Rising from Municipal Bankruptcies’ Ashes

07/24/17

Share on Twitter

eBlog

Good Morning! You might describe this a.m.’s e or iBlog as The Turnaround Story, as we consider the remarkable fiscal recovery in Atlantic City and observe some of the reflections from Detroit’s riot of half a century ago—a riot which presaged its nation’s largest chapter 9 bankruptcy, before we assess the ongoing fiscal turmoil in the U.S. territory look at Puerto Rico.

New Jersey & You. Governor Chris Christie on Friday announced his administration is delivering an 11.4% decrease in the overall Atlantic City property tax rate for 2017—a tax cut which will provide an annual savings of $621 for the City’s average homeowner, but which, mayhap more importantly, appears to affirm that the city’s fiscal fortunes have gone from the red to the black, after, earlier this month, the City Council accepted its $206 million budget with a proposed 5% reduction in the municipal purpose tax rate, bringing it to about $1.80 per $100 of assessed valuation. Atlantic City’s new budget, after all, marks the first to be accepted since the state took over the city’s finances last November; indeed, as Mayor Don Guardian noted, the fiscal swing was regional: the county and school tax rates also dropped—producing a reduction of more than 11%—and an FY2018 budget $35 million lower than last year—and $56 million below the FY2016 budget: “We had considerably reduced our budget this year and over the last couple of years…I’m just glad that we’re finally able to bring taxes down.” Mayor Guardian added the city would still like to give taxpayers even greater reductions; nevertheless, the tax and budget actions reflect the restoration of the city’s budget authority in the wake of last year’s state takeover: the budget is the first accepted since the state took over the city’s finances in November after the appointment last year of a state fiscal overseer, Jeff Chiesa—whom the Governor thanked, noting:

“Property taxes can be lowered in New Jersey, when localities have the will and leaders step in to make difficult decisions, as the Department of Community Affairs and Senator Jeff Chiesa have done…Our hard work to stop city officials’ irresponsible spending habits is bearing tangible fruit for Atlantic City residents. Annual savings of more than $600 for the average household is substantial money that families can use in their everyday lives. This 11.4% decrease is further proof that what we are doing is working.”

Contributing to the property tax rate decrease is a $35-million reduction in the City’s FY2017 budget, which, at $206.3 million, is about 25% lower than its FY2015 budget, reflecting reduced salaries, benefits, and work schedules of Atlantic City’s firefighters and police officers, as well as the outsourcing of municipal services, such as trash pickup and vehicle towing to private vendors. On the revenue side, the new fiscal budget also reflects a jackpot in the wake of the significant Borgata settlement agreement on property tax appeals—all reflected in the city’s most recent credit upgrade and by Hard Rock’s and Stockton University’s decisions to make capital investments in Atlantic City, as well as developers’ plans to transform other properties, such as the Showboat, into attractions intended to attract a wider variety of age groups to the City for activities beyond gambling—or, as the state-appointed fiscal overseer, Mr. Chiesa noted: “The City is on the road to living within its means…We’re not done yet, but we’ve made tremendous progress that working families can appreciate. We’ll continue to work hard to make even more gains for the City’s residents and businesses.

The Red & the Black. Unsurprisingly, there seems to be little agreement with regard to which level of government merits fiscal congratulations. Atlantic City Mayor Guardian Friday noted: “We had considerably reduced our budget this year and over the last couple of years…“I’m just glad that we’re finally able to bring taxes down.” Unsurprisingly, lame duck Gov. Christie credited the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and Mr. Chiesa, stating: “Our hard work to stop city officials’ irresponsible spending habits is bearing tangible fruit for Atlantic City residents.” However, Tim Cunningham, the state director of local government services, earlier this month told the Mayor and Council the city and its budget were moving in the “right direction,” adding hopes for the city’s fiscal future, citing Hard Rock and Stockton University’s investment in the city; while Mr. Chiesa, in a statement, added: “The city is on the road to living within its means…We’re not done yet, but we’ve made tremendous progress that working families can appreciate. We’ll continue to work hard to make even more gains for the city’s residents and businesses.”

Do You Recall or Remember at All? Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, the white mayor of the largest African-American city in America, last month spoke at a business conference in Michigan about the racially divisive public policies of the first half of 20th century which helped contribute to Detroit’s long, painful decline in the second half of the last century—a decline which ended in five torrid nights and days of riots which contributed to the burning and looting of some 2,509 businesses—and to the exodus of nearly 1.2 million citizens. The Mayor, campaigning for re-election, noted: “If we fail again, I don’t know if the city can come back.” His remarks appropriately come at the outset of this summer’s 50th anniversary of the summer the City Detroit burned.

Boston University economics Professor Robert Margo, a Detroit native who has studied the economic effects of the 1960’s U.S. riots, noting how a way of life evaporated in 120 hours for the most black residents in the riot’s epicenter, said: “It wasn’t just that people lived in that neighborhood; they shopped and conducted business in that neighborhood. Overnight all your institutions were gone,” noting that calculating the economic devastation from that week in 1967 was more than a numbers exercise: there was an unquantifiable human cost. That economic devastation, he noted, exacerbated civic and problems already well underway: job losses, white flight, middle-income black flight, and the decay and virtual wholesale abandonment of neighborhoods, where, subsequently, once-vibrant neighborhoods were bulldozed, so that, even today, if we were to tour along main artery of the riot, Rosa Parks Boulevard (which was 12th Street at the time of the riots), you would see overgrown vacant lots, lone empty commercial and light industrial buildings, boarded-up old homes—that is, sites which impose extra security costs and fire hazards for the city’s budget, but continue to undercut municipal revenues. Yet, you would also be able to find evidence of the city’s turnaround: townhouses, apartments, and the Virginia Park Community Plaza strip mall built from a grassroots community effort. But the once teeming avenue of stores, pharmacies, bars, lounges, gas stations, pawn shops, laundromats, and myriad of other businesses today have long since disappeared.

In the wake of the terrible violence, former President Lyndon Johnson created the Kerner Commission, formally titled the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, to analyze the causes and effects of the nationwide wave of 1967 riots. That 426-page report concluded that Detroit’s “city assessor’s office placed the loss—excluding building stock, private furnishings, and the buildings of churches and charitable institutions—at approximately $22 million. Insurance payouts, according to the State Insurance Bureau, will come to about $32 million, representing an estimated 65 to 75 percent of the total loss,” while concluding the nation was “moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” Absent federal action, the Commission warned, the country faced a “system of ’apartheid’” in its major cities: two Americas: delivering an indictment of a “white society” for isolating and neglecting African-Americans and urging federal legislation to promote racial integration and to enrich slums—primarily through the creation of jobs, job training programs, and decent housing. In April of 1968, one month after the release of the Kerner Commission report, rioting broke out in more than 100 cities across the country in the wake of the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.

In excerpts from the Kerner Report summary, the Commission analyzed patterns in the riots and offered explanations for the disturbances. Reports determined that, in Detroit, adjusted for inflation, there were losses in the city in excess of $315 million—with those numbers not even reflecting untabulated losses from businesses which either under-insured or had no insurance at all—and simply not covering at all other economic losses, such as missed wages, lost sales and future business, and personal taxes lost by the city because the stores had simply disappeared. Academic analysis determined that riot areas in Detroit showed a loss of 237,000 residents between 1960 and 1980, while the rest of the entire city lost 252,000 people in that same time span. Data shows that 64 percent of Detroit’s black population in 1967 lived in the riot tracts. U. of Michigan Professor June Thomas, of the Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, wrote: “The loss of the commercial strips in several areas preceded the loss of housing in the nearby residential areas. That means that some of the residential areas were still intact but negatively affected by nearby loss of commercial strips.” The riots devastated assessed property values—creating signal incentives to leave the city for its suburbs—if one could afford to.

On the small business side, the loss of families and households, contributed to the exodus—an exodus from a city of 140 square miles that left it like a post WWII Berlin—but with lasting fiscal impacts, or, as Professor Bill Volz of the WSU Mike Ilitch School of Business notes: the price to reconstitute a business was too high for many, and others simply chose to follow the population migration elsewhere: “Most didn’t get rebuilt. They were gone, those mom-and-pop stores…Those small business, they were a critical part of the glue that made a neighborhood. Those small businesses anchored people there. Not rebuilding those small businesses, it just hurt the neighborhood feel that it critical in a city that is 140 square miles. This is a city of neighborhoods.” Or, maybe, he might have said: “was.” Professor Thomas adds that the Motor City’s rules and the realities of post-war suburbanization also made it nearly impossible to replace neighborhood businesses: “It’s important to point out that, as set in place by zoning and confirmed by the (city’s) 1951 master plan, Detroit’s main corridors had a lot of strip commercial space that was not easily converted or economically viable given the wave of suburban malls that had already been built and continued to draw shoppers and commerce…This, of course, all came on top of loss of many businesses, especially black-owned, because of urban renewal and I-75 construction.”

Left en Atras? (Left Behind?As of last week, two-thirds of Puerto Rico’s muncipios, or municipalities, had reported system breakdowns, according to Ramón Luis Cruz Burgos, the deputy spokesman of the delegation of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) in the Puerto Rico House Of Representatives: he added that in Puerto Rico, a great blackout occurs every day due to the susceptibility of the electric power system, noting, for instance, that last month, for six consecutive days, nearly 70 percent of Puerto Rico’s municipalities had problems with electricity service, or, as he stated: “In Puerto Rico we have a big blackout every day. We have investigated the complaints that have been filed at the Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica (AEE) for blackouts in different sectors, and we conclude that daily, two-thirds of the island are left without light. This means that sectors of some 51 municipalities are left in the dark and face problems with the daily electricity service.”

It seems an odd juxtaposition/comparison with the events that triggered the nation’s largest ever chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy in Detroit—even as it reminds us that in Puerto Rico, not only is the Commonwealth ineligible for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, but also its municipalities. Mr. Cruz Burgos noted that reliability in the electric power system is one of the most important issues in the economic development of a country, expressing exasperation and apprehension that interruptions in service have become the order of the day: “Over the last two months, we have seen how more than half of the island’s villages are left dark for hours and even for several days, because the utility takes too long to repair breakdowns,” warning this problem will be further aggravated during the month of August, when energy consumption in schools and public facilities increases: “In the last two months, there are not many schools operating and the use of university facilities is also reduced for the summer vacation period. In addition, many employees go on vacation so operations in public facilities reduce their operation and, therefore, energy consumption.”

Jose Aponte Hernandez, Chair of the International and House Relations Committee, blamed the interruptions on the previous administration of Gov. Luis Fortuno, claiming: it had “abandoned the aggressive program of maintenance of the electrical structure implemented by former Gov. Luis Fortuna, claiming: “In the past four years the administration of the PPD did not lift a finger to rehabilitate the ESA structure. On the contrary, they went out of their way to destroy it in order to justify millionaire-consulting contracts. That is why today we are confronting these blackouts.”

The struggle for basic public services—just as there was a generation ago in Detroit, reflect the fiscal and governing challenge for Puerto Rico and its 88 municipalities at a time when non-Puerto Rican municipal bondholders have launched litigation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to demand payment of $3.1 billion in principal and interest in Puerto Rico Employment Retirement System bonds (In Altair Global Credit Opportunities Fund (A), LLC et al. v. The United States of America)—the first suit against the U.S. government proper, in contrast to prior litigation already filed against the Puerto Rico Oversight Board, with the suit relying on just compensation claims and that PROMESA is a federal entity. Here, as the Wizard of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, Jim Spiotto, notes, the key is whether the PROMESA board was acting on behalf of the federal government or on behalf of Puerto Rico—adding that he believes it was acting for Puerto Rico and, ergo, should not be considered part of the federal government, and that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may find that the federal government’s actions were illegal. Nevertheless, the issue remains with regard to whether the bonds should be paid from the pledged collateral—in this case being Puerto Rico employer contributions. (The Altair complaint alleges that the PROMESA Board is a federal entity which has encouraged, directed, and even forced Puerto Rico to default on its ERS bonds—a board created by Congress which has directed the stream of employer contributions away from the bondholders and into the General Fund, according to these bondholders’ allegations.

Emerging from Chapter 9–and the conflict between fiscal and physical safety.

07/07/17

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the final emergence of Orange County, California from chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy; then we consider the ongoing fiscal and fiscal challenges for Flint’s leaders from its fiscal & physical challenges.

Free at Last? Twenty-three years ago, when the former Orange County, California Treasurer, Robert Citron, then managing an investment pool for southern California municipalities, speculated unwisely, the municipal pool he managed lost $1.64 billion—plunging the county into the first chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy of the modern era (California §53760)—a chapter 9 bankruptcy from which the County emerged this week in the wake of its final payment on the $1 billion worth of municipal bonds it had issued. Orange County, however, still owes approximately $20 million to various cities and agencies that have a separate repayment agreement—debt Orange County expects to resolve by late next year. (A subsequent grand jury investigation later found that Mr. Citron, who had earned praise for his investment skills, relied on a mail order astrologer and a psychic for interest rate predictions as Orange County’s Treasurer.)

For this writer, the emergence evokes memories of how controversial the concept of municipal bankruptcy had been—at the time—for the National League of Cities to advocate for the changes in chapter 9: the then Executive Director and the then President of NLC (former New York City Council Chair Carol Bellamy) decried the notion that an association of municipal elected leaders would support facilitating filing for municipal bankruptcy; yet the Orange County case illuminated its importance by demonstrating how important it was to have a mechanism in federal law to ensure continuity in the provision of essential municipal public services.  

In the case of Orange County, the insolvency of an investment pool it ran on behalf of itself and other municipalities in the region would have, absent the kinds of protections provided under chapter 9, risked plunging municipalities in the region into insolvency without a mechanism to ensure vital public services and operations. The County’s insolvency and threat to the other municipalities in the region was its own kind of tremor: a fiscal, rather than physical tremor. In the end, the access to chapter 9 meant the county was able to issue $1 billion in municipal bonds to avoid a critical default and ensure avoidance of any disruption in essential municipal services—bonds the payments on which ($1.5 billion including interest) were finally completed at the beginning of this month when the County made its final payment on that bankruptcy bond debt. While the price to its taxpayers was steep–repayments averaged $68 million a year, and the loss of vital public improvements and services great; the shock it sent to the nation’s cities was key in helping Congress better understand that while an Eastern Airlines could file for federal bankruptcy protection and simply walk away from its services and debts; that could never be the case for a city or county: there had to be a mechanism in federal law to ensure that a city, county, or public school system could continue to operate during insolvency.  

In managing these municipalities’ investment pool, Mr. Citron made unlucky/unwise wagers on interest rates—so unwise that the multi-jurisdiction investment pool suffered a crippling $1.64 billion loss. Now California State Senator John Moorlach, who prior to his Senate service was twice re-elected Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector after running against Mr. Citron in 1994, has noted: “The bankruptcy dramatically changed my life…I sort of feel like I lived in a movie. I was an officer of the county when those recovery bonds were issued, and I wondered if I’d live long enough to see them paid off. It was a great turn-around opportunity. A lot has changed since then, and the county is better for it. It’s been nearly 23 years, and no one has been able to pull a stunt like this again. It’s a good day.”

While the “day” is not quite over: there are still another $19.7 million which must be settled before all municipal bankruptcy-related bills are resolved; the fiscal lesson appears to have been learned—or as current Supervisor William Steiner put it: “Despite the checks and balances now, and a commitment to strategic planning, there is always the chance that institutional memory will fade as time goes by and as leadership changes…The county has essentially fared well over the years despite the bankruptcy. Still, millions of dollars have been diverted from other important county departments and priorities.” The godfather of modern-day chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, the incomparable Jim Spiotto, with whom I had the great fortune to work for so many years to achieve enactment of today’s municipal bankruptcy laws, appropriately notes: “Chapter 9 is the most extreme remedy, the last resort, if you can even call it a last resort.” Nevertheless, as he puts it, it creates a powerful tool for a municipality to avoid a potentially devastating “run on the bank.”

Out Like Flint? The State of Michigan, whose former Emergency Manager law played the critical role precipitating the grave physical and fiscal crisis affecting Flint, is now pressing the Flint City Council to vote on a long-term water contract under which Flint would lose rights to a municipal bond financed water pipeline—after the City Council two weeks ago voted to extend the city’s water delivery contract with the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) until September, but delayed a vote on a longer term proposal by Mayor Karen Weaver to extend the contract for 30-years. Unsurprisingly, the state is now ramping up the pressure: in the wake of this week’s City Council vote, the state Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) filed suit against the city over the delay on a long-term arrangement, with the state alleging that the City Council’s refusal to approve a long-term water contract is endangering public health in the wake of the city’s lead contamination crisis. The complaint seeks a declaration that the Council’s failure to act is a violation of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and a mandate that the city must enter into the long-term agreement with the GLWA negotiated by Mayor Weaver. The MDEQ charges that the city would be wasting its resources if it refuses to quit its current Karegnondi water pipeline plan: “The MDEQ has determined that the City Council’s failure to approve the agreement with GLWA and continued consideration of other options that may require operation of the water treatment plant places public health at risk.”

Under the proposed long-term contract, Flint would lose water rights to the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) (a new pipeline to Lake Huron, which is currently under construction). Thus, as Flint has awaited completion of the Karegnondi pipeline, it has been drawing its water from the Flint River—withdrawals which contributed to corroding pipes and lead contamination. Flint has been preparing to shift to KWA supplied, un-treated water in two years—with plans to construct vital upgrades to its treatment plant to meet EPA-mandated standards. In April, Mayor Weaver dropped the plan to make the switch to the bond-financed pipeline and recommended the city continue to purchase water from GLWA, believing that the GLWA supplied and treated water is more affordable—and apprehensive about the risk of another supply shift. With the city’s fiscal and physical health scarred by the water contamination crisis which came in the wake of the state-appointed emergency manager’s fateful decision to allow the city’s contract with Detroit for Lake Huron-treated water to expire—Mayor Weaver advised: “The recommendation I put forward months ago is the best option to protect public health and is supported by the public health community…[It] would also allow the City to avoid a projected 40 percent water rate increase and ensure the City of Flint gets millions of dollars to continue replacing lead tainted pipes and make much-needed repairs to our damaged infrastructure so we are able to deliver quality water to residents. The people of Flint have waited long enough for a reliable, permanent water source. Implementing my recommendation will provide that, and will allow us to move forward as a community and focus more on rebuilding our City.” Under her plan, Flint would recoup the roughly $7 million in annual debt service by transferring its KWA water rights to the GLWA.

Nevertheless, as Flint Councilmember Eric Mays described his apprehensions with regard to Flint losing its rights to the KWA pipeline, he recommended the city retain the asset: “My position is that the since the Governor won’t apologize, and the state has the money they can pay the bond; and whether we ever use the KWA asset, I don’t want, at this juncture, to turn over that asset and lose those rights under the deal with GLWA…I would be almost ready to vote for the GLWA deal if we could tweak it and get that bond off to the state and still retain the asset.” He added that he is the only Councilmember to propose an alternative to Mayor Weaver’s plan—a plan, he added, on which the Council “has done nothing.” Rather, he believes the State of Michigan, the precursor of the fiscal and physical crisis, should bear the burden for the municipal bond payments: “Since the MDEQ issued a suspicious administrative consent order for minor repairs and put it into the bond prospectus at the initial bond sale, my position is that Governor has the money and can pay the bond.”

Overcoming the Fiscal & Physical Challenges of Emerging from Municipal Bankruptcy

06/26/17

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the extra fiscal challenges of exiting chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy where the fiscal (and in this case physical) odds are stacked against your city. Nevertheless, it appears that San Bernardino’s elected and appointed leaders have overcome terrorism and fiscal challenges to emerge from the nation’s longest municipal bankruptcy. Then we look to see if Detroit’s new bridge to Canada will be not just a physical, but also a fiscal bridge to the city’s future. Finally, we toke (yes, a pun) a look at the ongoing fiscal and governing challenges in Puerto Rico between the U.S. Territory’s own government and the Congressionally appointed oversight board.

On the Other Side of Municipal Bankruptcy: How Sweet It Can Be. Exiting chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy is an exceptional challenge—there is no federal or state bailout, as we have witnessed for, say, major banks, financial institutions, or automobile manufacturers. It is, instead, especially in states like California, where the state, unlike, for instance, Rhode Island, or Michigan, plays no role in helping a city as part of the development of a plan of debt adjustment, an exceptional test of municipal leaders—and U.S. bankruptcy judges. Moreover, because California—in our post General Revenue Sharing economy—likewise provides no program or assistance focused on municipal fiscal disparities, the fiscal lifting is more challenging. An important challenge too is perception or reputation: what must change to send a message to a business or family that this is a city worth moving to?

San Bernardino, after all, has emerged in relatively hale fiscal shape, at long last—even as it faces such an unlevel fiscal playing field, as well as signal budget challenges for public safety in a city where the chances of being a victim of violent crime are nearly 400% higher than the statewide average. Thus, the post-bankrupt municipality confronts—and has plans to address a violent crime wave and a massive amount of deferred maintenance, in the wake of the Council’s adoption of a $120 million general fund operating budget, including funds to hire more police officers and replace outdated equipment—as well as to undertake a violence intervention program—modeled on a program which has proven effective in dramatically reducing homicides in other municipalities which have employed it.

San Bernardino’s new budget provides for repairs and overdue maintenance of streets, streetlights, traffic signals, storm drains, medians, and park facilities; it adds additional maintenance workers in the Public Works and Parks departments. According to City Attorney Gary Saenz: “One of the greatest effects is the perception, now, I think people should give San Bernardino a second look and see that it is an ideal place and has a lot of potential.”

The epic scale of the city’s fiscal and budgetary change from its $45 million deficit five years ago and decline in employees from 1,140 full-time to 746 budgeted for its FY2018 budget offers a perspective: the city has renegotiated contracts, restructured debts, and, as part of its approved plan of bankruptcy debt adjustment, been authorized to pay some of its creditors as little as a cent on the dollar. And, its citizens and taxpayers have elected new leaders and replaced the city’s old, convoluted charter. Moreover, if weathering municipal bankruptcy were not hard enough, the city was also subjected to a horrific terrorist attack which took 14 lives and injured 22 at the Inland Regional Center. Indeed, it somehow seems consistent, that in the middle of these terrible fiscal and terrorist challenges, the city also had to abandon its City Hall building: it was not just fiscally imbalanced, but also seismically unsound.  

A Bridge to Detroit’s Tomorrow. Mayor Mike Duggan last Friday announced the Motor City had reached an agreement with the state to sell land, assets, and some streets for more than $48 million, with the proceeds to be used in the project to construct a second bridge between Windsor, Canada and Detroit. Mayor Duggan reported the city will use the proceeds for related neighborhood programs, job training, and health monitoring—with a key set aside to assist Delray residents to voluntarily relocate to renovated houses in other neighborhoods in Detroit. Joined by Michigan officials, community leaders, as well as representatives from the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (the nonprofit entity managing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the new Gordie Howe International Bridge), Mayor Duggan noted: “This is a major step forward…This is eliminating one of the last obstacles.” The new bridge named for the city’s former hockey legend, will provide a second highway link for heavy trucks at the busiest U.S.‒Canadian crossing point in the U.S.—a $2.1 billion span scheduled to open in 2020, with Canada supplying Michigan’s $550 million share of the bridge, which the donated funds to be repaid through tolls. There will be other benefits for the U.S. city emerging from the largest chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy in history: Rev. Kevin Casillas, pastor of the First Latin American Baptist Church on Fort, in thanking Mayor Duggan and other officials for hammering out the agreement, noted: “Today is a good day in our decade-long fight, advocating for residents of Delray and southwest Detroit…Residents will benefit from health-impact assessments and air monitoring in our community; residents will benefit from job training; residents will benefit from having the option of relocating to another fully updated house elsewhere in the city.” (The Mayor noted that he intends to set up a real estate office in Delray to help homeowners relocate if they wish to move, emphasizing no one would be forced to—and that “If someone want to stay, then they’re welcome to…”). Under the agreement, Detroit will sell the Michigan Department of Transportation 36 parcels of land, underground assets, and approximately five miles of streets in the bridge’s footprint for $48.4 million. Mayor Duggan said Detroit plans to use the proceeds mainly to address four goals: $33 million will be invested in a neighborhood improvement fund, with the bulk, $26 million to assist Delray residents to relocate, and $9 million to upgrade homes; $10 million for a job training initiative to prepare Detroit residents to fill both construction and operations jobs; $2.4 million for air and health monitoring in southwest Detroit over the next 10 years; and $3 million for the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department and Public Lighting Authority to purchase assets in the project’s footprint.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder noted: “Mayor Duggan’s announcement is the result of several years of successful collaboration between the state, the city, the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority, and numerous stakeholders, including community leaders…Everyone listened to one another, worked hard to understand concerns, and forged a partnership based on solutions. This shows that by working together, we can achieve great things for everyone.”

Fiscal Inhaling in Puerto Rico? Early yesterday morning, the Puerto Rico Senate voted 21-9 to approve the government’s general $ 9.562 billion FY2018 general budget, passing Joint House Resolutions 186, 187, 188, and 189 with no amendments—clearing the way for Governor Ricardo Rosselló to sign it. Giving a lift to the legislative effort, the legislature also approved a bill to regulate the medical marijuana industry—legislation that establishes that it may be used for terminal patients or when no other suitable medical alternative is available. The uplifting governmental actions came as Gov. Ricardo Rosselló opposed demands by the PROMESA Oversight Board that the government furlough employees and suspend their Christmas bonuses. According to a spokesperson for the president of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, as of the beginning of last weekend, there was also disagreement between the Board and Gov. Rosselló’s ruling party with regard to whether to shift money from school and municipal improvements to a budget reserve fund. In his epistle to the Board, Gov. Rosselló, last Thursday, had written that the Board’s Executive Director, Natalie Jaresko, had informed him that the Board will mandate furloughs and the suspension of any bonuses—a demand which Gov. Rosselló believes usurps his authority under PROMESA, as well as contravenes the Board’s position of earlier this Spring, when it had said there would have to be furloughs and an end to the bonus, unless two conditions were met: 1) Puerto Rico would have to gain a $200 million cash reserve by this Friday, and 2) Puerto Rico would have to submit an implementation plan for reducing spending on government programs. The PROMESA Board, a week ago last Friday, had written that it believed the reserve would be met; however, the Board asserted the implementation plan was inadequate. (In insisting upon the furlough program, the Board assumed such furloughs would save the government $35 million to $40 million on a monthly basis.) Thus, in his letter, Gov. Rosselló wrote: “In contravention of PROMESA §205, the Oversight Board is now trying to strong-arm the government into accepting the expenditure controls.” He appeared especially concerned with the PROMESA Board’s mandate to shift $80 million in the budget for school improvements and reserves for the island’s municipalities.

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

06/19/17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elections, Federalism, & Inequitable Fiscal Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

Are There non-Judicial Avenues to Solvency?

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

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

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

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

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

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