Nevertheless, even as state Democratic leaders were still working on a budget agreement with the Governor, separate, simultaneous talks with Republicans broke down yesterday. While Republicans indicated they would not rule out further negotiations, the breakdown appears to be taxing: Gov. Malloy is still seeking tax increases on hospitals, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, and real estate transactions—leading Republicans to charge that Democrats are unwilling to address major, long-term structural changes which would include spending and bonding caps, along with changing the prevailing wage for labor on municipal projects that unions and many Democrats have strongly opposed for years, or, as House Republican Leader Themis Klarides (R.-Seymour) noted: “It is very clear they have no interest in changing the way the State of Connecticut works…They want to fix it for this week, for next month, for next year. They do not want to fix this problem that has been a spiraling problem…“This might as well be Irma: I have more confidence on where Irma is going than where the state is going, based on the destruction they have left in their wake.’’

Republicans plan to release a revised budget proposal today, among which some of Gov. Malloy’s proposals could be included as part of a budget proposal House Democrats plan to consider Thursday, including an expansion of the state’s bottle bill to include juices, teas, and sports drinks. When consumers fail to return their bottles, the nickel deposit is kept by the state. As a result, the state expects to collect an additional $2.8 million starting on Jan. 1, and then another $7.4 million in the second year of the two-year budget from unclaimed deposits. The legislature appears fiscally anxious as Gov. Malloy’s October 1 deadline approaches—the date on which he is set to invoke large cuts: under his revised executive order, 85 communities would receive no educational cost-sharing funds; 54 towns would receive less money.

Nevertheless, the Governor and legislature are working in fiscal quicksand: Gov. Malloy, a Democrat, has been running the state by executive order since July 1st: he and the legislature remain at odds over a biennial spending plan while the Governor is proposing to raise the conveyance tax on real estate transactions, which he projects would bring in an expected $127 million more to the state over two years. However, the proposal comes as sources late yesterday reported that Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. will today announce that its corporate headquarters is moving from New Haven to Boston as part of a major “restructuring.” The state has provided Alexion with more than $26 million in state assistance to remain in Connecticut, so the announcement is likely to be a double fiscal whammy: not only will the company move, but also it plans to announce significant layoffs, renewing debate with regard to how the state can remain economically competitive. (Alexion had moved to New Haven early last year from Cheshire with a $6 million grant from the state, and a subsidized $20 million loan which will be fully forgiven if Alexion has 650 workers in Connecticut by 2017.) On average, Alexion had 827 employees in the state this year through June 30. Alexion also was offered tax credits, which could be worth as much as $25 million as part of the Malloy administration’s so-called “First Five” program. Alexion had located in a newly constructed 14-story building in downtown New Haven as part of an urban revitalization project intended to tie two sections of the city together—thus Alexion’s move was key to the completion of the first phase of the project. Gov.  Malloy noted: “Hartford looks to be going bankrupt, and that ultimately may be the only way for them to resolve their issues.” In releasing his proposed a $41 billion state budget, the Governor said that if all of the stakeholders in Hartford, including the unions and the bondholders and others come to the table, maybe that can be avoided: “Hartford looks to be going bankrupt, and that ultimately may be the only way for them to resolve their issues.” The Governor added: “There is an issue that Hartford has done some pretty stupid things over the years, and that bondholders and bond rating agencies tolerated that stupidity: And if there’s going to be relief, it has to be comprehensive in nature.” With Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin having, as we previously noted, warned that Hartford would file for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy absent critical support from the state, labor unions, and its bondholders, the Mayor has been pressing for an additional $40 million from the state to avoid bankruptcy—even as the Governor and state legislative leaders claim the state budget provides enough to Hartford—or, in the Governor’s words: “presents the opportunity to help Hartford.” The budget proposal also calls for a four-tiered municipal board to oversee Hartford and other distressed cities. Gov. Malloy, a lame duck, ergo with waning political power, confronts an evenly divided state Senate, and a narrowly divided state House (79-72), so balancing the deck of the fiscal Titanic between revenues and expenditures—and addressing long-term capital and public pension obligations is an exceptional fiscal challenge. The Governor’s budget proposals would also repeal the back-to-school sales tax holiday and increase the cigarette tax by 45 cents to $4.35 per pack, effective the end of next month, as well as increase the conveyance tax on real estate sales.

Leaving Chapter 9 Is Uneasy. Detroit is finding that returning to access traditional capital markets is a challenge: notwithstanding significant downtown economic progress, that progress has been mostly in the increasingly vibrant downtown and Midtown areas. Significant parts of the 139-square mile city continue to struggle with pre-chapter 9 challenges, even as the narrow relief window for the city’s public pension obligations is winnowing, effectively imposing increasing fiscal pressure—especially in the wake of the city’s general fund revenues coming up short for FY2016: Detroit’s four-year fiscal forecast predicts an annual growth rate of approximately 1%. Thus, with its plan of debt adjustment requiring annual set-asides from surpluses of an additional $335 million (between FY16 and FY23) to address those obligations, that has cut into fiscal resources vital to reinvestment and improvement in public services—especially in outlying neighborhoods. Nevertheless, Detroit Future City reports that the annual decline in the city’s population of 672,000 has been slowing. Indeed, job growth has been above the nationwide average since 2010, and that growth appears to be in higher paying jobs of over $40 thousand per year, implying that the job growth is targeted at educated or skilled workers—a key development to encouraging migration to the city—where the 25-34 year-old population has grown by 10 thousand since 2011. Notwithstanding, however, more than 40% of Detroit’s population lives in poverty, nearly triple the statewide rate—and a rate which appears to have some correlation with violent crime. Thus, even though the city has made some progress in reducing overall violent crime, murders have still been rising—albeit at a 2.4% rate. Nevertheless, perceptions matter: a recent Politico-Morning Consult poll reported that 41% of Detroit residents said they consider the city very unsafe. Moreover, in a city where only 78.3% of students graduate high school and just 13.5% of those that reside in Detroit have a bachelor’s degree—half the national rate, the number of families with children has declined by more than 40%. Thus, unsurprisingly, with housing and blight still a problem, the city’s vacancy rate is close to 30%, and some 80,000 met or were expected to soon meet the definition of blight. Worse: some 8,000 properties are scheduled to enter the foreclosure auction process this year.

Leadership–and the Lack thereof: what Might that Mean vis-a-vis Municipal Bankruptcy?

eBlog, 9/19/16

In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the green light the Detroit Financial Review has given to Detroit, before heading east to the capital city of Hartford—a city fighting to avert municipal bankruptcy, and then veering south to Opa-Locka, Florida: a city that seems doomed to go into chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. It seems that severe municipal fiscal distress can arise from human failures—and recovery, as we are experiencing in Detroit—can arise from great leadership. Distress—and municipal insolvency—can arise from great, state-blessed inequity: an issue in Michigan, California, Kansas, Connecticut, etc. Even though the cost of municipal bankruptcy can far outweigh what it would have cost for states to address fiscal disparities—as the recent court decision in Connecticut found: “[T]he state’s current system ‘has left rich school districts to flourish and poor school districts to founder,’ betraying its promise in the State Constitution to give children a ‘fair opportunity for an elementary and secondary school education.’”  

A Major Step Forward. The Detroit Financial Review Commission, created as part of Detroit’s exit from the largest municipal bankruptcy in the nation’s history to oversee the city’s recovery, has declared the city was in substantial compliance with the terms of its plan of debt adjustment—both a measure of the hard work of Mayor Mike Duggan, but also a key step towards the city’s exit from state oversight. The thumbs up came in the wake of certification of an audit of the city’s FY2015 budget; the city faces comparable hurdles over its next two, consecutive fiscal years in order to remove the state yoke under the provisions of the Michigan law adopted two years ago to govern the city’s path out of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. Unsurprisingly, Mayor Duggan described the Good Housekeeping state seal of approval as a “major step forward: The Legislature set up a process that said the city can earn its way out of direct financial oversight, and it has to balance the budgets and pay its bills for three straight years…I couldn’t be more pleased that we have one year down, and we’ve been certified as being fully compliant with the statute.” The Motor City has posted surpluses in recent years on the city’s nearly $1 billion annual budget; the city administration projects a balanced FY2017 budget: the prize: If the city stays within budget, and an audit is certified in 2018, Detroit could end nearly a decade of direct oversight and go into a period when the review commission would be mostly dormant, freeing the city to operate without getting required approval from the review commission on matters including budgets, budget amendments, contracts, and labor agreements.

That does not, however, mean the long road to recovery is easy: Detroit still faces fiscal challenges in the long-term, including a $490-million shortfall in pension funding the city will have to pay in the coming years—a challenge which, if unmet, would retrigger a renewed three-year period of state oversight by the review commission. Nevertheless, State Treasurer Nick Khouri congratulated city officials for getting to this point, calling it a “milestone for the city,” even as Detroit CFO John Hill noted the declaration starts the clock on the city’s path back to local control: “It really does put us on a path to the city having almost full control of its financial operations…”It’s a major milestone and an acknowledgement that we’ve made a lot of progress.”

Staving Off Chapter 9 Municipal Bankruptcy. First-term Hartford, Connecticut Mayor Luke Bonin is scrambling to fix what he terms a “broken system” and keep his city out of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, albeit noting that he is confronted by a broken system that relies 100 percent on property taxes for local revenue—or, as he puts it: “You’ve got a city that just doesn’t have enough property. It’s got less property than the surrounding towns.” His uphill challenge as Mayor of the state’s capital city has garnered the support of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, whose Executive Director, Kevin Maloney, is supporting by seeking a regional approach through his organization: “Work cooperatively with the suburban towns to find where services can be shared and be done regionally, which would not only reduce the cost for the cities, but hopefully would reduce the costs for suburban towns.” The Conference has already created a panel with leaders from larger cities such as the chapter 9-experienced city of Bridgeport, as well as New Haven and Waterbury, as well as suburbs that will meet monthly to discuss this option. For his part, Mayor Bronin notes: “This isn’t about Hartford’s success or failure. This is about Connecticut’s success or failures, the region’s success or failure. You can’t be a suburb of nowhere, you can’t be a region or a growing state if you’ve got a city that’s in crisis.” Nevertheless, the challenge will be great: Hartford confronts nearly a $50 million hole in this year’s budget, which has left city services at a bare minimum, and the city could face another $50 million deficit next year. Or, as the mayor puts it: “You can’t cut your way to growth and you can’t tax your way to growth.” Indeed, it seems that he recognizes the city will be unable to get out of its fiscal debts by itself; consequently, he is pressing for regional tax and revenue measures to help Connecticut’s cities, urging the Connecticut Municipal Finance Advisory Commission: “We do not see a way the city of Hartford can avoid projected deficits on our own without some significant reforms at the state and regional levels.” Absent some fiscal assistance, the Mayor warns the state capital could run out of cash before the end of this year: he projects a nearly $23 million deficit in this fiscal year’s budget, but warns the fiscal chasm could more than double by next year—reaching a level of nearly 20% of total expenses by FY2018. Ergo, he suggests, regionalization could stave off municipal bankruptcy: “We want to do everything to avoid that, because I don’t think it would be good for the state of Connecticut; I don’t think would be good for the region, and I don’t think it would be ideal for the city of Hartford.”

Capital Bankruptcy? Hartford, were it to seek chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, would only be the second state capital in U.S. history to file for municipal bankruptcy—but that earlier effort turned out to be a botched one: the filing, by Pennsylvania’s capital city, Harrisburg, a filing done over the objections of the Mayor, was rejected by the courts as being non-compliant with Pennsylvania’s municipal bankruptcy authority—indeed, five years ago on August 1, 2011, Pennsylvania’s Governor signed into law new legislation that would bar any “City of the Third Class” from filing a chapter 9 petition, specifically referencing Harrisburg. It would also be only the second time a municipality in the state had sought chapter 9 protection: Bridgeport, filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in 1991, but a federal judge rejected the filing, because the city did not meet the U.S. Bankruptcy court’s definition of insolvency. Nevertheless, unlike almost every other chapter 9 filing in U.S. history, the effort in Connecticut is unique, because Mayor Bronin and other Connecticut mayors are seeking to craft a legislative package in the state legislature which would lessen reliance on the property tax, and move towards a Denver or St. Paul-Minneapolis type of regional tax—in no small part because Hartford, not unlike other New England capital cities, has less taxable property than several its surrounding suburban cities. According to Moody’s Investors Service, general fund reserves for the three cities range from 0.3% to 3.7% of fiscal 2015 revenues, well below the 12.9% state median for Moody’s-rated cities. Our respected colleagues at Municipal Market Analytics suggest that Hartford could model its regional recovery approach after what Pittsburgh has accomplished, as we noted in our report on the city—but, as MMA put it: “If its problems are left unaddressed, its fiscal position and attractiveness as a regional business center will reasonably continue to decline.” Nevertheless, the Mayor’s road ahead will be steep: His request earlier this year to Connecticut General Assembly oversight panel failed to gain a response—forcing the City Council to approve what the Mayor had deemed a $553 million “doomsday” budget calling for across-the-board service cuts. Municipal debt service, according to Mayor Bronin, spiked more than 50 percent to $31 million this year: it is projected to soar to $61 million by FY2020-21.

It is not that Mayor Bronin is new to this municipal challenge: even though he is a first-year mayor, he has previous experience as former chief counsel to Gov. Daniel Malloy. Mayor Bronin is seeking increased payments in lieu of taxes, regional revenue sharing, ala the Twin Cities or Denver regional area, as well as widening options for local revenue generation—albeit knowing that in a state where Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas Moukawsher this month ordered the state to make changes in everything from how its schools are financed to which students are eligible to graduate from high school to how teachers are paid and evaluated, holding that “Connecticut is defaulting on its constitutional duty” to give all children an adequate education, Connecticut is a state here inequality appears to be the norm. Judge Moukawsher’s decision, in response to a lawsuit filed more than a decade ago claiming the state had undercut the allocation of school funding to its poorest district, is certain to require to reconsider nearly every aspect of public school financing—or as long-time Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim put it: “This is a game changer…It’s an indictment of the application of the system, and of the system itself.” Inequity seems to be the rule of thumb in the state—a state where state-local collaboration is a tall order. Nonetheless, Connecticut Comptroller Kevin Lembo notes: “The mayor is on the absolute right track in trying to tie their fates together, but it’s not going to happen just because someone asks for it to happen, and the state is never likely to mandate that…You can look at ways to build partnerships. For example, not driving office parks out to the suburbs by giving the suburban communities a piece of the property tax action when they build downtown.” He added that such partnerships could include communities which are losing population, but have “very sophisticated and high-performing school districts” to attract more children from stressed city school districts. Nevertheless, he also noted the state should examine cities’ books and propose sustainable remedies: “Historically the state has always just thrown money at a perceived problem, less so in the suburbs, more so in the cities…We’ve always solved the short-term problem, and then walked on and dealt with something else.” Finally, he noted, the state has “a couple of more cards to play” to benefit Hartford, including the sale of vacant space—an interesting observation—and one that was of key concern to the nearby capital of Providence as it danced on the edge of municipal bankruptcy, even as nearby Central Falls went into chapter 9. As Comptroller Lembo notes: Connecticut has a “ton of property in Hartford and all over the state. Some producing, some of it is sitting there, just empty office buildings,” leading him to ask: “When was the last time somebody calculated the value of that asset? It may be putting more property back on the tax rolls in Hartford.” Moody’s last week deemed Judge Moukawsher’s ruling a credit positive for Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven: “If the court’s ruling holds, we believe funding levels for schools in low-income communities will increase and could occur in two ways: 1) Increased funding could be distributed through a reallocation, where funding is shifted from more affluent municipalities. Or, 2) the state could expand the total pie, increasing spending for some cities while allowing more affluent communities to maintain existing funding levels or receive some increases.”

On the Road to Chapter 9? It seems that municipal bankruptcy can be a product of criminal behavior—certainly a key factor in Detroit’s road to the nation’s largest-ever municipal bankruptcy—or incompetence. It might be that for the small city of Opa-locka, Florida: it is a combination. Now a business owner who worked with the FBI to uncover shakedowns by city officials has, this week, filed suit in federal court claiming he suffered years of what he described as “extortion, coercion, threats and intimidation” which violated his civil rights and right to due process. The owner, Mr. Francisco Zambrana, has laid out details of his efforts to obtain a business license—one which he was never able to gain. In his suit, he describes his version of his encounters with key city officials, including City Commissioner Luis Santiago, and a then-assistant city manager, David Chiverton, claiming each had demanded payoffs for a business license he never received—or, as his complaint cites: “From the onset, Zambrana simply sought to obtain an occupational license…Zambrana would repeatedly tell the city officials and employees who would care to listen that all he wanted to do was work and provide for his family, including teenage son who was battling cancer.” The suit could hardly have arisen at a more awkward moment: the small municipality, under investigation by the state and under the control of a state-appointed financial oversight board, is in the midst of public hearings to develop its FY2017 budget—but unable to pay its current bills. The suit, ergo, can hardly be settled—likely numbering the luckless Mr. Zambrana in a crowd of debtors for some future plan of debt adjustment. In his complaint, Mr. Zambrana described the municipality’s “practice and custom of threatening, intimidating, and extorting individuals” based on national origin to operate a business in the city. The suit adds: “The practice and custom was authorized by policymakers within the city, and it was a widespread practice so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.” In this instance, Mr. Zambrana, finding an unresponsive municipality, leapt two levels to the federal government: he went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and agreed to work with the FBI to uncover the shakedown scheme, an investigation whose findings led to by then City Manager Chiverton to plead guilty to pocketing payoffs. His suit cites the municipality as the sole defendant—likely recognizing the lack of any remote possibility from Mr. Chiverton—and he has requested a jury trial. In the category of fiscal misery loves company, the litigation costs to Opa-Locka’s taxpayers is accruing: the suit follows in the wake of one former City Manager Roy Stephen Shiver filed at the end of last month in U.S. District Court in the wake of receiving permission to so file from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to file a complaint alleging racial discrimination: the suit claims he was defamed by a trumped-up allegation that he accepted a bribe—and that, last November, he was fired without proper cause by city commissioners and the mayor, all of whom are black. Indeed, it was the former city manager who first reported Opa-Locka’s serious financial problems to Gov. Rick Scott just about a year ago—a report which contributed to the state appointment of a state financial oversight board to handle all city expenses, including legal fees. Even as the state ponders action, it will not be alone: the Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an inquiry into some of the city’s bonds, which were issued as its financial condition was severely deteriorating, and the FBI’s investigation is ongoing.