Contrasting Responses to Fiscal and Physical Storms

July 10, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the superb update on the fiscal impact of Hurricanes Irma and Maria on the U.S. Virgin Islands by Jason Bram and Lauren Thomas of the New York Federal Reserve.

Much more dependent on tourism than Puerto Rico, the authors noted that there has been far less attention to the fiscal ravages of the two storms despite the fact that St. Thomas, St. Croix, St. John, and a number of smaller islands suffered comparable devastation. No doubt, they point out, this is in part due to their much smaller population: the U.S. Virgin Islands is home to about 105,000 Americans—1/30th Puerto Rico’s population. It is home to Claude O. Markoe Elementary School in Christiansted, where, long, long ago, this author taught school as part of training for the Peace Corps to teach in Bush Gbaepo Grebo Konweaken, in Grand Gedah County, Liberia.

The Fed authors reminded us that the Virgin Islands had already been fiscally weakened prior to the hurricanes in the wake of a shutdown of a major refinery on St. Croix in 2012—a shutdown which dramatically increased the dependence on tourism: employment dropped by about 15 percent between 2011 and 2014; it has changed little since. Then, last September 20th, Hurricane Maria smote St. Croix where, as they described it, the “magnitude of the damage and disruption for the territory as a whole was unprecedented in recent history.” Adding to the physical and fiscal misery, the Virgin Islands could not count on any assistance from Puerto Rico—and, as we have noted based upon the devastating lack of help from the federal government, the U.S. Virgin Islands were mostly left to fend for themselves.

The economic, physical, and fiscal damage, according to the latest available data, meant that total employment in the U.S. Virgin Islands dropped by an estimated 12% between August 2017—right before Hurricanes Irma and Maria—and November of that year; but by May of this year, the authors found that only a fraction of those job losses, about 600, had been reversed. Indeed, it appears that the fiscal and economic effects of Irma and Maria were “substantially more severe in the Virgin Islands than in Puerto Rico, where employment fell by about 6 percent right after Maria.”

Such a disparate outcome would, they wrote, seem unexpected, especially when considering not only the widespread power outages and pathetic FEMA responses which affected so much of Puerto Rico for so very long—and began to drain the U.S. territory of those most fiscally and physically able to leave for the mainland, especially when compared to the Virgin Islands, where “literally everyone lives within a few miles of the coastline,” unlike Puerto Rico where the steep mountains vastly complicated the task of restoring power to hospitals and police and emergency response centers, leading the Fed authors to pose the question: “With this greater disruption of everyday life occurring in Puerto Rico, why would the economic effect appear considerably more severe in the Virgin Islands?”

The authors note that a critical distinction relates to the Virgin Islands’ high dependence on tourism—a reliance which can be especially pernicious in the wake of a major natural disaster. Thus, they wrote, because tourism tends to be particularly sensitive to the aftermath of natural disasters, “the Virgin Islands’ dependence on this industry largely explains the relatively severe economic hit,” contrasting that with Puerto Rico’s much more diversified economy, illustrating the difference by noting that Puerto Rico’s hotel/accommodation industry, which represents just over 2% of private-sector jobs in Puerto Rico, accounts for about 13% of jobs in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Thus, one fiscal outcome of the storm was the hotel/tourist industry in the U.S. Virgin Islands experienced an especially steep slump after the storm: as of last December, employment in that industry had fallen by 1,300 jobs, or 35%; employment in the broader leisure and hospitality sector—which also includes restaurants and bars but largely caters to visitors—fell by just under 30%. Nearby in Puerto Rico, in comparison, tourism and hospitality job losses accounted for only about 25% of the total job loss. 

The Fed writers also examined the contrasting capacities of the two U.S. territories to accommodate tourists, writing that the damage wrought to hotels in the Virgin Islands after the two hurricanes significantly impacted the capacity for fiscal recovery: by the middle of last May, nearly 90% of Puerto Rico’s 149 hotels had reopened. In contrast, only 60% of the Virgin Islands’ had—adding that, in the Virgin Islands, relief workers were being housed in many of the available rooms, reducing the capacity for tourists or business travelers—and noting: “Remarkably, there has been virtually no new hotel construction in the Virgin Islands for more than two decades.” With the latter, they note, adding to the fiscal challenges to the U.S. Virgin Islands, because of the related sharp decline in restaurant business—finding that local economies had contracted far more sharply in the Virgin Islands than in Puerto Rico, where the surge of rescue workers, including from FEMA and army personnel, utility crews, and construction workers, helped offset the loss of tourists.

Now, they note, the key challenge for the U.S. Virgin Islands’ economy is to restart its vital tourism, noting that the critical steps “appear to be twofold: restoring its capacity to accommodate overnight guests, and encouraging visitors to come,” but, critically, also noting that, in the long-term, the Virgin Islands confront a dilemma: “Is it best to focus resources and policy on a key industry like tourism, which brings in money from outside, or should policy place more of an emphasis on diversifying into other industries, which may be less vulnerable to the periodic hurricane?”

Advertisements

“Who’s on First? Who’s in Charge–elected or imposed leaders?

June 22, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the physical, fiscal, and mixed governance challenges which must be overcome in Puerto Rico.

Will There Be Luz? Gov. Ricardo Rosselló has signed into law a bill to partially privatize the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, potentially affecting the authority’s $8.9 billion in outstanding debt. The new law is intended to provide for the sale of the public utility’s power generation units and make a concession of its transmission and distribution system, according to a statement by the Governor—a concession which could involve a lease arrangement, as was done for Puerto Rico’s main airport. Under the proposed privatization, revenues realized could be utilized to address PREPA’s debt. purchasers would not assume PREPA’s debt; instead the public utility would use proceeds from any sale of a power plant to pay off a portion of the debt, or, as the Governor put it on Wednesday, the money raised could be used, at least in part, to contribute to PREPA’s underfunded public pension system. The new legislation comes in the wake of, last April, the PROMESA Oversight Board’s certification of a fiscal plan which assumed PREPA privatization—but which did not impose assumptions with regard to how the proceeds would be used. Puerto Rico Senate Minority Leader Eduardo Bhatia, an attorney-at-law and the former 15th President of the Puerto Rico Senate—as well as a former Fulbright scholar, noted: “The bill that Governor Rosselló signed today essentially authorizes the Governor to proceed with a ‘market sound[ing]’ and identify any and all potential private sector interest in the development of a new energy system in Puerto Rico,” adding: “Notable is that the bill does not authorize any sale before the Puerto Rico Legislature prepares, within 180 days, a statement of public policy specifically mandating what the new system will look like in 30 years.” Gov. Rosselló noted that Puerto Rico’s Public-Private Partnerships Authority would oversee the potential leasing of the transmission and distribution grid—a process expected to occur over the next year and a half. From a governance perspective, the Governor, PROMESA Oversight Board, and advisory teams plan to form a working group to steer the process.

Quein Es Encargado II? Meanwhile, the seemingly unending governance question with regard to who is in charge appears to be escalating. In putting an end, yesterday, to Puerto Rico’s debate on Law 80-1976, the Law on Unjustified Dismissal, the Puerto Rico Senate not only opened the door to annul the agreement reached by the Executive and the Oversight Board around the budget, but also appeared to intensify the power struggle between Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz; Governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares, and the PROMESA Oversight Board. Upon learning the Puerto Rico Senate did not support the repeal of the statute—as demanded by the PROMESA Board, the Governor accused Senate President Schatz of acting to the detriment of Puerto Rico, for political reasons, even as PROMESA Board Chair José Carrión, who, like the Senate President, was in Washington, D.C. yesterday, warned that keeping the labor statute in force would imply reversing the certified tax plan, which includes cuts in vacation leave, days of sickness, and the Christmas bonus, stating: “There is a certified plan. If not (repeal it), we revert to the fiscal plan,” in the wake of his participation at forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.

Chair Carrión warned that reversion to the certified fiscal plan would mean at least $300 million in additional budget cuts over the next five years. He noted that the proposed structural reforms seek to “generate economic growth: We have limited powers (to make decisions that boost economic growth), but one of them is the labor area.”

The Board is scheduled to meet a week from today to discuss the upcoming fiscal year budget—scheduled to take effect at the end of next week.

In criticizing the actions of Senate President Rivera Schatz, Gov. Rosselló Nevares said that the upper House leader had opted to “hinder” his administration, and held him responsible for the millions of dollars in cuts that may wreak fiscal harm to the island’s municipios, as well as other governmental entities, noting, in a written statement: “Puerto Rico has just seen how politics is made and not how a future government should be made in times of challenges and difficulties, with this regrettable decision by the President of the Senate. We will follow the path of change and transformation that we have forged; however, this was the time to unite and together to get out of the shameful past we inherited. He chose to hinder, chose to follow the tricks of the past that have put us in this situation: the risk of the loss of billions of dollars for Puerto Rico as a result of restructuring the debt falls on this action. Likewise, the loss of millions of dollars in appropriations for the municipal governments that we had achieved also falls on the President of the Senate. Sen. Rivera Schatz added that he anticipated he would appear before a judicial forum to challenge the powers of the unelected PROMESA Oversight Board to alter Puerto Rico’s budget, noting: “The Senate ends the matter of Law 80. It is not going to repeal Law 80. If it were up to us to go to court to litigate against the Board, I advance that I already talked with lawyers to do so.” (The repeal of Law 80 was a specific condition presented by the Board in exchange for disbursing additional financial aid to municipios, the University of Puerto Rico, and guaranteeing holiday leave and sick days for private sector employees.)

At the same time, during the meeting of the majority caucus of the New Progressive Party, a proposal by Sen. Miguel Romero to ascribe to the Law against discrimination in employment (Law 100-1959) by adding some amendments to Law 80 was defeated  15 -5, with the prevailing majority choosing to defer consideration of the issue during the current session—which ends Monday. Sen. Romero proposed creating a system of fixed payments for dismissals that violate only the Anti-Discrimination Law 100, but insisted on repealing Law 80, which deals with another area of ​​labor law by providing remedies for severance without just cause.

Not unlike in the U.S. Congress, the Puerto Rico House and Senate do not always see ojo to ojo (eye to eye). The House intends to address Puerto Rico’s relationship with the Oversight Board differently, with House President Carlos “Johnny” Méndez stating, yesterday, that he has to study what is the probability of prevailing in a lawsuit with the Oversight Board defense of budget items, adding that he considers the controversy over Law 80 to be over. In response to a question whether the House would join a lawsuit initiated by the Senate to combat the cuts applied by the Board, Senate President Méndez replied: “We have to sit down to see what the arguments are and make a decision: the Promise law has supremacy over everything. It does not even allow us to sue the Oversight Board. We have to see what the arguments are, the legal basis for making a decision. It is not going to be a futile exercise. If we have more than a 50% chance of prevailing, of course we will be there.” He added that, if he opts for litigation, he would challenge the authority and ability of the unelected Oversight Board to establish public policy.

What about Manana? Even as the question of governance proceeded, two PROMESA Board members yesterday concurred with a panel of other experts that an overhaul Puerto Rico’s local labor laws is a key for the territory’s future growth. At a session in Washington, D.C. at the Heritage Foundation, PROMESA Chair Jose Carrion joined Anne Krueger, economics Professor at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, and fellow Board Member Andrew Biggs—with their discussion coming on some of the same issues. With Puerto Rico’s elected leaders considering instituting the same at-will employment statutes used in many states, as well as adding more restrictive rules for receiving food stamps and instituting an earned income tax credit to encourage work, the panelists described Puerto Rico’s labor laws as more restrictive than any state—a factor, perhaps, that could help explain the exodus from Puerto Rico of so many better economic opportunities on the mainland. The panelists noted the challenge will be to convince the people of Puerto Rico that a more competitive labor market will produce more jobs, with PROMESA Board member Andrew Biggs, noting that economists predict there would be an additional one percentage point of annual economic growth if the reforms were adopted. PROMESA Board Chair Jose Carrión noted he, as an employer in Puerto Rico, is only too well aware of how “onerous” the labor laws are, adding: “[I]t does not make Puerto Rico competitive with places to where we are losing our population such as Florida.” Employers in Puerto Rico, for instance, are required to give workers 24 hours off after they work 8 hours, said Professor Anne Krueger of Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, noting that the labor force participation rate is only 38% on Puerto Rico compared to 63% on the mainland, she said. In the end, the PROMESA Board appeared to reach an agreement with the Governor on proposed labor law changes. Now, warns Chair Carrión, if the legislature does not agree, the PROMESA Board will govern in place of Puerto Rico’s elected leaders.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

June 8, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the issue of unincorporated areas: what are the fiscal implications?

In many U.S. states, it’s not uncommon for homeowners to reside in what are known as “unincorporated” areas, meaning portions of the state or county that are not contained within the boundaries of an incorporated city, town, village or similar local governmental entity. From a municipal perspective, that means a community not governed by its own local municipal corporation, but rather is administered as part of larger governmental administrative division—such as a township, parish, borough, county, or city—governance entities which, depending upon the pertinent state laws, may file for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, dissolve, disincorporate, or, as we noted in today’s eGnus, make even separate. Widespread unincorporated communities and areas are a distinguishing feature of both the U.S. and our neighbor Canada—but rare in any other countries around the globe. In fact, unincorporated areas are mostly found in this country in Texas—an enormous state, but which has the nation’s smallest municipality: McAllen, in Jim Hogg County, with a population of 6.

When it comes to unincorporated areas within states, Pennsylvania appears unique: it is, after all, the state with the greatest number of local governments or political subdivisions: the Census Bureau puts the number at 5,000—putting the state only behind Texas and Illinois; but maybe ranks it first in terms of imposing vast and conflicting arrays of taxes—taxes which, however, are imposed on shrinking tax bases. Indeed, the fiscal stress has reached such a point that the state’s House Urban Affairs Committee recently convened a public hearing on legislation intended to assist smaller municipalities mired in cycles of financial distress—threatened with insolvency absent outside assistance. House Bill 2122 would allow these communities, after gaining approval in a voter referendum, to dissolve themselves and have their functions absorbed by the county. The co-sponsors, Representatives Dom Costa and Harold English, offered the bill as a means they described to provide for the voluntary dissolution of municipal corporations (cities, boroughs, towns, & townships) within counties of the second class (Allegheny), and the substitution of an unincorporated districts as a new form of government to be administered by the county. Under the proposed legislation, the process of dissolution would be initiated by the governing body of the municipal corporation through passage of a non-binding resolution to engage in discussion with the county over a period of six months, during which time they would develop a proposed essential services-transition plan as part of an intergovernmental cooperation agreement.: such a plan would be subject to public meetings in the community and would have to be voted on by the governing body of the municipal corporation, as well as the County Council: should both the municipal corporation and county governing bodies approve said plan, a referendum would be scheduled—an election where, if approved by the voters, a six-month winding down of the affairs of the municipal corporation would begin. At the conclusion of such a period, an unincorporated district administered by the county would go into effect, and the essential services-transition plan would become an official ordinance of the county. That would entail significant powers to said county to administer and manage such a district; the county would also retain the tax levying power and authority to assess fees and service charges previously authorized to that particular class of municipal corporation. All taxes and fees levied within the service district would have to be used for the benefit of the district.

Finally, the bill provides for the potential merger and consolidation of the unincorporated district with another municipal corporation or would permit the district to re-incorporate itself as another type of municipal corporation in accordance with the existing municipal codes applicable to such entities.

They reported the legislation was carefully crafted with input from the staff of the bicameral/bipartisan Local Government Commission, confident that it represents a unique voluntary agreement between municipalities – one in which a given city, borough or township would be able to ensure a more efficient and effective delivery of services to their residents while retaining their municipal identity. 

Pennsylvania’s Department of Community and Economic Development administers Act 47, as we have previously noted, a program to help “distressed” communities as designated under the terms of the state’s Act 47, under which the state could ultimately take on the task of providing local services. However, it appears that Deputy Secretary for Community Affairs Rick Vilello, the department’s deputy secretary for community affairs and development, HB2122 might provide a better option, or, as he testified: “We’ve not timed out [on recovery options] on a community who we felt wasn’t ready to try to make it on their own…But we are fast approaching a time when several municipalities will time out. When municipalities time out, there are very few good solutions from that point forward. House Bill 2122 provides a potential solution for local leaders facing hard decisions and is a tool worth trying.” Secretary Vilello testified that to date, only 31 municipalities in the state had ever reached “distressed” status out of 2,560. Of those 31, nine were in Allegheny County.

The Secretary noted: “House Bill 2122 could be a life-preserver for communities that have been treading water for a very long time: Who knows, if it works in [Allegheny County], what would be possible next. House Bill 2122 is a tool for the elected officials and for the citizens of distressed municipalities to make a choice about their future.”

Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald testified that the proposed legislation could be useful, not only to those communities whose finances have spiraled out of control, but also to those that have managed to avoid financial disaster by cutting essential services to minimal levels:  “Some of them, quite frankly, have not gone into Act 47…They just quit providing the services. They haven’t gone into the debt problem, but they haven’t provided the services their citizens have wanted. And what [residents have] basically been doing is voting with their feet. They’ve been leaving, [and] those municipalities have been shrinking in population.” The County Executive emphasized that the legislation could not lead to any municipality being dissolved against its will; similarly, he testified that no county could be forced to absorb a municipality against its will: both governments would have to agree to the terms of the disincorporation before it even went to the voters for approval.

Under the proposed legislation, the unincorporated community would retain some level of local governance through the establishment of a district advisory committee appointed by the county council. The advisory committee would hold open meetings in the former municipality and issue reports to the county on matters pertaining to local residents.

Nevertheless, Melissa Morgan, legislative and policy analyst for the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, warned the proposed legislation would go too far in wresting local power and vesting it in a higher level of government, telling legislators her organization, which she said represents 1,454 townships in the state, opposes the passage of HB2122 or any other legislation that would allow for the dissolution of municipalities: “County government should not be given additional powers to administer unincorporated territory…Instead, the Legislature should consider relieving unfunded mandates for municipalities, such as those requiring benefits to uniform employees to help alleviate financial challenges.” County Executive Fitzgerald said he was in favor of the Legislature taking other steps such as those suggested by Ms. Morgan to ease the plight of struggling communities; however, he noted that HB2122 was also a good option to have on the books in case those other steps fail to provide relief: “It’s a voluntary program: It’s just giving people an option. And to me, that’s what democracy is about, giving people the choice. Right now, they don’t have that choice.”

The Imbalances of Governing

May 29, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we observe the ongoing demographic exodus from Puerto Rico—and the apparent agreement between the U.S. territory and the PROMESA Oversight Board to modify old work rules.

The Imbalances of Governing. Ramón Rosario Cortés, Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Public Affairs and Public Policy, has announced the repeal of Law 80, stating; “As agreed [to] by Governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares with the Fiscal Oversight Board, today we are presenting before the Legislative Assembly a measure of Administration to repeal Law 80, and thus give way to the agreement reached, and that removes from the discussion the elimination of the Christmas Bonus and the reduction of days of sickness and vacations of our workers.” He stressed: “We are confident that, as usual, the Legislative Assembly will consider this measure with great responsibility and analyzing the totality of the circumstances and the reality of Puerto Rico today,” adding, the “Governor exercised his responsibility to achieve this agreement that makes it possible to allocate the funds we need to develop the economy and to pay the Christmas bonus for our public employees.” For his part, Puerto Rico Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, one of the strongest opponents of the repeal, warned that the repeal of Law 80 seeks to favor various employers of banking, communications, and insurance companies. Nevertheless, Senator Schatz indicated he would be willing to consider it if the Board’s study details the economic benefits of the agreement.

A Demographic Fiscal Wave? Between last September and last February, that critical period in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and María, passenger exodus from Puerto Rico exceeded inflow by some 233,586 persons. In stark contrast, according to data by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics provided to the Puerto Rico Institute of Statistics, between September of 2016 and February of 2017, there were 3,988 persons arriving in Puerto Rico than departing—albeit it will not be until we have access to newer U.S. Census Bureau information that the most recent emigration data will be forthcoming. Nonetheless, the preliminary data, based on official information, is that some 1,493,180 left the island between September and February, while 1,259,614 arrived—a pattern consistent with counts of outflows between September of 2016 and February of 2017.Similarly, a chart prepared by the Institute of Statistics indicates that the number of passengers who arrived in Puerto Rico between September of 2016 and February of 2017 reached 1,999,726, compared to the 1,995,738 that left the island.

Based on an analysis of data compiled by the Teralytics Company, a cell phone company, which compiled the data, out of the 407,465 residents of Puerto Rico who left Puerto Rico, 359,815 returned between October and February. Interestingly, however, the company also reported that more people have come back to the island than those who travel to the mainland. According to the company, about 150,000 of those who left, in their sample, preferred Florida, with the first six destinations the counties of Orange (34,858), Osceola (22,610), Miami-Dade (15,233), Hillsborough (13,091), Polk (12,262), and Broward (10,580). The other four municipalities that became main destinations for those who left Puerto Rico were: 7,455 to the Bronx, 7,430 to Seminole, Florida; 5,767 to Hampden, Massachusetts, and 5,357 to Philadelphia. Previously, the Center for Puerto Rican Studies had estimated that there may be a total of 135, 592 people who left Puerto Rico between October of 2017 and February 22nd of 2018. Thus, it appears that by the end of this year, the Commonwealth might have experienced a loss of as many as 470,335 residents since 2017, or some 14% of its population, according to the Center for Puerto Rican Studies. In comparison, the Center has indicated that between 2006 and 2016, 525,769 residents of Puerto Rico emigrated to the United States.

There is, to date, no analysis of the impact of this exodus with regard to assessed property values–and the potential fiscal impact on the island municipalities. 

Unretiring Municipal Fiscal Challenges

May 22, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we return to the small municipality of Harvey, Illinois, where an aging population has fiscally sapped the town’s treasury, before exploring the disparate hurricane response treatment for Puerto Rico.

Municipal Pension Insolvency? In the Land of Lincoln, ranked the most financially unstable state in the nation according to a new S.S. News and World Report ranking by McKinsey & Co., some Illinois legislators are considering rolling back enforcement of a 2011 pension delinquency statute to help other Illinois municipalities avoid Harvey’s fiscal and physical dilemma between municipal taxes and public safety (Harvey underpaid its police and fire pensions by $2.9 million in 2016.)—with the efforts in Springfield coming in the wake of state action setting a precedent in retaining tax revenues it had collected to distribute to Harvey, because the small municipality had failed to make its pension payments. Indeed, so far this year, in the wake of the court’s decision withholding tax revenues collected by the state on behalf of Harvey; the Illinois Comptroller, in the wake of a court decision, has withheld more than $1.8 million in tax revenues from Harvey, forcing the city to lay off firefighters and police officers.

In response, State Sen. Napoleon Harris (D-Harvey) has proposed a bill, 40 ILCS 5/4-109, which would defer those tax revenue collections back to 2020; his bill would also create exceptions for distressed communities, such as Harvey, as Sen. Harris reminded his colleagues: “There’s going to be many other municipalities unable to pay these skyrocketing pension costs as well as continue to [provide] the public services that the citizens need and demand,” as he testified before the Illinois Licensed Activities and Pensions Committee, which approved amendments to his bill. The legislative action came as analysts at Wirepoints, an Illinois government watchdog group, have warned that Harvey is not alone—finding there to be more than 200 municipalities at similar risk of state tax withholdings in order to ensure the continuity of pension payments—payments protected under the Illinois Constitution. To date, Danville, the County seat of Vermillion County, a municipality of about 31,600 120 miles south of Chicago; East St. Louis, and Kanakee appear to be in the most desperate fiscal binds. In Danville, the municipality recently adopted a fee, the revenues for which would go directly to finance the municipality’s public pension obligations; Kanakee’s leaders voted to raise taxes.

In response to the fiscal and equity crisis, both Republicans and Democrats in the Illinois Legislature have questioned why there was no state oversight of delinquent municipalities like Harvey; nevertheless, Sen. Harris’ proposed legislation has been reported to the full Illinois Senate—that in a state ranked the most financially unstable in the country by U.S. New and World Report, based upon McKinsey & Company’s 2018 ranking of the nation’s most fiscally unstable states: the report considered credit rating and state public pension liability to rank states on long-term stability; for the near term, the report measured each state’s cash solvency and budget balance. Indeed, Illinois’ public pension debt, currently estimated at $130 billion, but measured as high as $250 billion by Moody’s last summer, was a factor in Moody’s analysis. Even Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner recognizes the epic scope of the fiscal problem, describing Illinois as the most financially unstable state in the nation.

For Illinois legislators, the fiscal dilemma is made more difficult by what Illinois State Sen. Bill Haine (D-Alton) reminded his colleagues: “We’re gonna see in the paper that the state waives the amounts due, and then they’re going to read that the Aldermen there are getting paid $100,000 a year,” even as he, nevertheless, voted for the bill. (In FY2017, the City of Harvey allocated $240,000 in wages for six aldermen—wages which did not account for public pension contributions and other “fringe benefits” that the budget lists—or, as Michael Moirano, who represents the Harvey Police Pension fund put it: “We cannot continue to do that and hope to resolve these pension issues,” adding that even though negotiations are underway to reach an agreement with the City of Harvey, the proposed “bill will make a mutually agreeable resolution impossible.”

Meanwhile in Springfield, where Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza has certified Harvey’s delinquency, a spokesperson noted: “The Comptroller’s Office does not want to see any Harvey employees harmed, or any Harvey residents put at risk…but the law does not give the Comptroller discretion in this case.” Similarly, Sen. Harris told his colleagues: “There’s going to be many other municipalities unable to pay these skyrocketing pension costs as well as continue to [provide] the public services that the citizens need and demand.”

Powering Up? For more than a week, Puerto Rico’s non-voting U.S. Representative Jennifer Gonzalez has been urging  FEMA to extend the contract under which mainland power crews have been helping repair the U.S. territory’s power grid—a request that FEMA has denied, meaning that line restoration crews hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will work to restore power in Puerto Rico, leaving the rest of the job to crews working for Puerto Rico’s public utility, PREPA, as, eight months after Hurricane Maria’s devastation, as many as 16,000 homes remain without power. With the Corps’ current work force of about 700 line workers scheduled to end their service this Friday, time is running out. Officials for PREPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency which hired the mainland contractors at FEMA’s request, have reported they expect everyone on the island to have power restored by the end of this month—the day before the official start of the Atlantic hurricane season. However, in her urgent extension request, Rep. Gonzalez expressed doubts that PREPA had the resources to complete the job quickly, writing: “I must urge that there be an extension of the mission that allows agency and contract crews to remain in place to see that the system is 100 percent restored.”

There appear, however, to be some crossed governance wires: Mike Byrne, who is in charge at FEMA of the federal response, wrote last Thursday that his decision not to extend the line restoration contract came “per the direction provided by the Energy Unified Command Group and confirmed by the PREPA Chief Executive Officer,” Walter Higgins. (The Energy Unified Command Group is the multi-agency group coordinating the power restoration effort, comprising FEMA itself, the Army Corps, which reports to FEMA, and PREPA.) In addition, it appears that some of the most challenging work awaits: sites still waiting for power are among the most difficult to reach because of mountainous and forested terrain. They include areas in the municipalities of Arecibo, Caguas, Humacao, and in Yabucoa, the city where Hurricane Maria made its initial, destructive landfall–a municipio founded in October 3, 1793 when Don Manuel Colón de Bonilla and his wife, Catalina Morales Pacheco, donated the lands to the people.

Plans of Debt Adjustment

April 16, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we return to the Motor City, Detroit, a city, which, to some extent, was the touchstone of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, to observe how the process of debt adjustment, as approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes fared. Then we journey south to consider an assessment by the Capitol Hill publication, Politico, of the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.

A Motor City Perspective from a Battle Veteran. Former CIA Director and U.S. Army General David Petraeus, speaking at the end of last week in Detroit at Wayne State University, likened Detroit’s rebound from the nation’s largest ever chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy to be like a “Phoenix rising from the ashes,” suggesting that the United States should emulate the Motor City’s multifaceted template for success. His speech, titled, “National Security: How safe are we at home and around the world?” was part of Wayne State’s Forum on Contemporary Issues in Society’s 10th anniversary lecture series. The issue, or question, Gen. Petraeus told the audience with regard to: “What in the World is Going On?” related to: “Detroit is a city that hit rock bottom that is bringing you back.” Thus, General Petraeus asked: “The question is: how to do that for the entire country?” Telling the audience: “In Detroit, where do you start when you have a city that’s crumbling at its core? Do you start with policing? Urban renewal? Economic revival? Education? It takes all of the above.” Gen. Petraeus said the biggest threats facing the U.S. are “countries that aren’t satisfied with the status quo and want a change…such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea; Islamic extremists; cyber threats; and increasing domestic populism.”

Gen. Petraeus added: “We really need to come to grips with the legal pathway of unskilled workers who are hugely important, particularly to the agriculture and hospitality industries; we need to come to grips with those who are already here but not legally, particularly the DACA children.”

But, as the fine editorial writer for the Detroit News, Bankhole Thompson, writing about a forum over the weekend at the Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, billed as a forum to focus on the Motor City’s recovery, featuring Mayor Mike Duggan, JP Morgan Chase Chair Jamie Dimon, and Peter Scher, the bank’s global head of corporate social responsibility,  the event “appeared more like a carefully orchestrated public relations and ‘job well done’ session for JPMorgan Chase, or at best the case of a bank issuing its own report card about its involvement in the city’s recovery,” adding that, “poverty, the greatest challenge to the city’s revival, was not given the deserving spotlight: They referenced the Mayor’s race speech last year without in-depth analysis about it. Listening to the entire exchange about Detroit, one would think the speakers were talking about a completely different city, not the one which is today the headquarters of poverty in America, as the 2016 Census shows Detroit leads the nation among the largest cities with poverty at 35.7%.” Mr. Thompson added that if one were unfamiliar with the crime index of Detroit, one would have been “hard-pressed to believe that the three-person panel led by Mayor Duggan was talking about a city that is now No. 1 in violent crime in the nation,” asking: “How can a discussion about rebuilding a city like Detroit not first acknowledge the problem of poverty, which is central to achieving even-handed recovery?” Wondering how if the city’s leaders continued to shy away “from the proper diagnosis, how can the problem be solved?” While expressing appreciation for the role that JPMorgan Chase and other entities are playing by investing in certain targeted neighborhoods, he wrote: “But the fact remains that while some neighborhoods are poised to revive and soar, the vast majority of them are nowhere close to experiencing economic salvation…As a result, Detroit has remained a city of different and especially unequal neighborhoods where the future of the city’s kids is determined by ZIP codes…Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. Referencing former President Lyndon Johnson’s Howard University commencement address from 1965, he wrote: “ ‘But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with and the neighborhood you live in, by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings,’” noting that the former President’s comments capture the “current realities of life for many in Detroit, where children wake up frightful and go to sleep hungry in high poverty neighborhoods,” Adding that the panel “failed to delve into the spectacles of destitution and misery that have created the ‘two Detroit’ phenomenon.” He wrote: “Detroit’s leaders must first acknowledge that poverty is real, not a myth, and then work assiduously to address it. An omission like this often leaves some people with this question: who is the city coming back for?”

Beating the Odds: A grim Assessment of FEMA. The Capitol Hill periodical, Politico, in an investigation by writer Danny Vinik “How Trump Favored Texas over Puerto Rico,” noted that the federal government had significantly underestimated the potential damage to Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria and relied too heavily on local officials and private-sector entities to handle the cleanup, noting that its cleanup plan, which had been developed four years ago by a FEMA contractor in anticipation of a catastrophic storm and utilized by FEMA when Maria hit last September, prepared for a Category 4 hurricane and “projected that the island would shift from response to recovery mode after roughly 30 days. In fact, Hurricane Maria was a ‘high-end’ Category 4 storm with different locations on the island experiencing Category 5 winds. More than six months after Maria made landfall, the island is just beginning to shift to recovery mode,” adding that, according to a half-dozen disaster-recovery experts who reviewed the document at Politico’s request, FEMA did not anticipate having to take on a lead role in the aftermath of the disaster, despite clear signs that Puerto Rico’s government and critical infrastructure would be overwhelmed by the force of such a storm; rather, the document largely relied on local Puerto Rico entities to restore the island’s power and telecommunications systems. Moreover, the FEMA analysis omitted discussion of the U.S. territory’s fiscal instability, as well as the capacity of PREPA—or, as Mr. Vinik wrote: “The plan truly didn’t contemplate the event the size of Maria…They made assumptions that people would be able to do things that they wouldn’t be able to do.” Nevertheless, he added that disaster-recovery experts determined that the 140-page plan, published last month on the open-information site MuckRock through a Freedom of Information Act request, correctly predicted many challenges that FEMA faced with Hurricane Maria, including widespread road closures and difficulties transporting emergency supplies to the island territories, but failed to anticipate the extent of the damage. Mr. Vinik noted that Michael Coen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, who was serving as chief of staff at FEMA when the report was written, said the drafters should have expected that the federal government would need to play a larger role than they envisioned: “They probably should have made the assumption that it was going to require federal support: That should have been flagged,” with experts describing that omission as significant, because such planning documents are most useful in advance of the disaster, in significant part to assist federal, state, and local entities to better understand and coordinate their responsibilities. He found, mayhap ironically, that FEMA’s plan “did accurately predict that the island’s geographic position and aging infrastructure would make the response challenging. It correctly identified that moving assets to nearby locations in advance would be ‘limited’ as a result of the storm’s uncertain path and that ‘hotel space commonly used to house responders may be necessary to house survivors.’” Moreover, he found, FEMA’s plan also found that Puerto Rico’s power is generated in the island’s south, while most of the population lives in the north, requiring transmission lines which transverse Puerto Rico’s steep terrain would render “repair and restoration difficult and lengthy: It is anticipated that infrastructure of essential utilities will be out of service for extended periods of time.” Indeed, he noted that Jeremy Konyndyk, the former key USAID disaster response official during the Obama administration, had described FEMA’s plan as “reasonably good,” that it “presciently anticipate[d] many of the issues that emerged in the Maria response.” However, Mr. Konyndyk and other disaster response experts suggested that the plan contained some critical omissions, especially its heavy reliance on state and local officials to respond to the storm. The FEMA plan had determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could help with temporary power restoration, but “cannot fix transmission lines,” since such a job “is the responsibility of the owners.” However, after Maria struck, the Corps was tasked with repairing the entire power grid in Puerto Rico, a result of financial and management difficulties at PREPA. Thus, the plan’s over optimistic assumptions that temporary repairs to critical infrastructure, such as the power system, would be complete soon after the storm proved to be gravely off.

The plan also projected that private sector companies would move swiftly to restore telecommunications, or, as the report described it: “There are minimal expectations that federal assistance would be required to restore the infrastructure during the response and recovery of a storm,” adding that, if communication systems were not swiftly fixed, first responders could use satellite phones instead or rely on mobile communication trucks delivered to the island. The reality, as we have previously noted, however, is that Puerto Rico’s communication system was wiped out, leaving telecommunications companies in the midst of such serious infrastructure disruption to slowly repair the infrastructure, unaided by rolls of paper towels tossed by President Trump as Puerto Rico’s leaders and mayors desperately sought to communicate with FEMA and other first responders. Indeed, as Mr. Vinik wrote: “Local officials described limited communications as one of the biggest challenges in the first week after the storm.”

Noting the importance of having a FEMA plan on a Caribbean island subject to violent hurricanes, Mr. Vinik, wrote that in a March interview at FEMA’s joint field office in Puerto Rico, Michael Byrne, FEMA’s top official overseeing the response to Hurricane Maria, had, instead downplayed the importance of the plan—telling him: “A plan is good when you don’t have all the ground truth about what your requirements are going to be. You use that someone thought about this, someone took the time to think it through and said it’s likely that this is what’s going to happen. And then you execute the plan.” In the aftermath of Maria, FEMA is revising its hurricane plan for Puerto Rico, and, a day late and many dollars short, FEMA is creating teams to help Puerto Rico municipios to update their own plans, using new assumptions about the risks and damage from a catastrophic storm. 

Who Is on First? In its revised, quasi plan of debt adjustment, Puerto Rico has increased its projected five-year cash surplus to $7.36 billion; the plan, however, does not include layoffs or pension cuts that have been urged by the federally-appointed PROMESA oversight board—raising, once again, the difficult governance issue with regard to how the elected leaders of Puerto Rico and the federally appointed oversight board will reach any consensus after months of seeking to negotiate a consensual plan, with Governor Rossello vowing to oppose the PROMESA Board’s proposed 10% cut in public pension payments and a number of proposed labor reforms. In addition, the Governor has insisted he can achieve the Board’s requested level of spending cuts without layoffs in the public sector workforce—something with regard to which the Board has remained doubtful. Now, with the Board’s April 20th deadline looming this Friday, the question will be whether there might be still another deferral to continue talks with the Governor, albeit, there appears to be growing speculation that the Board will act to approve or disapprove this week.  

The Fiscal & Physical Challenge. In the real world, for any meaningful fiscal recovery, any plan agreed to—or imposed by the Board, will have to address the trials and tribulations of one of the nation’s oldest municipalities, Cidra, a municipio of about 44,000, which is one of the oldest cities in the U.S. Founded in 1795, the city has, in the wake of Maria, lost hundreds of jobs: chains of adverse events which are outside of local control demonstrate the complexity of assessing what kind of fiscal recovery plan could actually work. In February, PepsiCo announced the closure of its plant in the city—and the dismissal of 200 employees, after operating there for 30 years. Pepsi reported its decision was not related to Hurricane Maria or its location in that town, but with its strategy of optimizing global network and long-term growth. Whatever the reasoning, for Cidra, the bottom line will be the loss of jobs and the reduction of tax revenues for the municipality and for Puerto Rico: it will mark another knock on Puerto Rico’s fiscal base—of which manufacturing constitutes 20% of the island’s fiscal base. The closure will translate into losses of jobs, both private and public, reduced license taxes, corporate taxes, and individual taxes—meaning the loss of 70% of license revenues and 40% of the municipal budget. That, in turn, is forcing municipal layoffs: Cidra intends to dismiss 200 employees from a payroll of 526 representing a potential savings of $10.5 million a year—and a reduction in the city’s municipal budget, from $18 million to $11 million for FY2018-2019.

Fiscal Recovery & Home Rule

April 6, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we can safely write: free, free at last, as Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has signed an order releasing Flint from receivership and state oversight—making it the final  municipality to be under such state fiscal control. Then we turn East to the Empire State to assess whether New York will grant the same fiscal liberty to Nassau County, before dipping into the warm Caribbean to assess the ongoing fiscal and political tug of fiscal war so critical to the fiscal future of Puerto Rico. Finally, before your second cup of java, we jet back to King George, Virginia, as the rural county struggles to reduce its more than $100 million in indebtedness.

Setting the Path for a Strategic Recovery & a Return to Home Rule. Gov. Rick Snyder announced he has signed an order to release the City of Flint from receivership and state oversight—making Flint the final city in the state to exit such oversight and preemption of local authority. His decision came as the lame duck Governor, who has been under fire for his selection of emergency managers to the Genesee County city and handling of the Flint water crisis, came at the behest of the Flint Receivership Transition Advisory Board. The decision marks the end of an era of state usurpation of municipal authority—especially in the wake of the role of state imposed emergency managers in the state’s lead contamination crisis for their decisions to switch to the Flint River—decisions which led to the drinking water health crisis, as well as to the devastation of the city’s assessed property values, as well as contributed to the poisoning of thousands of citizens and the deaths of 12. The Governor stated: “City management and elected leadership have worked hard to put Flint on a stronger path…With continuing cooperation between the city and state, Flint has an opportunity to take advantage of the momentum being felt around the city in terms of economic development, which can lead to stronger budgets and improved services for residents.”

The announcement cleared the path for Michigan state Treasurer Nick Khouri’s expected signature on a “Flint RTAB resolution that repeals all remaining emergency manager orders,” with the repeal effectively securing the municipality from seven years of state emergency management, restoring full authority to the city’s Mayor and Council—or, as Mayor Karen Weaver put it: “We’ve just got our divorce…I feel real good about it…I remember when I was campaigning (in 2015) — it was one of the things I talked about, was I wanted to work on getting home rule back to the City of Flint. I know it’s how we got into this mess (the water crisis), was having an emergency manager and our voice being taken from the city and taking the power away from the local elected officials. We’ve shown that we’ve been responsible, and we’re moving this city forward.” That state preemption had come in the wake of a state financial review team opining that a “financial emergency existed” in Flint, and that the city had no “satisfactory plan in place to address the city’s fiscal problems,” leading to the preemption of local control and state imposition of an emergency manager from that time until shortly after Mayor Weaver was elected in November 2015.

Will Nassau County Be Free at Last? In a comparable governing and federalism issue in New York State, Nassau County Executive Laura Curran, who took office at the beginning of this year, has submitted a revised spending plan which relies upon new revenue initiatives, after, at the end of last year, the Nassau Interim Finance Authority had rejected a $2.99 billion budget and ordered $18 million in cuts due to revenue uncertainty. The new, proposed budget, which was submitted to the Authority on March 15th, contains $54.7 million in projected savings and revenues; however, the Authority’s Executive Director, Evan Cohen, Wednesday expressed apprehensions with regard to required legislative approvals needed for some of the revenue initiatives, even as he praised the new County Executive, who attended the Authority’s session Wednesday evening in an effort to secure support for proposed new revenues and avoiding a reliance on borrowing sought by previous administrations. Director Cohen, in a letter, wrote: “Our analysis indicates that the projected risks confronting the County will impede its chances for ending FY 2018 in [generally accepted accounting principles] balance…Strong management and legislative cooperation will be essential to any chance of success on that fiscal front,” stressing in her epistle that the County is confronted by political challenges to get the Republican-controlled Nassau County Legislature to agree to and implement some of her revenue plans: the County is seeking approval of some $9.7 million of $29 million in additional projected revenues, even as it is already confronting resistance on a proposal to change fees for Little Leagues and other non-profit groups to use county-operated athletic fields. A County spokesperson noted: “It is a viable operating budget except for the risks associated with the overwhelming cost of commercial and residential claims for tax overpayment…Once again, it is clear that the county’s poor fiscal health is intertwined with the broken assessment system and the failed the tax policies of the previous administration.” Nevertheless, the Authority identified $104.7 million of projected risks in the modified budget. County Executive Curran noted that this figure, which is up from $101.4 million of projected risks cited in the December review of the budget, reflects her administration’s decision to fund $43.8 million for to honor a court judgment mandating the payment to two men who were exonerated in the wake of a 1985 murder conviction. The Authority praised the County Executive her fiscal plan to pay off the judgment through operating revenue rather than through the issuance of municipal debt. The gold star from the Authority could begin to clear the path for exit from state oversight.

Modern Day Colonialism? The Puerto Rico Senate Wednesday voted unanimously to terminate its appropriations to fund the PROMESA Oversight Board, which, under the law, is defined as an integral part of the U.S. territory’s government; the federal act specifies that Puerto Rico’s government revenues are to be used for its funding. Puerto Rico Sen. President Thomas Rivera Schatz, an attorney and former prosecutor, who was born in New York City, as well as Gov. Ricardo Rosselló both conveyed messages of defiance to the Oversight Board, with the messages coming in the wake of Gov. Rosselló’s epistle to Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) of the House Natural Resources Committee defending his independent power relative to that of the Oversight Board and denouncing the quasi-imperialist effort to preempt the authority as the elected leader of the territory—an effort unimaginable for a Member of the U.S. Congress to take against any Governor of any of the 50 mainland states. Senate President Schatz noted: “The key message we want to send here is that we do not bend, we respond to the people who chose us, and we defend the Puerto Rico citizens and the American citizens who live on the island.” He added: “If there is anyone who defends the board, I urge you to tell us if the American dream and the principles of freedom and democracy that inspired the creation of the American nation accept as good that the Board’s executive director [Natalie Jaresko] earns $650,000 with all possible luxury benefits…” adding that Ms. Jaresko “lives at the expense of the people of Puerto Rico while trying to eliminate the Christmas bonus to workers of private companies and the government…and is also trying to reduce your working hours or eliminate your vacation. And who is attacking the medical services, education, and housing of the Puerto Rican people.”

Nevertheless, by submitting a revised fiscal plan—a plan which includes only 20 of the 48 recommendations made by the PROMESA Board, regarding financial and technical matters, Governor Ricardo Rosselló yesterday ruled out any alternative, as he, during a round table at La Fortaleza, insisted that the PROMESA Board may not establish a plan in which it enters into public policy issues, a prerogative that only holds for the Puerto Rico government—as would be the case with any of the nation’s other 50 states. Nevertheless, he added that it is not about having to go to court to assert Puerto Rico’s democratic rights against the PROMESA Board. Simultaneously, the Governor ruled out giving way to a measure such as that approved by the Puerto Rico Senate to stop the disbursement of public funds for the operation of the body of Congressional creation. The projected allocation of funds for the six-year PROMESA Board term is projected to cost the taxpayers of Puerto Rico up to $1.4 billion—a figure which includes operational budget, expenses of advisors, and everything related to the representation for the process of Title III of PROMESA. Thus, the Governor added: “We do not have to go to court. That is what I would like everyone to understand. We are doing what is in law that we must do. Our preference would be that all matters that we can agree, that can be executed. That we can work in that direction, but our action if they (the PROMESA Board) certify something that is the work and the right of the elected government of Puerto Rico, which does not match the public policy of our government, that part is simply not going to take. Our warning is for what to do if what they are going to do is weaken a fiscal plan before measures that obviously are not going to be executed.”

In response to the measure approved by the Puerto Rico Senate, the Governor noted: “[H]here we must show that we are a jurisdiction of law and order, and I am following the steps of our strategy…What I have said is that in the face of the future, I will always seek to defend the people of Puerto Rico. Although I understand the feeling of the Legislative Assembly, the frustration, which is a prevalent feeling, the fact is that everyone’s approach, and we discussed it yesterday in the legislative conference…must be within the subject in law, demonstrate that the fiscal oversight board cannot implement public policy issues.” He stressed that responsible, prudent actions “are aimed at achieving a fiscal plan that is enforceable.”

Referring to the 202-page document, provided to the PROMESA Board before 5:00 pm yesterday, Gov. Rossello said that once the numbers are analyzed “We are basically about [at a] $100 million difference from where they wanted to be and where we are,” highlighting that the document, through structural reforms and adjusted fiscal measures, proposes the government will achieve a surplus of $1,400 million by FY2023—that is, a document which places Puerto Rico on the path “of structural balance and restoration of growth,” insisting it is important to approve the plan Puerto Rico submitted, because it will allow for a better position toward the judicial process for debt readjustment or Title III, comparable to a chapter 9 plan of debt adjustment. Stressing that “after implementing all government transformation initiatives and structural reforms, and incorporating the federal support received for health assistance and disasters, Puerto Rico will accumulate a surplus of $6,300 million by FY2023.”

With regard to other PROMESA proposed changes, the Governor stated that Puerto Rico had agreed to a number of the PROMESA recommendations, mentioning that more than a dozen corresponded to economic aspects, noting, for example, that Puerto Rico had requested $94.4 million in federal disaster assistance because of Hurricane Maria, but on the recommendation of the Board had reduced that by nearly half to $49.7 million. With regard to differences on estimated GNP for FY2018, he noted that it had been readjusted from a fall of negative 3.9% to negative 12%, because of the resulting economic slowdown of Puerto Rico—adding, that by next year, he anticipates a rebound of 6.9%, in part because of the flow of federal aid for post-hurricane reconstruction and disbursements from insurers, which will decrease considerably in subsequent years to 0.6% positive growth in GNP by FY2023. He noted that the revision for the population decline due to migration varied significantly from a fall to negative 0.2% in the previous plan to a decrease of negative 6.4% this year.

For his part, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bishop has written to the PROMESA Board to criticize it for its lack of dialogue with the creditor community, lack of sufficiently aggressive action to make structural and fiscal changes in Puerto Rico, and suggesting the Board take steps to end the local government’s separate legal representation in the Title III bankruptcy cases—an epistle which, unsurprisingly, Gov. Rosselló described as anti-democratic and colonialist. Earlier, the Governor made public his own letter to Chairman Bishop in which he had written: “Your letter is truly disturbing in its reckless disregard for collaboration and cooperation in favor of an anti-democratic process akin to a dictatorial regime imposing its will by imperial fiat and decree…I cannot and will not permit you to elevate concerns of bondholders on the mainland above concern for the well-being of my constituents.” In his epistle, the Governor made clear his view that, contrary to its claims, the PROMESA Board does not have the legal authority to “take over the role of the elected government of Puerto Rico.” He added that while the Puerto Rico government “recognizes that structural reforms are key to Puerto Rico’s future success; it does not need the Board to substitute its judgment for our own in that regard.” With regard to reducing the Title III litigation costs to Puerto Rico’s government, the Governor expressed apprehension at any effort to preempt or take away the “government’s own voice and own representation in its own restructuring process,” adding that he believes Chairman Bishop’s committee “faces a fork in the road:” It can support the process found in the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, or the “other path lies obstructionist behavior that would undermine the duly elected government’s authority and legitimacy…If the committee, led by you, Mr. Chairman, persists on this ruinous path, the people of Puerto Rico and their brothers and sisters on the mainland will know who to hold accountable,” adding: “Your letter embodies everything that is wrong with this process and only serves to reinforce the dismissive and second-class colonial treatment Puerto Rico has suffered throughout its history as a territory of the United States, which undermines our efforts to address the island’s fiscal, economic, and humanitarian crises.”

Colonial Eras? Meanwhile, in the former British colonies, the aptly named King George County, Virginia, where indigenous peoples of varying cultures lived along the waterways for thousands of years before Europeans came to America, Algonquian Indians some three hundred fourteen years ago first came into conflict, when early colonists retaliated for the tribe’s attacking the farm of John Rowley, capturing and shipping 40 people, including children older than 12, to Antigua, where they were sold into slavery—paving the way for the county to be formally established in 1720, when land was split off from Richmond County, Virginia—before it was substantially reorganized in the critical year of 1776, with land swapped with both Stafford and Westmoreland Counties to form today’s political boundaries—some twenty-five years after its native son, James Madison, the nation’s fourth President, was born there. Today, the county of about 26,000, with a median family income of $49,882, is looking to pay down its debt; however, one of its primary sources of revenue is no longer available: therefore, the Board of Supervisors is working on an ambitious fiscal plan to try to reduce about 30 percent of the county’s debt over the next five years, meaning it will seek to shift some of its reserve funds in order to allocate more new funds each year to pay down its debt—an effort which one consulting firm in the state described as unique: Kyle Laux, a senior vice president of Davenport & Co., a financial counseling firm for King George, Caroline, and Spotsylvania counties, noted: “What the county administrator and board are doing is unique…and it’s unique in a really good way: It’s thinking long-term about the county.”

The effort comes after the most recent campaign, when several Board of Supervisors members campaigned on the need for King George to reduce its $113 million in accumulated debt—debt which, when current County Administrator Neiman Young came on board a little over a year ago, he described as shocking—especially that no actions had been taken to address the accumulating debt. Indeed, at a work session two months ago, Mr. Young laid out numbers that caused those listening to gasp aloud. While the county has a proverbial golden goose with the King George Landfill, it turns out that the bulk of the non-odoriferous revenues generated from the landfill is already accounted for‒for the next two decades. Indeed, even the its expansion, the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 29 years—which, in turn, means that, for the next two decades, $6.2 million of the $7.5 million the county currently receives annually from the landfill is already consumed to finance capital debt. Thus, County officials wanted to change those numbers; ergo, they asked Davenport to rustle up a fiscal plan—and, subsequently, at a recent work session, County Supervisors supported the application of some $3 million from general and capital improvement reserves to pay down capital debt, with the fiscal plan adjusted to mesh with the County’s which provide that King George must have a certain amount set aside. Thus the County is proposing to add about $1 million each year for four years from revenues. Some of that would come from additional revenues King George would receive in the wake of upcoming reassessments, with the remainder from an annual surplus. The idea is to pay down the debt in three different payments between 2019 and 2023—recognizing that because every dollar paid on the debt principal saves about 41 cents in interest, the plan would free up about $11.1 million in cash flow and pay off $6.57 million in principal, according to Mr. Laux.

However, in the world of municipal finance, little is easy. Indeed, as the Supervisors learned during the work session, the amount pulled annually from revenue sources would likely fluctuate in order to address operational needs. Thus, the Board opted to place school resource officers in two of the county’s three elementary schools; it already has officers at its middle and high schools, and is applying for a grant to place a deputy for the third elementary school. Along with other operational expenses, ergo, the county is considering the set aside of some $200,000 from FY2019 revenues, far below the $750,000 proposed—or, as Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Granger put it: “It doesn’t necessarily blow up our plan, but it’s doing something rather than nothing.” He added government debt is like a home mortgage, not a credit card.

The County’s existing debt is based on a fixed rate, and the principal is repaid annually. If supervisors opt not to go forward with plans to pay down the debt sooner, the County is scheduled to repay about half of its debt within 10 years, according to a Davenport report. However, because paying down the principal faster would free up fiscal resources, the County’s new debt reduction and mitigation plan should reduce about 30% of the county’s debt over the next five years, which equates to roughly $22 million, an amount which Administrator Young understandably described as “huge.” But Supervisor Ruby Brabo had the last word: “The landfill is going to go away, folks. We either raise your taxes 30 cents or we make sure the debt is paid off before it does.”