Taking Stock in Stockton!

eBlog

September 7, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the remarkable fiscal success of the implementation of Stockton’s plan of debt adjustment, before crossing over Tropical Storm Florence to the equally stormy demands of the PROMESA Board to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Governor Ricardo Rosselló to make major changes to his fiscal blueprint for the territory’s quasi plan of debt adjustment.

Taking Positive Stock in Stockton. Stockton, California, a now post-chapter 9 municipality, which was founded by Captain Charles Maria Weber in 1849 after his acquisition of Rancho Campo de los Francese, was the first community in California to have a name not of Spanish or Native American origin. The city, with a population just under 350,000, making it the state’s 13th largest, was named an All-America City in 1999, 2004, 2015, and again last year. It is also one of the cities we focused upon as part of our chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy analyses, after, a decade ago, it became the second largest city in the United States to file for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy protection—a petition which was successful when, three years ago last February, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved its plan of debt adjustment. This week, S&P upgraded the city’s credit rating to “positive,” with CFO Matt Paulin noting the upgrade reflected the health and strength of the city’s general fund—after, last summer, the City Council approved the FY2018-19 budget, which anticipates $229.6 million in general fund revenues, versus $220.6 million in expenditures—with S&P, last month, noting its rating action “reflects our view of the city’s sustained strong-to-very strong financial performance, sustained very strong budgetary flexibility, and institutionalized integration of a revised reserve policy into its last three budget cycles.”   S&P analyst Chris Morgan noted: “What we’re seeing is a pretty good record of discipline in terms of spending and having a long-term view…“We’re increasingly confident they’re going to continue to meet their obligations,” adding that, over the last three budget cycles, Stockton has adopted a 20-year plan and built up its reserves. Stockton CFO Matt Paulin described the four-notch upgrade as unusual; he said it marked a reflection of the city’s fiscal discipline and improvement: “It’s really an affirmation of the things we’ve instituted here at the city so we can maintain fiscal sustainability.” The rating here, on some $9.4 million of lease revenue bonds, backed by the city’s general fund, had been originally issued in 1999 to finance a police administration building; they were refunded in 2006.

While the new fiscal upgrade reflects key progress, the city still confronts challenges to return to investment grade status: its economy remains weak, and, according to S&P, the city continues to fester under a significant public pension obligation, so that, as analyst Morgan put it: “How they handle the next recession is the big question.” And that, CFO Paulin, notes, is a challenge in that the city is not yet, fiscally, where it needs to be. nevertheless, he believes the policies it has enacted will get it there, noting: “I think if we continue to sustain what we’re doing, I’m pretty confident we’ll get to that investment grade next time around,” noting that the rating reflected the city’s strong-to very strong financial performance, sustained very strong budget flexibility, and “institutionalized integration of a revised reserve policy into the last three budget cycles,” adding that since the city’s emergence from chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, the city has only issued two refundings. Now a $150 million sewer plant renovation could become the trigger for Stockton’s first post-chapter 9 municipal bonds if it is unable to secure sufficient grant funding from Uncle Sam or the State by next spring.

Mandating Mandate Retention. Without having been signed into law, the Puerto Rico Senate’s proposal to relieve municipios from the mandate to contribute to Puerto Rico’s health reform program has, nevertheless, been countermanded and preempted by the PROMESA Oversight Board after, yesterday, PROMESA Oversight Board Director Natalie Jaresko wrote to Governor Ricardo Rossello Nevares, to Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, and to House Leader Carlos Méndez to warn them that the bill which would exempt municipalities from their contribution to the government’s health plan is “inconsistent” with the unelected Board’s certified fiscal plan. Chair Jaresko wrote: “The Board is willing to amend the Certified Fiscal Plan for the Commonwealth to permit the municipality exemption contemplated by SB 879, provided that the legislation be amended such that the exemption terminates by September 30, 2019,” a deadline imposed by the Board which coincides with the moment when the federal funds to finance Mi Salud (My Health), would expire. The bill establishes that the exemption from payment to municipios would remain until the end of FY2020. In her letter, Director Jaresko also wrote to the officials that to grant the exemption, the government will need to identify the resources which would be devoted to cover the budget provisions to which the municipios would stop contributing. (Since 2006, municipios have been mandated to contribute to Mi Salud, based on the number of participants per municipio—a contribution currently equal to $168 million. The decision appears to be based upon the premise that once the Affordable Care Act ended, the federal government allocated over $2 billion for the payment of the health plan, an allocation apparently intended to cover such expenses for about two years. Thus, at the beginning of the week, Secretary of Public Affairs Ramon Rosario Cortes, said that the “Governor intends to pass any relief that may be possible to municipalities;” albeit he warned that the measure, approved by the Legislature, should be subject to PROMESA Board oversight—especially, as the Governor noted: “At the moment, there has been no discussion with the Board.”

The PROMESA Oversight Board has also demanded major changes to the fiscal plan Gov. Ricardo Rosselló submitted, with the Board requesting seeking more cuts as well as more conservative projections for revenues, making the demands in a seven-page epistle—changes coming, mayhap ironically, because of good gnus: revenues have been demonstrating improvement over projections, and emigration from the island to the mainland appears to be ebbing—or, as Director Jaresko, in her epistle to the Governor, wrote: “The June certified fiscal plan already identified the structural reforms and fiscal measures that are necessary to comply with [the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act], accordingly, the Oversight Board intended this revision to the fiscal plan to incorporate the latest material information and certain technical adjustments, not to renegotiate policy initiatives…Unfortunately, the proposed plan does not reflect all of the latest information for baseline projections and includes several new policies that are inconsistent with PROMESA’s mandate.” Ms. Jaresko, in the letter, returned to two issues of fiscal governance which have been fractious, asserting that the Governor has failed to eliminate the annual Christmas bonus and failed to propose a plan to increase “agency efficiency personnel savings,” charging that Gov. Rosselló had not included the PROMESA Board’s mandated 10 percent cuts to pensions, and that his plan includes an implementation of Social Security which is more expensive than the Board’s approved plan provided.

Director Jaresko also noted that Gov. Rosselló’s plan includes $99 million in investment in items such as public private partnerships and the Puerto Rico Innovation and Technology Services Office, which were contingent on the repeal of a labor law. Since, however, the Puerto Rico Senate has opted not to repeal the statute (Law 80), she stated Gov. Rosselló should not include spending on these items in her proposed fiscal plan, noting that Gov. Rosselló has included $725 million in additional implementation costs associated with the planned government reforms, warning that if he intends to include these provisions, he will have to find offsetting savings. In her epistle, the Director further noted that she believes his plan improperly uses projected FY2019 revenues as a base from which to apply gross national product growth rates to figure out future levels of revenue. Since the current fiscal year will include substantial amounts of recovery-related revenues and these are only temporary, using the current year in this way may over-estimate revenues for the coming years, she admonished. She wrote that Gov. Rosselló assumes a higher than necessary $4.09 billion in baseline payroll expenditures—calling for this item to be reduced—and that the lower total be used to recalculate payroll in the government going forward. Finally, Director Jaresko complained that the Governor’s plan had removed implementation exhibits which included timelines and statements that the government would produce quarterly performance reports, insisting that these must be reintroduced—and giving Gov. Rosselló until noon next Wednesday to comply.

Advertisements

Post Municipal Bankruptcy Election, and How Does a City, County, State, or Territory Balance Schools versus Debt?

June 4, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider tomorrow’s primary in post-chapter 9 municipally bankrupt Stockton, and the harsh challenges of getting schooled in Puerto Rico.

Taking New Stock in Stockton? It was Trick or Treat Day in Stockton, in 2014, when Chris McKenzie, the former Executive Director of the California League of Cities described to us, from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court courtroom, Judge Christopher Klein’s rejection of the claims of the remaining holdout creditor, Franklin Templeton Investments, and approved the City of Stockton’s proposed Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Plan of Adjustment. Judge Klein had, earlier, ruled that the federal chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy law preempted California state law and made the city’s contract with the state’s public retirement system, CalPERS, subject to impairment by the city in the Chapter 9 proceeding. Judge Klein determined that that contract was inextricably tied to Stockton’s collective bargaining agreements with various employee groups. The Judge also had stressed that, because the city’s employees were third party beneficiaries of Stockton’s contract with CalPERS, that, contrary to Franklin’s assertion that CalPERS was the city’s largest creditor; rather it was the city’s employees—employees who had experienced substantial reductions in both salaries and pension benefits—effectively rejecting Franklin’s assertion that the employees’ pensions were given favorable treatment in the Plan of Adjustment. Judge Klein, in his opinion, had detailed all the reductions since 2008 (not just since the filing of the case in 2012) which had collectively ended the prior tradition of paying above market salaries and benefits to Stockton employees. Moreover, his decision included the loss of retiree health care,  reductions in positions, salaries and employer pension contributions, and approval of a new pension plan for new hires—a combination which Judge Klein noted meant that any further reductions, as called for by Franklin, would have made city employees “the real victims” of the proceeding. We had also noted that Judge Klein, citing an earlier disclosure by the city of over $13 million in professional services and other costs, had also commented that the high cost of Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy proceedings should be an object lesson for everyone about why Chapter 9 bankruptcy should not be entered into lightly.

One key to the city’s approved plan of debt adjustment was the provision for a $5.1 million contribution for canceling retiree health benefits; however a second was the plan’s focus on the city’s fiscal future: voter approval to increase the city’s sales and use tax to 9 percent, a level expected to generate about $28 million annually, with the proceeds to be devoted to restoring city services and paying for law enforcement.

Moody’s, in its reading of the potential implications of that decision opined that Judge Klein’s ruling could set up future challenges from California cities burdened by their retiree obligations to CalPERS, with Gregory Lipitz, a vice president and senior credit officer at Moody’s, noting: “Local governments will now have more negotiating leverage with labor unions, who cannot count on pensions as ironclad obligations, even in bankruptcy.” A larger question, however, for city and county leaders across the nation was with regard to the potential implications of Judge Klein’s affirmation of Stockton’s plan to pay its municipal bond investors pennies on the dollar while shielding public pensions.

Currently, the city derives its revenues for its general fund from a business tax, fees for services, its property tax, sales tax, and utility user tax. Stockton’s General Fund reserve policy calls for the City to maintain a 17% operating reserve (approximately two months of expenditures) and establishes additional reserves for known contingencies, unforeseen revenue changes, infrastructure failures, and catastrophic events.  The known contingencies include amounts to address staff recruitment and retention, future CalPERS costs and City facilities. The policy establishes an automatic process to deposit one-time revenue increases and expenditure savings into the reserves.  

So now, four years in the wake of its exit from chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, Republican businessman  and gubernatorial candidate John Cox has delivered one-liners and a vow to take back California in a campaign stop in Stockton before tomorrow’s primary election, asking prospective voters: “Are you ready for a Republican governor in 2018?”

According to the polls, this could be an unexpectedly tight race for the No. 2 spot against former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat. (In the primary, the two top vote recipients will determine which two candidates will face off in the November election.) Currently, Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is ahead. Republicans have the opportunity to “take back the state of California,” however, candidate Cox said to a group of more than 130 men and women at Brookside Country Club—telling his audience that California deserves and needs an honest and efficient government, which has been missing, focusing most of his speech on what he said is California’s issue with corruption and cronyism worse than his former home state of Illinois. He vowed that, if elected, he would end “the sanctuary protections in the state’s cities.”

Seemingly absent from the debate leading up to this election are vital issues to the city’s fiscal future, especially Forbes’s 2012 ranking Stockton as the nation’s “eighth most miserable city,” and because of its steep drop in home values and high unemployment, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau’s ranking of the city as seventh in auto theft—and its ranking in that same year as the tenth most dangerous city in the U.S., and second only to Oakland as the most dangerous city in the state.

President Trump, a week ago last Friday, endorsed candidate Cox, tweeting: “California finally deserves a great Governor, one who understands borders, crime, and lowering taxes. John Cox is the man‒he’ll be the best Governor you’ve ever had. I fully endorse John Cox for Governor and look forward to working with him to Make California Great Again.” He followed that up with a message that California is in trouble and needs a manager, which is why Trump endorsed him, tweeting: “We will truly make California great again.”

Puerto Rico’s Future? Judge Santiago Cordero Osorio of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Superior Court last Friday issued a provisional injunction order for the Department of Education to halt the closure of six schools located in the Arecibo educational region—with his decision coming in response to a May 24th complaint by Xiomara Meléndez León, mother of two students from one of the affected schools, and with support in her efforts by the legal team of the Association of Teachers of Puerto Rico. The cease and desist order applies to all administrative proceedings intended to close schools in the muncipios of Laurentino Estrella Colon, Camuy; Hatillo; Molinari, Quebradillas; Vega Baja; Arecibo; and Lares—with Judge Cordero Osorio writing: “What this court has to determine is that according to the administrative regulations and circular letters of the Department of Education, there is and has been applied a formula that establishes a just line for the closure without passion and without prejudice to those schools that thus understand merit close.”  

With so many leaving Puerto Rico for the mainland, the issue with regard to education becomes both increasingly vital, while at the same time, increasingly hard to finance—but also difficult to ascertain fiscal equity—or as one of the litigants put it to the court: “The plaintiff in this case has clearly established on this day that there is much more than doubt as to whether the Department of Education is in effect applying this line in a fair and impartial manner.” Judge Osorio responded that “this court appreciates the evidence presented so far that the action of the Department of Education regarding the closure of schools borders on arbitrary, capricious, and disrespectful;” he also ruled that the uncertainty he saw in the testimonies of the case had created “irreparable emotional damage worse than the closing of schools,” as he ordered Puerto Rico Education Secretary Julia Keleher to appear before him a week from today at a hearing wherein Secretary Keleher must present evidence of the procedures and arguments that the Department took into consideration for the closures.  

Meléndez León, the mother who appears as a plaintiff in the case, stated she had resorted to this legal path because the Department of Education had never provided her with concrete explanations with regard to why Laurentino Estrella School in Camuy, which her children attend, had been closed—or, as she put it: “The process that the Department of Education used to select closure schools has never been clarified to the parents: we were never notified.” At the time of the closure, the school had 186 students—of which 62 belonged to Puerto Rico’s Special Education program—and another six were enrolled in the Autism Program. Now, she faces what might be an unequal challenge: one mother versus a huge bureaucracy—where the outcome could have far-reaching impacts. The Education Department, after all, last April proposed the consolidation of some 265 schools throughout the island.

Planning Municipal Debt Adjustment

May 21, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we take a fiscal perspective on post-chapter 9 Vallejo, before exploring the seeming good gnus of lower unemployment data from Puerto Rico.

Fiscal Reinvention.  After Vallejo, a waterfront city in Solano County of about 115,000 in California’s Bay Area, filed for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, just over a decade ago, on May 17, 2008, claiming it could no longer afford to pay wages and benefits promised to its employees; it appears its chapter 9 plan of debt adjustment has worked. The municipality, which served twice as California’s capital, was the nation’s largest city to file for municipal bankruptcy when it did—a period during which, in the wake of cuts of as much as 40 percent in its police force, and closure of its fire stations, leading to sharp increases in crime—there were, consequently, serious declines in assessed property values.  The municipality’s cash reserves disappeared; it was unable to pay its bills amid falling property tax revenue, soaring costs of employee compensation and pension liabilities, and a consequent surge in foreclosures. Thus, with its official exit, the city will be able to resume its governance—albeit, as Moody’s moodily explained last month, the city’s plan of debt adjustment will bequeath “significant unfunded and rapidly rising pension obligations,” adding that in addition to higher taxes, the city will be confronted by “challenges associated with deferred maintenance and potential service shortfalls.” Further, the credit rating agency noted, the “probability of continued financial distress and possibly even a return to bankruptcy.” Today, median household income in the city is under $40,000, while average municipal employee compensation is over $114,000. The city currently has 17 police sergeants receiving compensation packages which range from $220,000-$469,000—in addition to generous promised retirement pensions.  

Vallejo Assistant City Manager Craig Whittom last week noted that the city had been left to determine its Chapter 9 bankruptcy end date in the wake of U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael McManus’ approval of the city’s plan of debt adjustment last August—a key component of that plan being the codification of municipal bond repayment obligations to the city’s largest creditor, Union Bank, a plan approved by the Vallejo City Council three weeks ago, with Mr. Whittom noting that Vallejo’s formal chapter 9 exit is important in tangible ways for the city. For instance, he noted the elimination of real estate agents’ requirement to disclose that the city is in bankruptcy when selling properties, albeit conceding that municipal bankruptcy-deferred lawsuits against the city will now be free to go forward.

Nevertheless, leaving municipal bankruptcy is a fiscal challenge of its own—especially in instances where a municipality’s plan of debt adjustment does not take into account public pension obligations. As Ed Mendel of Calpensions explained: “Vallejo received court approval to exit from bankruptcy last week with a plan that includes a sharp increase in pension payments to CalPERS—the opposite of what many expected when the city declared bankruptcy in May 2008,” a resolution which, left the municipality with a proverbial ball and chain around its ankle because, by 2014, the city was confronted by ballooning public pension liabilities, with CNN reporting that Vallejo’s recent public-safety retirees have annual pension benefits which top $100,000 a year, leading Wallet-Hub to describe Vallejo as the “second least recovered city.”  That is, absent the ability to trim benefits for current employees, there are few options to keep pensions from consuming ever-increasing parts of a municipality’s budget.

Nevertheless, the city’s leaders have demonstrated innovative fiscal grit and determination: it has begun reinventing itself, using technology to fill personnel gaps, rallying residents to volunteer to provide public services, and even offering its voters the chance to decide how their taxes will be used—in return for an increase in the sales tax. Now, for the first time in five years, the city expects to have enough money to address potholes, weeds in public rights of way, etc.  

Lessons Learned. Prior to its chapter 9 filing, Vallejo’s salaries for city employees had ballooned: a number of top officials were making $200,000 or $300,000—enough so that some 80 percent of the city’s budget went toward compensation, even as the city’s credit rating was downgraded to junk status—meaning that, as part of the city’s plan of debt adjustment, the municipality paid only five cents for every dollar it owed to its bondholders, while the city also reduced employees’ pay, health care and other benefits—making it harder to attract key employees.  

That meant, as former Councilmember Marti Brown noted, that for Vallejo to fiscally survive, the city needed to study best practices from around the world and bring some of them to California—an effort which, in retrospect, she said turned “out to be a really positive experience for the city.” Together with former Councilmember Stephanie Gomes, the two elected leaders focused on public safety: they went the neighborhood to neighborhood setting up e-mail groups and social media accounts so residents could, for instance, share pictures of suspicious vehicles and other information: the number of neighborhood watch groups jumped nearly 300% from 15 to 350. Moreover, the City Council worked out an unusual compact with residents: in return for agreeing to a one-penny sales tax increase, projected to generate an additional $9.5 million in revenue, the resident gained the right to vote on how the funds would be used: citizen participatory budgeting—the first in a North American city.

This fiscal and governing innovation—or “ground-up restructuring,” as Karol Denniston, a partner with Squire Patton Boggs LLP notes, has meant that, today, Vallejo is “now routinely one of the top 10 cities where people want to live, which is a huge turn-around from when they entered bankruptcy.” The median listing price in Vallejo had soared to $420,000 by last month from $290,000 in May of 2015, according to realtor.com, crediting city leaders for turning around the relationships with its police and fire employees: “It looks like someone was able to improve those relationships: You have to bring the employees and the taxpayers along at the same time to reach a good consensus on financial goals.” Thus, unsurprisingly, last week, Finance Director Ron Millard presented a structurally balanced $105 million budget to the City Council for the fifth consecutive year—proposing reserves of 17.3%, after a strict fiscal diet of austerity measures in the intervening years composed of cutting police and fire services to the bone, tax increases, and economic development measures.

The Challenging Road to Recovery. Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate slipped below 10% last month for the first time in nearly two decades—albeit the change is more a reflection of emigration than economic improvement. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonetheless, Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate was 9.9%, its lowest level since it was 9.8% in November of 2000—a rate nearly 50% lower than the Spring of 2009. The BLS reported that the number of residents with jobs declined 1% last month from April of 2017 according to the Bureau’s Current Employment Statistics, and this showed total non-farm employment declining last month by 3.6% from a year earlier, with private sector non-farm employment down 3.3% from a year earlier—denoting a further sign of the fiscal challenges ahead as the U.S. territory restructures its debt. Of concern is who is leaving, as Advantage Business Consulting President Vicente Feliciano noted that the “unemployment rate is down mainly due to emigration: Thus, there are fewer people employed, but as a result of emigration, fewer people are looking for a job; meanwhile, the Puerto Rico economy is being impacted by the start of [hurricane-related] insurance and federal transfers.” Nevertheless, he reported that the Economic Activity Index in March 2018 was up with respect to February 2018: “Cement sales are up over 20% in March 2018 compared to March 2017. While these transfers are only beginning, they are non-recurrent and therefore should not be the basis for debt renegotiation.” However, Inteligencia Económica Chairman Gustavo Vélez noted: “The [labor force] participation rate remains very low…The information that I have is that the labor market is not normalized yet. Nevertheless, key industries like construction and retail are doing well because of the federal recovery funds already deployed into the local economy ($10 billion since October 2017).” According to the most recent economic activity index release (March), the index was down 2.6% from a year earlier; however, this was a rebound from the 19.7% decline in November 2017 from November 2016.

Who’s on First? Confidential conversations between the PROMESA Board and Gov. Ricardo Rosselló Nevares’s administration continued over the past few days without the certainty to reach a balance between the revenues and expenses the Government will have during the upcoming fiscal year—a year commencing in little over a month, on July 1st. Yet, even with the adjustments made by Governor Rosselló, following some of the Board’s mandates, government expenses are proposed for some $8.73 billion, a level some $200 million higher than the revenue certified by the Board. Nevertheless, neither the Board, nor the Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (FAFAA) have been willing to discuss the preparation of the new budget or the differences, which have been publicly outlined between the parties. For his part, the Governor has refused to accept the revenue scheme certified by the Board to prepare the budget, instead opting to use the numbers contained in the new Fiscal Plan—while the PROMESA Board has objected that pensions adjustments contained in the Fiscal Plan have not been implemented, nor have their proposed labor reforms been listed.

Some parties have indicated that, as part of the process between the parties, Puerto Rico has promised, as required by the PROMESA Board, to eliminate Law 80, a Puerto Rican law which protects workers from unjust dismissals, in exchange for the allocation of some $100 million to municipalities, as well as an increase in funds for the Legislature, the Governor’s Office, and the Federal Affairs Administration. The see-saw issue at a time of steep cuts in Puerto Rican government services and school closures, including limitations in the Government’s Health Plan, has led Gov. Rosselló Nevares’ administration to criticize the seemingly contradictory fiscal situation in which the PROMESA Board has requested nearly a 33% increase from $60 million to $80 million in the amount it receives to finance its operation and bankruptcy lawsuits of the central government and several public agencies, at the same time, as Rafael Hernández Montañez, spokesman of the Popular Democratic Party minority in the House, expressed the Board does not appear to “think the same about the elimination of workers’ rights,” and at the same time the Governor is looking to increase government investment in Puerto Rico’s future.

Can the “City of Fog” Take the Fiscal Bulls by its Horns?

April 25, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we seek to understand the fiscal perspective in Puerto Rice from the municipal perspective, where a group of Mayors from the Popular Democratic Party are seeking to put together collaborative models in order to both achieve fiscal savings, and ensure the provision of essential services. The we jet West out of the rain to sunny San Bernardino, where voters in the post chapter 9 municipality are weighing candidates to lead the city through its plan of debt adjustment.

Taking the Fiscal Bull by the Horns. Cayey, Puerto Rico, is known as “La Ciudad del Torito” (town of the little bull), but also as “La Ciudad de las Brumas,” or the City of Fog. Founded in August of 1773, it is one of our nation’s oldest municipalities: its founder—and first Mayor, was Juan Mata Vázquez. The city’s name is also said to have been derived from the Taino Indian word for “a place of waters.” Located in Puerto Rico’s Central Mountain range, Cavey is surrounded by the Guavate, Jjome, Maton, La Plata, and Grande de Loiza rivers—and the Carite Forest Reserve, which offers more than 6,000 acres of protected parkland. The city is also home to Cayey University College, a branch of the University of Puerto Rico. The surrounding areas produces sugar, tobacco, and poultry—and cigars. Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble have manufacturing facilities in Cayey. But Cayez’s Mayor—or Alcalde, Rolando Ortiz, is his own optimistic bull: it was, after all, just one year ago that he, together with the Mayors of Coamo (Juan Carlos García Padilla) Villalba (Luis Javier Hernández), and Salinas (Karilyn Bonilla) created what is now known as the Services and Permits Alliance, an innovative initiative through which they have managed to generate an increase of $105,000, and have reduced the approval period for municipal permits by 60 percent. Now, Mayor Ortiz reports: “The Fiscal Supervision Board (JSF) has just certified the different fiscal plans of the government agencies and those final determinations make the country in a position of starting, where Puerto Rico has to continue to seek solutions to the problems of Puerto Rican families,” with his remarks coming exactly one year after he met with his colleagues, the Mayors Juan Carlos García Padilla, of Villalba, Mayor Luis Javier Hernández; and Salinas Mayor Karilyn Bonilla, to create what is now known as the Services and Permits Alliance, an initiative through which they have managed to generate an increase of $105,000, and have reduced the approval period for municipal permits by a whopping 60%.

Their municipio coalition, in addition to the savings and efficiency of services, allows this unique coalition to have direct control over the development of infrastructure in their municipalities and protect those areas designated for agricultural use or the development of parks and public recreational areas. In addition, the agreement makes it easier for them to redirect the development to the areas of the urban centers—or, as Mayor Ortiz put it: “Development experts postulate that 70% of the world’s population has to move to live in cities in the coming decades, and cities have to temper that reality and have to organize their territories, their public spaces, in such a way that this mobilization to the urban centers can occur…This organization aims to organize the territory and have control of what is being built and what is developed from the point of view of planning and organization in each of our municipalities.” Mayor Bonillo added: “We have been able to comply with several of the goals we established when we established the service consortium, including that the services would be more accessible to citizens.” She added that the sharing of services would benefit efficiency, explaining that the consortium has a regional office in Cayey and satellite spaces in the remaining three towns—with a shared workforce of 15 employees—along with a technical staff of engineers, lawyers, planners, and inspectors to collaborate with the four City Councils. Or, as the Mayor put it: “He has given us a tool to all municipalities in the process of monitoring the construction taxes of all the permits that are located in each of our towns,” with a focus on four key objectives: accessibility, maximization of resources streamline the permit process and achieve new revenues. Indeed, it appears the model has been so effective that these municipal executives are already focused on the possibility of integrating the areas of Human Resources, Finance, and the Center for Municipal Revenue Collection, an integration that they hope to have completed in six months. Or, as Mayor Hernández explained: “What started as an alliance of permits…now takes another direction, an extension…today this success story is celebrated, but it is the beginning of many other alliances…the design of a platform that has been successful and that can serve as a model for other municipalities.”

Is There Mayoral Promise from PROMESA? The ambitions of the troika of Mayors comes in the wake of, last week, the PROMESA Board’s approval of a number of fiscal plans to be imposed upon Puerto Rico in efforts to address growth, revenue, expenditure, debt, and government reform—plans which some describe as mayhap “overly (and maybe recklessly) optimistic.” Our colleagues at Municipal Market Analytics, for instance, write that “while it is possible that, as the plan supposes, Hurricane Maria and subsequent aid-fueled rebuilding will leave the Puerto Rico economy stronger and larger than if there had been no storm, this should not be a baseline assumption. We note the island economy’s contraction despite decades of annual billion-dollar stimulus injections via deficit borrowing by Puerto Rico’s public entities. Further, with Maria highlighting the island’s increasing vulnerability to weather-related damage and climate change, MMA expects a material long-term reduction in corporations’ interest in locating facilities in Puerto Rico and a related drag on employment, all else being equal.” Writing that the PROMESA Board’s plans provide little margin for error, MMA worries of a potential slide back into bankruptcy. MMA also noted, as have we, that with so many fiscal cooks in the kitchen, and the Governor having already announced his dedicated opposition to any cuts in pensions or labor reforms, there appears little evidence of an overall change in Puerto Rico’s hunger for hard fiscal steps, such as would be required in a plan of debt adjustment.

A Taxing Imbalance. Perhaps demonstrative of the fiscal challenges of multiple cooks in the kitchen, Governor Ricardo Rosselló’s promised reduction of Puerto Rico’s Sales and Use Tax (IVU) in restaurants now appears to hang in the balance, because, according to the PROMESA plan, his government will be mandated to submit to the PROMESA Board quarterly reports on its budget to determine if the tax changes will remain or will be revoked: the Board’s conditions for approving any proposed tax reform join the list of demands that the Board had imposed on Puerto Rico last week: according to the plan, the tax reform must be revenue “neutral,” that is, it must be most unlike the federal tax reform passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump. Moreover, under the plan, Puerto Rico will be mandated to carry out an annual so-called “fiscal responsibility test,” and submit an annual report which will be the reference to determine if any tax reduction may continue. According to the proposed fiscal plan, in the first two years of its implementation, incentives and subsidies granted through 17 laws will be eliminated or modified: for example, incentives to the film industry, reimbursements for the rum tax, credits, and incentives tied to affordable housing, the elderly, and the renewal of urban centers will be modified—with the Board plan claiming such changes would result in net savings of $123 million—or less than half the savings target announced by the government. Puerto Rico’s House plans to commence its public hearing process on tax reform next Wednesday.

A Sunny Post Chapter 9 Municipal Future? In San Bernardino, California, six Mayoral candidates on Tuesday offered their qualifications for the position, their plans to improve transparency and participation at City Hall and their vision for downtown before a number of citizens—but also an online audience: Mayor Carey Davis, Councilman John Valdivia, City Clerk Gigi Hanna, businesswoman Karmel Roe, general engineering contractor Rick Avila, and San Bernardino school board member Danny Tillman spoke about the city’s future, with Ms. Roe describing the post-chapter 9 municipality as “one big fix and flip,” describing the city as one which has the resources, money, and energy to cure its ails. Mr. Avila said he would run the city like a business and leave politics out of City Hall; while school board member Tillman explained his plan to increase outside investment by making San Bernardino safer and more visually appealing. Ms. Hanna, who has been twice elected to her current position, stated: “People know me, and people trust me…I have one of the largest Rolodexes in town, and I’m not afraid to use it.” Interestingly, the two veterans of the city’s long ordeal into and out of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, Mayor Davis and Councilmember Valdivia kept their distance while sharing their respective accomplishments as city leaders, with Mayor Davis touting his leadership in guiding the city through chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, implementing a new city charter, hiring reputable city officials, and reducing crime—or, as he sought to frame his candidacy: “I’m a proven leader who delivers results.” Each candidate endorsed more participation in local government. Ms. Roe, a regular at City Council meetings, said she would be a “servant leader,” adding: “We cannot build this city divided.” Mr. Avila and Clerk Hanna noted San Bernardino’s negative reputation among prospective business owners, while School Board Member Tillman said the $30 million surplus Mayor Davis mentioned was not a surplus, but rather “money we haven’t spent on things we need.” Their presentations come as voters head to the primary election on Tuesday, June 5th, to select leaders for the city’s post plan of debt adjustment future.

 

April 3, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the challenges of governance in insolvency. Who is in charge of steering a municipality, county, or U.S. territory out of insolvency? How? How do we understand and assess the status of the ongoing quasi chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy PROMESA deliberations in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. Then we head north to assess the difficult fiscal balancing challenges in Connecticut.

Governance in Insolvency.  Because, in our country, it was the states which created the federal government, making the U.S. unique in the world; chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy is only, in this country, an option in states which have enacted state legislation to authorize municipal bankruptcy. Thus, unsurprisingly, the process is quite different in the minority of states which have authorized municipal bankruptcy. In some states, such as Rhode Island and Michigan, for instance, the Governor has a vital role in which she or he is granted authority to name an emergency manager–a quasi-dictator to assume governmental and fiscal authority, usurping that of the respective city or county’s elected officials. That is what happened in the cases of Detroit and Central Falls, Rhode Island, where, in each instance, all authority was stripped from the respective Mayors and Councils pending a U.S. Bankruptcy Court’s approval of respective plans of debt adjustment, allowing the respective jurisdictions to emerge from municipal bankruptcy. Thus, in the case of those two municipalities, the state law preempted the governing authority of the respective Mayors and Councils.

That was not the case, however, in Jefferson County, Alabama–a municipal bankruptcy precipitated by the state’s refusal to allow the County to raise its own taxes. Nor was it the case in the instances of Stockton or San Bernardino, California: two chapter 9 cases where the State of California played virtually no role. 

Thus, the question with regard to governance in the event of a default or municipal bankruptcy is a product of our country’s unique form of federalism.

In the case of Puerto Rico, the U.S. territory created under the Jones-Shafroth Act, however, the issue falls under Rod Sterling’s Twilight Zone–as Puerto Rico is neither a municipality, nor a state: a legal status which has perplexed Congress, and now appears to plague the author of the PROMESA law, House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-Utah) with regard to who, exactly, has governing or governance authority in Puerto Rico during its quasi-chapter 9 bankruptcy process: is it Puerto Rico’s elected Governor and legislature? Is it the PROMESA Board imposed by the U.S. Congress? Is it U.S. Judge Laura Swain, presiding over the quasi-chapter 9 bankruptcy trial in New York City? 

Chairman Bishop has defended the PROMESA’s Board’s authority to preempt the Governor and Legislature’s ruling and governance authority, stressing that the federal statute gave the Board the power to promote “structural reforms” and fiscal authority, writing to Board Chair Jose Carrion: “It has been delegated a statutory duty to order any reforms–fiscal or structural–to the government of Puerto Rico to ensure compliance with the purpose of PROMESA, as he demanded the federally named Board use its power to make a transparent assessment of the economic impact of Hurricanes Irma and Maria on Puerto Rico’s fiscal conditions–and to ensure that the relative legal priorities and liens of Puerto Rico’s public debt are respected–leaving murky whether he intended that to mean municipal bonholders and other lien holders living far away from Puerto Rico ought to have a priority over U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico still trying to recover from violent hurricanes which received far less in federal response aid than the City of Houston–even appearing to link his demands for reforms to the continuity of that more limited federal storm recovery assistance to compliance with his insistence that there be greater “accountability, goodwill, and cooperation from the government of Puerto Rico…” Indeed, it seems ironic that a key Chairman of the U.S. Congress, which has voted to create the greatest national debt in the history of the United States, would insist upon a quite different standard of accountability for Puerto Rico than for his own colleagues.

It seems that the federal appeals court, which may soon consider an appeal of Judge Swain’s opinion with regard to Puerto Rico’s Highway and Transportation Authority not to be mandated to make payments on its special revenue debt during said authority’s own insolvency, could help Puerto Rico: a positive decision would give Puerto Rico access to special revenues during the pendency of its proceedings in the quasi-chapter 9 case before Judge Swain.

Stabilizing the Ship of State. Farther north in Connecticut, progressive Democrats at the end of last week pressed in the General Assembly against Connecticut’s new fiscal stability panel, charging its recommendations shortchange key priorities, such as poorer municipalities, education and social services—even as the leaders of the Commission on Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth conceded they were limited by severe time constraints. Nevertheless, Co-Chairs Robert Patricelli and Jim Smith asserted the best way to invest in all of these priorities would be to end the cycle of state budget deficits and jump-start a lagging state economy. The co-chairs aired their perspectives at a marathon public hearing in the Hall of the House, answering questions from members of four legislative committees: Appropriations; Commerce; Finance, Revenue and Bonding; and Planning and Development—where Rep. Robyn Porter (D-New Haven) charged: “I’m only seeing sacrifice from the same people over and over again,” stating she was increasingly concerned about growing income inequality, asking: “When do we strike a balance?” Indeed, New York and Connecticut, with the wealthiest 1 percent of households in those states earning more than 40 times the average annual income of the bottom 99 percent, demonstrate the governance and fiscal challenge of that trend. In its report, the 14-member Commission made a wide array of recommendations centered on a major redistribution of state taxes—primarily reducing income tax rates across the board, while boosting the sales and corporation levies. Ironically, however, because the wealthy pay the majority of state income taxes, the proposed changes would disproportionately accrue to the benefit of the state’s highest income residents—in effect mirroring the federal tax reform, leading Rep. Porter to question why the Commission made such recommendations, including another to do away immediately with the estate tax on estates valued at more than $2 million, but gradually phase in an increase to the minimum wage over the next four years.  From a municipal perspective, Rep. James Albis (D-East Haven), cited a 2014 state tax incidence report showing that Connecticut’s heavy reliance on property taxes to fund municipal government “is incredibly regressive,” noting it has the effect of shifting a huge burden onto lower-middle- and low-income households—even as the report found that households earning less than $48,000 per year effectively pay nearly one-quarter of their annual income to cover state and local taxes. Rep. Brandon McGee (D-Hartford), the Vice Chair of the legislature’s Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, said the Committee’s recommendations lack bold ideas on how to revitalize Connecticut’s poor urban centers—with his concerns mirrored by Rep. Toni E. Walker (D-New Haven), Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, who warned she fears a commission proposal to cut $1 billion from the state’s nearly $20 billion annual operating budget would inevitably reduce municipal aid, especially to the state’s cities. Co-Chair Patricelli appeared to concur, noting: “Candidly, I would agree we came up a little short on the cities,” adding that the high property tax rates in Hartford and other urban centers hinder economic growth: “They really are fighting with one or more hands tied behind their backs.”

The ongoing discussion comes amidst the state’s fiscal commitment to assume responsibility to pay for Hartford’s general obligation debt service payments, more than $50 million annually—a fiscal commitment which understandably is creating equity questions for other municipalities in the state confronted by fiscal challenges. Like a teeter-totter, balancing fiscal needs in a state where the state itself has a ways to go to balance its own budget creates a test of fiscal and moral courage.

Post Municipal Bankruptcy Leadership

08/07/17

Share on Twitter

eBlog

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s blog, we consider the fiscal challenge as election season is upon the Motor City: what kind of a race can we expect? Then we observe the changing of the guard in San Bernardino—as the city’s first post-chapter 9 City Manager settles in as she assumes a critical fiscal leadership role in the city emerging from municipal bankruptcy. Third, we consider the changing of the fiscal guard in Atlantic City, as outgoing (not a pun) Gov. Chris Christie begins the process of restoring municipal authority. Then we turn to what might be a fiscal turnaround underway in Puerto Rico, before, fourth, considering the special fiscal challenge to Puerto Rico’s municipios—or municipalities.

Post Municipal Bankruptcy Leadership. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, the city’s first post-chapter 9 mayor, has been sharing his goals for a second term, and speaking about some of his city’s proudest moments as he seeks a high turnout at tomorrow’s primary election mayoral primary election‒the first since the city exited municipal bankruptcy three years ago, noting he is: “very proud of the fact the unemployment rate in Detroit is the lowest it has been in 17 years: today he notes there are 20,000 more Detroiters working than 4 years ago. In January 2014, there were 40,000 vacant houses in the city, and today 25,000. We knocked down 12,000 and 3,000 had families who moved in and fixed them up,” adding: “For most Detroiters, that means the streetlights are on, grass is cut in the parks, busses are running on time, police and ambulances showing up in a timely basis and trash picked up and streets swept.” Notwithstanding those accomplishments, however, he confronts seven contenders—with perhaps the signal challenge coming from Michigan State Senator Coleman Young, Jr., whose father, Coleman Young, served as Detroit’s first African-American Mayor from 1974 to 1994. Mr. Young claims he is the voice for the people who have been forgotten in Detroit’s neighborhoods, noting: “I want to put people to work and reduce poverty of 48% in Detroit. I think that’s atrocious. I also want mass transit that goes more than 3 miles,” adding he is seeking ‘real change,’ charging that today in Detroit: “We’re doing more for the people who left the city of Detroit, than the people who stayed. That’s going to stop in a Young administration.” Remembering his father, he adds: “I don’t think there will ever be another Coleman Young, but I am the closest thing to him that’s on this planet that’s living.” (Other candidates in tomorrow’s non-partisan primary include Articia Bomer, Dean Edward, Curtis Greene, Donna Marie Pitts, and Danetta Simpson.)  

According to an analysis by the Detroit News, voters will have some interesting alternatives: half of the eight candidates have been convicted of felony crimes involving drugs, assault, or weapons—with three charged with gun crimes and two for assault with intent to commit murder, albeit, some of the offenses date back as far as 1977. (Under Michigan election law, convicted felons can vote and run for office, just as long as they are neither incarcerated nor guilty of crimes breaching public trust.

Taking the Reins.  San Bernardino has named its first post-chapter 9 bankruptcy city manager, selecting assistant City Manager and former interim city manager, Andrea Miller, to the position—albeit with some questions with regard to the $253,080 salary in a post-chapter 9 recovering municipality where the average household income is less than $36,000 and where officials assert the city’s budget is insufficient to fully address basic public services, such as street maintenance or a fully funded police department. Nevertheless, Mayor Cary Davis and the City Council voted unanimously, commenting on Ms. Miller’s experience, vision, and commitment to stay long-term, or, as Councilman Fred Shorett told his colleagues: “As the senior councilmember—I’ve been sitting in this dais longer than anybody else—I think we’ve had, if we count you twice, eight city managers in a total of 9 years: We have not had continuity.”  However, apprehension about continuity as the city addresses and implements its plan of debt adjustment remains—or, as Councilmember John Valdivia insisted, there needs to be a “solemn commitment to the people of San Bernardino” by Ms. Miller to serve at least five years, as he told his colleagues: “During Mayor (Carey) Davis’ four years in office, the Council is now voting on the third city manager: San Bernardino cannot expect a successful recovery with this type of rampant leadership turnover at City Hall…Ms. Miller is certainly qualified, but I am concerned that she has already deserted our community once before.” Ms. Miller was the city’s assistant city manager in 2012, when then-City Manager Charles McNeely abruptly resigned, leaving Ms. Miller as interim city manager to discover that the city would have to file for chapter 9 bankruptcy—a responsibility she addressed with aplomb: she led San Bernardino through the first six months of its municipal bankruptcy, before leaving without removing “interim” from her title, instead assuming the position of executive director of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments.

Ms. Miller noted: “I would remind the Council that I was here as your interim city manager previously, and I did not accept the permanent appointment, because I felt like I could not make that commitment given some of the dynamics…(Since then) this Council and this community have implemented a new city charter, the Council came together in a really remarkable way and had a discussion with me that we had not been able to have previously: You committed to some regular discussion about what your expectations are, you committed to strategic planning. And so, with all those things and a strategic plan that involves all of us in a stronger, better San Bernardino, yes I can make that commitment.” Interestingly, the new contract mandates at least two strategic planning sessions per year—and, she told the Council additional sessions would probably be wise. The contract the city’s new manager signed is longer than the city’s most recent ones—mayhap leavened by experience: the length and the pay are higher than the $248,076 per year the previous manager received. Although Ms. Miller is not a San Bernardino resident, she told the Mayor and Council she is committed to the city and said the city should strive to recruit other employees who do live in the city.

Not Gaming Atlantic City’s Future. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s administration last week announced it had settled all the remaining tax appeals filed by Atlantic City casinos, ending a remarkable fiscal drain which has contributed to the city’s fiscal woes and state takeover. Indeed, it appears to—through removal of fiscal uncertainty and risk‒open the door to the Mayor and Council to reduce its tax rate over the long-term as the costs of the appeal are known and able to be paid out of the bonds sold earlier this year—effectively spinning the dial towards greater fiscal stability and sustainability. Here, the agreements were reached with: Bally’s, Caesars, Harrah’s, the Golden Nugget, Tropicana, and the shuttered Trump Plaza and Trump Taj Mahal: it comes about half a year in the wake of the state’s tax appeal settlement with Borgata, under which the city agreed to pay $72 million of the $165 million the casino was owed. While the Christie administration did not announce dollar amounts for any of the seven settlements announced last week, it did clarify that an $80 million bond ordinance adopted by the city will cover all the payments—effectively clearing the fiscal path for Atlantic City to act to reduce its tax rate over the long term as the costs of the appeal are known and can be paid out of the municipal bonds sold earlier this year.  

In these tax appeals, the property owners have claimed they paid more in taxes than they should have—effectively burdening the fiscally besieged municipality with hundreds of millions in debt over the last few years as officials sought to avoid going into chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. Unsurprisingly, Gov. Christie has credited the state takeover of Atlantic City for fostering the settlements, asserting his actions were the “the culmination of my administration’s successful efforts to address one of the most significant and vexing challenges that had been facing the city…Because of the agreements announced today, casino property tax appeals no longer threaten the city’s financial future.” The Governor went on to add that his appointment of Jeffrey Chiesa, the former U.S. Senator and New Jersey Attorney General to usurp all municipal fiscal authority in Atlantic City when, in his words, Atlantic City was “overwhelmed by millions of dollars of crushing casino tax appeal debt that they hadn’t unraveled,” have now, in the wake of the state takeover, resulted in the city having a “plan in place to finance this debt that responsibly fits within its budget.” The lame duck Governor added in the wake of the state takeover, the city will see an 11.4% drop in residents’ overall 2017 property tax rate. For his part, Atlantic City Mayor Don Guardian described the fiscal turnaround as “more good news for Atlantic City taxpayers that we have been working towards since 2014: When everyone finally works together for the best interest of Atlantic City’s taxpayers and residents, great things can happen.”

Puerto Rican Debt. The Fiscal Supervision Board in the U.S. territory wants to initiate a discussion into Puerto Rico’s debt—and how that debt has weighed on the island’s fiscal crisis—making clear in issuing a statement that its investigation will include an analysis of the fiscal crisis and its taxpayers, and a review of Puerto Rico’s debt and issuance, including disclosure and sales practices, vowing to carry out its investigation consistent with the authority granted under PROMESA. It is unclear, however, how that report will mesh with the provision of PROMESA, §411, which already provides for such an investigation, directing the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to provide a report on the debt of Puerto Rico no later than one year after the approval of PROMESA (a deadline already passed: GAO notes the report is expected by the end of this year.). The fiscal kerfuffle comes as the PROMESA Oversight Board meets today to discuss—and mayhap render a decision with regard to furloughs and an elimination of the Christmas bonus as part of a fiscal oversight effort to address an expected cash shortfall this Fall, after Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, at the end of last month, vowed he would go to court to block any efforts by the PROMESA Board to force furloughs, apprehensive such an action would fiscally backfire by causing a half a billion dollar contraction in Puerto Rico’s economy.

Thus, we might be at an OK Corral showdown: PROMESA Board Chair José Carrión III has warned that if the Board were to mandate furloughs and the governor were to object, the board would sue. As proposed by the PROMESA Board, Puerto Rican government workers are to be furloughed four days a month, unless they work in an excepted class of employees: for instance, teachers and frontline personnel who worked for 24-hour staffed institutions would only be furloughed two days a month, law enforcement personnel not at all—all part of the Board’s fiscal blueprint to save the government $35 million to $40 million monthly.  However, as the ever insightful Municipal Market Advisors managing partner Matt Fabian warns, it appears “inevitable” that furloughs and layoffs would hurt the economy in the medium term—or, as he wrote: “To the extent employee reductions create a protest environment on the island, it may make the Board’s work more difficult going forward, but this is the challenge of downsizing an over-large, mismanaged government.” At the same time, Joseph Rosenblum, the Director of municipal credit research at AllianceBernstein, added: “It would be easier to comment about the situation in Puerto Rico if potential investors had more details on their cash position on a regular basis…And it would also be helpful if the Oversight Board was more transparent about how it arrived at its spending estimates in the fiscal plan.”

Pensiones. The PROMESA Board and Puerto Rico’s muncipios appear to have achieved some progress on the public pension front: PROMESA Board member Andrew Biggs asserts that the fiscal plan called for 10% cuts to pension spending in future fiscal years, while Sobrino Vega said Gov. Ricardo Rosselló has promised to make full pension payments. Natalie Ann Jaresko, the former Ukraine Minister of Finance whom former President Obama appointed to serve as Executive Director of PROMESA Fiscal Control Board, described the reduction as part of the fiscal plan that the Governor had promised to observe: the fiscal plan assumed that the Puerto Rican government would cut $880 million in spending in the current fiscal year. Indeed, in the wake of analyzing the government’s implementation plans, the PROMESA Board appeared comfortable that the cuts would save $662 million—with the Board ordering furloughs to make up the remaining $218 million. The fiscal action came as PROMESA Board member Carlos García said that the board last Spring presented the 10 year fiscal plan guiding government actions with certain conditions, Gov. Rosselló agreed to them, so that the Board approved the plan with said conditions, providing that the government achieve a certain level of liquidity by the end of June and submit valid implementation plans for spending cuts. Indeed, Puerto Rico had $1.8 billion in liquidity at the end of June, well over the $291 million that had been projected, albeit PROMESA Board member Ana Matosantos asserted the $1.8 billion denoted just a single data point. Ms. Jaresko, however, advised that this year’s government cuts were just the beginning: the Board fiscal plan calls for the budget cuts to more than double from $880 million in this year, to $1.7 billion in FY 2019, to $2.1 billion in FY2020.  No Puerto Rican government representative was allowed to make a presentation to the board on the issue of furloughs.

Not surprisingly, in Puerto Rico, where the unemployment rate is nearly triple the current U.S. rate, the issue of furloughs has raised governance issues: Sobrino Vega, the Governor’s chief economic advisor non-voting representative on the PROMESA Oversight Board, said there was only one government of Puerto Rico and that was Gov. Rosselló’s, adding that under §205 of PROMESA, the board only had the powers to recommend on issues such as furloughs, noting: “We can’t take lightly the impact of the furloughs on the economy,” adding the government will meet its fiscal goals, but it will do it according its own choices, but that the Puerto Rican government will cooperate with the Board on other matters besides furloughs. His statement came in the wake of PROMESA Board Chair José Carrión III’s statement in June that if Puerto Rico did not comply with a board order for furloughs, the Board would sue.

Cambio?  Puerto Rico Commonwealth Treasury Secretary Raul Maldonado has reported that Puerto Rico’s tax revenue collections last month were was ahead of projections, marking a positive start to the new fiscal year for an island struggling with municipal bankruptcy and a 45% poverty rate. Secretary Maldonado reported the positive cambio (in Spanish, “cambio” translates to change—and may be used both to describe cash as well as change, just as in English.): “I think we are going to be $20 to $30 million over the forecast: For July, we started the fiscal year already in positive territory, because we are over the forecast. We have to close the books on the final adjustment but we feel we are over the budget.” His office had reported the revenue collection forecast for July, the start of Puerto Rico’s 2017-2018 fiscal year, was $600.8 million: in the previous fiscal year, Puerto Rico’s tax collections exceeded forecasts by $234.9 million, or 2.6%, to $9.33 million, with the key drivers coming from the foreign corporations excise tax, the sales and use tax, and the motor vehicle excise tax. Sec. Maldonado, who is also Puerto Rico’s CFO, reported that each government department is required to freeze its spending and purchase orders at 95% of the monthly budget, noting: “I want to make sure that they don’t overspend. By freezing 5%, I am creating a cushion so if there is any variance on a monthly basis we can address that. It is a hardline budget approach but it is a special time here.” Sec. Maldonado also said he was launching a centralized tax collection pilot program, with guidance from the U.S. Treasury—one under which three large and three small municipalities have enrolled in an effort to assess which might best increase tax collection efficiency while cutting bureaucracy in Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities, noting: “We are going to submit the tax reform during August, and we will include that option as an alternative to the municipalities.”

Trying to Recover on all Pistons

07/19/17

Share on Twitter

iBlog

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we look back at the steep road out of the nation’s largest ever municipal bankruptcy—in Detroit, where the Chicago Federal Reserve and former U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Bennett, who presided over Jefferson County’s chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy case, has noted: “[S]tates can have precipitating roles as well as preventative roles” in work he did for the Chicago Federal Reserve. Indeed, it seems the Great Recession demarcated the nation’s states into distinct fiscal categories: those with state oversight programs which either protected against or offered fiscal support to assist troubled municipalities, versus those, such as Alabama or California—with the former appearing to aid and abet Jefferson County’s descent into chapter 9 bankruptcy, and California, home to the largest number of chapter 9 bankruptcies over the last two decades, contributing to fiscal distress, but avoiding any acceptance of risk. Therefore, we try to provide our own fiscal autopsy of Detroit’s journey into and out of the nation’s largest municipal bankruptcy.

I met in the Governor’s Detroit offices with Kevyn Orr, whom Governor Rick Snyder had asked to come out from Washington, D.C. to serve as the city’s Emergency Manager to take the city into—and out of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy: the largest in American history. Having been told by the hotel staff that it was unsafe to walk the few blocks from my hotel to the Governor’s Detroit offices on the city’s very first day in insolvency—a day in which the city was spending 38 cents on every dollar of taxes collected from residents and businesses on legacy costs and operating debt payments totaling $18 billion; it was clear from the get go, as he told me that early morning, there was no choice other than chapter 9: it was an essential, urgent step in order to ensure the provision of essential services, including street and traffic lights, emergency first responders, and basic maintenance of the Motor City’s crumbling infrastructure—especially given the grim statistics, with police response times averaging 58 minutes across the city, fewer than a third of the city’s ambulances in service, 40% of the city’s 88,000 traffic lights not working, “primarily due to disrepair and neglect.” It was, as my walk made clear, a city aptly described as: “[I]nfested with urban blight, which depresses property values, provides a fertile breeding ground for crime and tinder for fires…and compels the city to devote precious resources to demolition.” Of course, not just physical blight and distress, but also fiscal distress: the Motor City’s unbalanced fiscal condition was foundering under its failure to make some $108 million in pension payments—payments which, under the Michigan constitution, because they are contracts, were constitutionally binding. Nevertheless, in one of his early steps to staunch the fiscal bleeding, Mr. Orr halted a $39.7 million payment on $1.4 billion in pension debt issued by former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s administration to make the city pension funds appear better funded than they really were; thus, Mr. Orr’s stop payment was essential to avoid immediate cash insolvency at a moment in time when Detroit’s cash position was in deepening debt. Thus, in his filing, Mr. Orr aptly described the city’s dire position and the urgency of swift action thusly: “Without this, the city’s death spiral I describe herein will continue.”

Today, the equivalent of a Presidential term later, the city has installed 65,000 new streetlights; it has cut police and emergency responder response times to 25% of what they were; it has razed 11,847 blighted buildings. Indeed, ambulance response times in Detroit today are half of what they were—and close to the national average—even as the city’s unrestricted general fund finished FY2016 fiscal year with a $143 million surplus, 200% of the prior fiscal year: as of March 31st, Detroit sported a general fund surplus of $51 million, with $52.8 million more cash on hand than March of last year, according to the Detroit Financial Review Commission—with the surplus now dedicated to setting aside an additional $20 million into a trust fund for a pension “funding cliff” the city has anticipated in its plan of debt adjustment by 2024.  

Trying to Run on all Pistons. The Detroit City Council has voted 7-1 to approve a resolution to allow the Motor City to realize millions of dollars in income tax revenues from its National Basketball Association Pistons players, employees, and visiting NBA players—with such revenues dedicated to finance neighborhood improvements across the Motor City, under a Neighborhood Improvement Fund—a fund proposed in June by Councilwoman (and ordained Minister) Mary Sheffield, with the proposal coming a week after the City Council agreed to issue some $34.5 million in municipal bonds to finance modifications to the Little Caesars Arena—where the Pistons are scheduled to play next season. Councilwoman Sheffield advised her colleagues the fund would also enable the city to focus on blight removal, home repairs for seniors, educational opportunities for young people, and affordable housing development in neighborhoods outside of downtown and Midtown—or, as she put it: “This sets the framework; it expresses what the fund should be used for; and it ultimately gives Council the ability to propose projects.” She further noted the Council could, subsequently, impose additional limitations with regard to the use of the funds—noting she had come up with the proposal in response to complaints from Detroit constituents who had complained the city’s recovery efforts had left them out—stating: “It’s not going to solve all of the problems, and it’s not going to please everyone, but I do believe it’s a step in the right direction to make sure these catalyst projects have some type of tangible benefits for residents.”

Detroit officials estimate the new ordinance will help generate a projected $1.3 million annually. In addition, city leaders hope to find other sources to add to the fund—sources the Councilmember reports, which will be both public and private: “We as a council are going to look at other development projects and sources that could go into the fund too.” As adopted, the resolution provides: “[I]t is imperative that the neighborhoods, and all other areas of the City, benefit from the Detroit Pistons’ return downtown …In turn, the City will receive income tax revenue, from the multimillion dollar salaries of the NBA players as well as other Pistons employees and Palace Sports & Entertainment employees.” The Council has forwarded the adopted proposals to Mayor Duggan’s office for final consideration and action. The proposed new revenues—unless the tax is modified or rejected by the Mayor—would be dedicated for use in the city’s Neighborhood Improvement Fund in FY2018—with decisions with regard to how to allocate the funds—by Council District or citywide—to be determined at a later date. The funds, however, could also be used to address one of the lingering challenges from the city’s adopted plan of debt adjustment from its chapter 9 bankruptcy: meeting its public pension obligations when general fund revenues are insufficient, “should there be any unforeseen shortfall,” as the resolution provides.

This fiscal recovery, however, remains an ongoing challenge: Detroit CFO John Hill laid up the proverbial hook shot up by advising the Council that the reason the city reserved the right to use the Pistons tax revenue to cover pension or debt obligation shortfalls was because of the large pension obligation payment the city will confront in 2024: “We knew that in meeting our pensions and debt obligation in 2024 and 2025 that those funds get very tight: If this kind of valve wasn’t there, I would have a lot of concerns that in those years its tighter and we don’t get revenues we expect we don’t get any of those funds to meet those obligations.”

But, as in basketball, there is another side: at the beginning of the week, the NBA, Palace Sports & Entertainment, and Olympia Entertainment were added to a federal lawsuit—a suit filed in late June by community activist Robert Davis and Detroit city clerk candidate D. Etta Wilcox against the Detroit Public Schools Community District. The suit seeks to force a vote on the $34.5 million public funding portion of the Pistons’ deal, under which Detroit, as noted above, is seeking to capture the school operating tax, the proceeds of which are currently used to service $250 million of bonds DDA bonds previously issued for the arena project in addition to the $34.5 million of additional bonds the city planned to issue for the Pistons relocation.