Is There Shelter from the Storm?

November 20, 2017

Good Morning! In today’s Blog, we consider the deepening Medicaid crisis and Hurricane Maria recovery in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico.

Visit the project blog: The Municipal Sustainability Project 

Well I’m living in a foreign country, but I’d bound to cross the line
Beauty walks a razor’s edge, someday I’ll make it mine
If I could only turn back the clock to when God and her were born
“Come in” she said
“I’ll give you shelter from the storm”.

Bob Dylan

Shelter from the Storm & Governing Competency? With this session of Congress entering its final two weeks of the calendar year, Puerto Rico’s Medicaid funding crisis is deepening: Hurricane Maria wrought serious physical and fiscal damage to Puerto Rico’s health-care system; yet, not a dime of the federal disaster relief money has, to date, been earmarked for the island’s Medicaid program. The White House, Friday, belatedly submitted a $44 billion supplemental payment request, noting that the administration was “aware” that Puerto Rico needed Medicaid assistance; however, the Trump Administration put the onus on Congress to act—leaving the annual catchall omnibus appropriations bill as the likely last chance: this Congress is scheduled to adjourn on December 14th.  But with a growing list of “must do” legislation, including the pending tax bill and expiring S-CHIP authorizations, time is short—and the administration’s request is short: In a joint statement, House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking members Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J) and Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Or.) called on the Trump Administration to “immediately provide additional funding and extend a one-hundred percent funding match for Medicaid in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, just as we did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,” with the request coming amid apprehensions that unless Congress acts, federal funds will be exhausted in a matter of months—potentially threating Puerto Rico’s ability to meet its Medicaid obligations: the Puerto Rican government has requested $1.6 billion from Congress and the Trump administration in the wake of the devastating physical and fiscal storm, with Gov. Ricardo Rosselló having, last month, requested $1.6 billion a year over the next five years, writing to Congressional leaders that the “total devastation brought on by these natural disasters has vastly exacerbated the situation and effectively brought the island’s healthcare system to the brink of collapse.” Puerto Rico in 2016 devoted almost $2.5 billion to meet its Medicaid demands—so even the proposed reimbursement would only cover about 60 percent of the projected cost. The urgency comes as the House, earlier this month, passed legislation reauthorizing the CHIP program, including $1 billion annually for Puerto Rico for the next two years, specifically aimed at shoring up the island’s Medicaid program. Nevertheless, despite the progress in the House on CHIP funding, the Senate has yet to moved forward with its version of the legislation—and the version reported by the Senate Finance Committee does not include any funds for Puerto Rico. Should Congress not act, up to 900,000 Puerto Ricans would likely be cut from Medicaid—more than half of total enrollment, according to federal estimates.

Rep. Bruce Westerman, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations of the House Natural Resources Committee, last month, had noted, it was “obvious PREPA did not know how to draft a FEMA-compliant contract, nor did PREPA officials adhere to the advice of their own counsel on how to comply: I believe this is precisely why the Oversight Board should be granted more authority. While we understand the sense of urgency for the people of Puerto Rico, oversight and transparency are vital to this recovery process.” House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop added: “A legacy of dysfunction (at PREPA) has created a competence deficit that threatens the island’s ability to improve conditions for its citizens. Confidence in the utility’s ability to manage contracts and time-sensitive disaster related infrastructure work is long gone.” The Oversight Board announced its plan to appoint Noel Zamot to replace current PREPA leader Ricardo Ramos just a day or two after board members met with Chairman Bishop, according to a Bishop spokesperson. At a Committee on Natural Resources hearing last Wednesday, Chairman Bishop continued to call for more outside control over Gov. Ricardo Rosselló’s government, stating: “The lack of institutional controls…raises grave concerns about the government of Puerto Rico’s ability to competently negotiate, manage, and implement infrastructure projects without significant independent oversight: One of the things that I think we’re walking into here is a tremendous credibility gap, based on Whitefish and other subsequent decisions that are going on here.” (The “Whitefish” to which Chair Bishop was referring was Whitefish Energy, which had been retained by PREPA to help fix Puerto Rico’s electrical grid: observers have questioned the adequacy of the company’s experience, the fact that it is based in the same Montana town as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and the rates it is charging to Puerto Rico.)

Prior to the hearing, Gov. Rosselló had released a request to the federal government for $94 billion in medium- and long-term aid for recovery from hurricanes Irma and Maria—a request unlikely to be met—or, as Chairman Rob Bishop “You’re asking for an unprecedented $94 billion: “That’s a lot of money. That’s not going to happen unless people are going to see some changes in the way cooperation is made, and the way that money’s going to be spent.” The Governor’s responses came as—on the other side of the Hill, PREPA Executive Director Ricardo Ramos explained to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee the process PREPA used to hire Whitefish Energy to repair Puerto Rico’s energy grid. He testified that in the wake of Hurricane Irma (which struck Puerto Rico on September 6th), six private companies submitted offers to PREPA to aid with restoring the grid. All six companies offered similar hourly rates. While only 25% of the island had electrical service immediately after Irma, this service had since improved to 96%.  Immediately after Hurricane Maria hit, Director Ramos testified he had limited communications ability and did not become fully aware of the extent of Maria’s damage to the electrical system for a week. Use of state mutual aid for restoring the grid, he testified, would have required PREPA to provide accommodations, food, communications, and other logistics to the incoming crews, because this was part of the mutual aid policies. Thus, Mr. Ramos noted that in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, the utility was unable to make such provisions—meaning, ultimately, that he had to choose between using another company that was asking for $25 million up front versus Whitefish, which was willing to be paid when the work was completed. Ergo, Mr. Ramos authorized the use of Whitefish and chose to continue to look for other options. At the start of Wednesday’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting on the hurricanes’ impact on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R.-Alaska), said she thought it made little sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of Stafford Act funds to rebuild the electric grid as it had been in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands prior to the hurricanes. She said this would only re-erect it only to be later blown down again.

Governance in Puerto Rico. As U.S. Judge Laura Taylor Swain presides over Puerto Rico’s quasi-chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy trial in Puerto Rico, House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) last week issued a statement that the Puerto Rico PROMESA Oversight Board ought to be granted additional legal authority over the Puerto Rico Power Authority (PREPA), with their statement coming just hours after Judge Swain had ruled that the PROMESA Board lacked authority to replace PREPA’s current director. The power authority issue came as Gov. Ricardo Rosselló sought some $17 billion in recovery assistance from the U.S. Senate for Puerto Rico’s beleaguered electric utility system—with his request coming engineer Ricardo Ramos resigned yesterday as PREPA’s Executive Director resigned—a resignation which PREPA’s governing board promptly accepted, voting unanimously to ratify the appointment of engineer Justo González as interim executive director. Mr. González, who has 28 years of service at PREPA and was the director of Generation, was recommended by Governor Rosselló, who noted: “The truth is that there was a series of distractions and there was a decision to go in another direction. This is going to happen and happens in every government,” referencing, in the wake of the devastating Hurricane María, that such challenges include technical failures, selective blackouts, lack of equipment, and hiring of companies with few employees and experience to carry out support tasks. He noted that Mr. Ramos “is a professional who has worked hard, but understands that this is a context that has greatly distracted from what recovery is.”

Failures and Blackouts. Until early yesterday, PREPA had reached 44.7 % of its pre-Maria generation—a level leaving Governor Rossello still frustrated, but stressing that failures also occur because: “it is an old system, which suffered previous damage….I know that it has been questioned why these failures happened, and if there was intervention…When you are lifting a collapsed power system, there will be ups and downs. There is progress; progress is inevitable; and it is being seen very clearly.”

The Electric Challenge Ahead. In the wake of the appointment of Mr. Gonzalez as interim executive director of PREPA, the Governor has commenced a search for a new head, noting: “With this appointment begins a process of evaluating the best available talent, inside and outside  of Puerto Rico, to proceed with an appointment in property of the position of executive director of PREPA: I hope that this process will be completed as quickly as possible, so that the work leading to the rehabilitation of the electrical system throughout the island is not affected, according to the guidelines we have given.” PREPA governing board President Ernesto Sgroi advised the Talent Search Committee of the governing body will be in charge of identifying the new executive director of the public corporation.

Advertisements

Stormy Governance & Federalism Challenges in the Wake of a Storm

eBlog

November 14, 2017

Good Morning! In today’s eBlog, we consider the governance and federalism challenges in the wake of the devastating Hurricane Maria impact on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, where questions in a federal courtroom about the balance between Puerto Rico’s government and the federally appointed oversight board for Puerto Rico consider not just the Puerto Rican government’s authority—but also that of the Congress.  

Visit the project blog: The Municipal Sustainability Project 

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain has denied the PROMESA Oversight Board’s request to deny the request to appoint Noel Zamot as the Transformation Officer (CTO), noting that the powers granted to the special panel by Congress are insufficiently broad to limit the actions of the government of Puerto Rico, holding that the Puerto Rico Oversight Board lacked authority to replace the leader of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). The Board had requested the Judge to confirm its appointment of Noel Zamot as PREPA’s Chief Transformation Office—a position comparable to CEO. Instead, Judge Swain called on the Board and Gov. Ricardo Rosselló to work collaboratively to address the U.S. territory’s problems—a call, in response to which, Gov. Rosselló responded by noting: “We are very pleased with the decision issued today by Judge Laura Taylor Swain, since it reiterates our position regarding the limit of power of the Financial Oversight and Management Board.…It is clear that the Financial Oversight and Management Board does not have the power to take full control of the government or its instrumentalities…We recognize that the reconstruction and recovery of the island requires a union of wills; therefore, we welcome any collaboration or technical support that the Board wishes to offer to the government elected by Puerto Ricans to ensure the best interests of the people of Puerto Rico.” Judge Swain noted that Congress could have eased the governance role of the oversight board if it had given the Board direct authority over Puerto Rico’s government and public entities; however, as she noted: it had not—instead it deliberately split power between the federally appointed oversight board and the government, adding: “I urge you to work together,” in regard to the PROMESA Board and the Rosselló administration, noting that every moment spent on complicated and expensive litigation was time lost for the Puerto Rico people. Judge Swain noted that the Board has multiple mechanisms to discharge its functions without requiring its direct intervention after the Congressionally created public corporation, its governing board and its executive director, Ricardo Ramos, were unable to articulate and effectively implement a plan to restore the electricity grid after its collapse in the wake of Hurricane Maria. Nevertheless, Judge Swain also called on the government of Puerto Rico to address the situation of the island, noting that millions of American citizens remain in the dark and in a dangerous situation, while every controversy aired in court is “a minute lost” for the future of Puerto Rico.

Unsurprisingly, Governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares responded he was pleased with Judge Swain’s decision, noting in written statements that the decision issued today by Judge Swain “reiterates our position on the power limit of the JSF: We have been clear from day one about the powers the [PROMESA] Board has, and those it does not have. It is clear that the (Board) does not have the power to take control of the government as a whole or its instrumentalities,” adding: “Our position is validated and it is recognized that the administration and public management of Puerto Rico remains with the democratically elected government…As Governor of Puerto Rico, I will defend the democratic rights of my people over any challenge and in any forum. We recognize that the reconstruction and recovery of the Island requires a union of wills, therefore, we welcome any collaboration or technical support that the Board wishes to offer to the Government elected by the Puerto Ricans to ensure the best interests of the People of Puerto Rico.”

The U.S. government yesterday filed notice it would defend the court supervised restructuring of Puerto Rico’s debt against a constitutional challenge by an investor—with the filing coming in response to the Title III bankruptcy case related to Puerto Rico’s government debt to an adversary proceeding filed last August by the Aurelius Capital hedge fund. (Aurelius owned $473 million of Puerto Rico municipal bonds as of July.) The government argued that the Title III bankruptcy petition should be dismissed, because its filing had not been authorized by a validly constituted oversight board, whilst the fund asserted that the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which empowers the President to appoint certain public officials with the “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate was breached in appointing the board’s members: the Board was appointed under the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act to oversee fiscal and economic management in the territory and the restructuring of more than $70 billion of debt that the Puerto Rico government said could not be repaid under current economic conditions.

Aurelius claimed that the PROMESA Board is “unconstitutional,” and, because it is, its actions are “are void,” pressing Judge Swain to dismiss the case. In response, the Justice Department notified the court it would file a memorandum supporting PROMESA’s constitutionality on or before December 6th. Part of the dispute will relate to the process itself: the Board, as we noted initially, was named by the U.S. House and Senate Majority and Minority leaders, the Speaker and House Minority Leader, and former President Obama: neither U.S. Senate committees nor the Senate as a whole voted on the confirmations. Last Friday, the government of Puerto Rico, the COFINA Seniors Bondholders Coalition, the Unsecured Creditors Committee, and the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico submitted memoranda against the Aurelius position, with the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico pressing the federal court to lift the stay on litigation outside of the bankruptcy process, arguing that Aurelius is seeking actions against the debtor and the Oversight Board outside the Title III process—something it asserts is barred by the PROMESA statute. In contrast, the COFINA Seniors argue that the Oversight Board’s membership is constitutional, because Congress’s power over the territories is plenary and not subject to the structural limitations of the United States Constitution, while the Unsecured Creditors argued that the “U.S. Constitution gives Congress virtually unlimited authority to govern unincorporated territories directly, or to delegate that power to such agencies as it” deems fit. This group said that there is precedent for the Board members’ appointment procedures, asserting the Board members are territorial officials and not U.S. government officials, as Aurelius claims.

Power to Puerto Rico. On a separate front, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico notched a significant win in court yesterday when Judge Swain rejected the appointment of a former military officer to oversee the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), after the PROMESA Board had sought to appoint retired Air Force Col. Noel Zamot to supervise the reconstruction and operations of PREPA in the wake of Hurricane Maria’s devastation of the U.S. territory’s utility and the subsequent territory-wide blackout on September 20th—an inability to restore service since has led to accusations of mismanagement, especially as, PREPA, two months after the hurricane, is generating only 48 percent of its normal output. Thus it was that Judge Swain ruled that the PROMESA Board may not unilaterally seize control of the U.S. territory’s government agencies—a signal legal victory for the administration of Gov. Ricardo Rosselló and others who have argued that no independent official should oversee a local government agency—or, as the Governor noted: “Our position has been validated and it has been recognized that the administration and public management of Puerto Rico remains with the democratically elected government.” PREPA is $9 billion in debt and continues to face scrutiny after signing a $300 million contract with Montana-based Whitefish Energy Holdings—a contract cancelled at the end of last month at the Governor’s request, but which is now undergoing federal and local audits. Both Gov. Rosselló and PREPA Director Ricardo Ramos are scheduled to testify this morning in Washington, D.C. before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The Power of Storms & the Storms of Fiscal Power

October 31, 2017

Good Morning! In today’s Blog, we consider the growing questions with regard to both the federal and Puerto Rican response to the human and fiscal devastation caused by Hurricane Maria–and what the implication’s might be for the U.S. territory’s debt–and governance.

Visit the project blog: The Municipal Sustainability Project 

The Price of Solvency. Almost three weeks after the hiring of Whitefish Energy Holdings created its own storm wave of criticism and investigation claims, both the FBI and the PROMESA oversight board have commenced investigations about PREPA’s decision to award a $300 million contract to a small Montana energy firm, Whitefish Energy Holdings, to rebuild Puerto Rico’s electrical infrastructure—with the PROMESA Oversight Board intending to discuss and approve today a process to review Puerto Rico’s contract—one which Governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares canceled on Sunday—at a time when only 30% of the U.S. territory’s power has been restored. The issue is anticipated to light up the agenda at the PROMESA Board’s tenth meeting today at the headquarters of the College of Engineers and Surveyors of Puerto Rico, in Hato Rey, under its authority to review and revoke laws which are incompatible with its Fiscal Plan, as well as any contract that the government of Puerto Rico has granted—marking the first time the Congressionally enacted entity will seek to exercise the authority Congress authorized to revoke contracts or laws of the Puerto Rican government. The House Committee on Natural Resources has scheduled hearings over the next three weeks in Washington on the storm recovery and transparency in the reconstruction process—although it remains unclear whether those hearings will closely examine the adverse fiscal, physical, and human costs imposed by the Jones Act on the recovery and loss of lives.  The Committee has not indicated whether it will compare the responses of FEMA in Puerto Rico to its responses in Houston and Florida.

Just after declaring an emergency due to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria, Gov. Rosselló Nevares had approved executive order 2018-53 to exempt government agencies from complying with the requirements of law when hiring and purchasing to deal with the ensuing physical disaster—effectively clearing the way to for the Electric Power Authority (AEE) to award a $ 300 million contract to Whitefish Energy-company, which, at the time of its hiring, had only two employees-to repair part of the electrical network devastated by the hurricane. That award, however, caused a governance storm of its own, triggering apprehensions by FEMA, Members of Congress, and now an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Thus the PROMESA Board holds its first meeting in the wake of the storm’s fiscal and physical devastation, mayhap marking a fiscal storm—albeit, presumably, the Board’s inquiries will examine not just PREPA’s responses, but also compare the responses of FEMA in Puerto Rico compared to its responses in Houston and Florida—that is, the PROMESA Board could question the accountability of FEMA.

As for the fiscal storm, the Oversight Board expects to be briefed on the process underway to reconfigure the Fiscal Plan, as well how the firm Kobre & Kim will investigate Puerto Rico’s debt: according to the report of the firm hired to investigate the reasons for the U.S. territory’s fiscal collapse and the issuance of debt, the first report of the causes of the crisis would take about 200 days: the investigator has already issued an information request to Banco Popular and has identified 79 witnesses who will he instructed to preserve documents.

 

Fiscal & Physical Storm Recoveries

October 30, 2017

Good Morning! In today’s Blog, we consider, again, the spread of Connecticut’s fiscal blues to its municipalities; then, we observe the lengthening fiscal and human plight of Puerto Rico.

Visit the project blog: The Municipal Sustainability Project 

The Price of Solvency. Ending months of fiscal frustration, the Connecticut House of Representatives late Thursday provided its strong, bipartisan endorsement (126-23) to two-year, $41 billion state budget which closes a gaping deficit, rejects large-scale tax increases, and seeks to bolster the state’s future fiscal stability. Notwithstanding, S&P Global Ratings, the following day, issued its own fiscal storm warnings that it is a budget which will still leave the state’s municipalities at fiscal risk. Governor Dannell Molloy has not yet said if or when he might sign that budget into state law; however, because it passed both Houses by veto-proof margins, the question is no longer “if,” but rather: what will it mean for the state’s municipalities? Thus, S&P warned:  “We note that virtually all local governments will see some reductions to state aid, while only a few—typically those with the greatest economic challenges—will see flat year-over-year state aid.” Similarly, Conn. House Majority Leader Matt Ritter (D-Hartford) told his colleagues: “We’re at the end of a journey: This budget offers needed reforms, but also some immediate comfort that is so needed by a lot of our residents and our towns…In the darkest of days…we found a way to pull through.”

As adopted, the budget bill provides financial assistance to eastern Connecticut homeowners dealing with crumbling foundations, reduced funding for UConn, offers $40 million to help the City of Hartford avoid filing for Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities Executive Director Joe DeLong, in the League’s initial analysis of the municipal impact of the bipartisan budget agreement, noted: “Municipal leaders acknowledge the difficult choices made by state leaders in forging this bipartisan budget agreement and the impact they have on the lives of Connecticut residents: The actions taken by State leaders to support cities and towns protects the interests of residents and businesses across the state and for that we are grateful.” With the State facing a $5 billion biennial budget deficit, the state budget agreement spares towns and cities from the draconian cuts set to roll out under the Governor’s Executive Order and includes many significant structural reforms that municipalities have been advocating for years. Mr. DeLong added that the final budget agreement provides for numerous municipal reforms sought by the League last January in its groundbreaking public policy initiative, “This Report Is Different.”  

Connecticut House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz noted: “Leaders do things that are maybe not in their best interests, or may be against their own beliefs, in an effort to do what’s right. And I think that was done,’’ as Rep. Toni Walker (D-New Haven), Co-Chairwoman of the appropriations committee, described the bill as a significant step toward closing a $3.5 billion deficit over the next two years and righting the state’s wobbly finances for decades to come: “I want everybody to understand we must recalibrate the financial future of Connecticut, for our families and for our businesses and this budget begins that process.’’

As adopted, the budget does not increase income or sales tax rates, although it raises hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue via an assortment of smaller measures, such as higher taxes on cigarettes, a $10 surcharge on motor vehicle registrations to support parks, and new fees on ride-sharing companies, such as Uber. On the other hand, the final agreement rolled back proposed taxes on cellphone plans, second homes, and restaurant meals. In the end, small tax increases represent just .85 percent of the budget; fee hikes constituted an even smaller contribution .11%. On the revenue side, the new budget proposes the elimination of a property tax credit for many middle-income homeowners, raises the cigarette tax, and sweeps $64 million from a clean energy fund.

In the wake of the passage, S&P Global Ratings indicated it would review the state’s municipal bond rating, but noted the municipal impact, citing the $31.4 million cut to the Education Cost Sharing Grant, the primary state grant which goes to cities and towns to help operate their schools—albeit, the cut is to be nearly fully restored next year, and distributed using an updated formula which more heavily favors the state’s lowest-performing school districts. The adopted budget also rejected Gov. Malloy’s proposal to mandate that the state’s cities and towns assume some fiscal share of the state’s soaring contributions to the teachers’ pension fund. Nevertheless, the budget was less generous to municipalities on the revenue front: the 2015 state plan to share sales tax receipts with cities and towns is all but eliminated in this budget, which officially ends the diversion of these receipts into a special account: the last remnants of a program which was supposed to distribute more than $300 million per year in sales tax receipts are: A “municipal transition grant” worth $13 million in FY 2017 and $15 million for next year. Similarly axed: a $36.5 million payment this year to offset a portion of the funds communities with high property tax rates lose because of a state-imposed cap on motor vehicle taxes: the new budget would cut $19 million in each year from grants that reimburse communities for taxes they cannot collect on exempt property owned by the state and by private colleges, hospitals and other nonprofit entities.

The adopted budget, however, from a municipal perspective, proposes to revise the prevailing wage and binding arbitration systems: municipalities would have greater flexibility to launch more publicly financed capital projects without having to pay union-level construction wages, and arbiters would have more options when ruling on wage and other contract issues involving municipalities and their employees.

Nevertheless, S&P noted: “Since new state revenue measures would have less than a year to be collected, this may leave the state without the available resources to fully appropriate for these (municipal grants),” adding: “The length of the budget impasse underscores the state’s struggling financial health.” The rating agency last month had already placed nine Connecticut municipalities and one school district on a “negative” credit watch, warning it could lead to a rating downgrade within 90 days unless their fiscal outlook improves, citing the uncertainty of Connecticut’s ability to maintain existing levels of municipal aid, reinforcing Moody’s moody outlook earlier this month when it warned that the state actions could lead to lower bond ratings for 51 municipalities and six regional school districts, placing ratings for 26 cities and towns and three regional school districts under review for downgrade, and assigning negative outlooks to an additional 25 municipalities and three more regional school districts. For its part, S&P warned: “In the end, if state fiscal pressures persist, all local governments in Connecticut will continue to be affected…and the degree of credit deterioration will depend on each government’s level [of] budgetary reserves and ability to adapt.”

Underpowered. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said he does not want to “come to conclusions” before he has all the information regarding the controversial $300 million contract of the Montana-based company, Whitefish Energy Holdings, with the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA); nevertheless, Chairman Bishop has given PREPA Chairman Ricardo Ramos until this Thursday to submit a series of documents related to the contract with the company—a company whose largest project prior to Hurricane Maria was $ 1.3 million in the state of Arizona—especially in the wake of the contract award here made without bidding—ergo triggering a series of questions and requests for investigations by the Office of  Inspector General and from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Chairman Bishop was part of the Congressional delegation with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) and Deputy Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), as well as Puerto Rico resident Commissioner in Washington, D.C., Jennifer González. House Speaker Paul Ryan ((R-Wis.) who had earlier visited the town of Utuado, known as “El Pueblo del Viví,’ which was founded in 1739 by Sebastían de Morfi, and derives its name from a local Indian Chief Otoao, which means between the mountains, to see first-hand the devastation caused by Hurricane Maria—in the wake of which he noted: “Our committee, like other groups, will investigate and we will know what is behind the Whitefish contract. I do not know enough right now to come to a conclusion against or in favor, but that’s the idea, to know the details and how it happened.”

The Chairman was not alone: the Federal Agency for Emergency Management (FEMA) has released a statement making clear that agency’s concerns about certain aspects of the contract, including an absence of certainty that some prices were even “reasonable,” in apparent reference to the hourly pay of some employees of the company. FEMA also warned that entities that fail to meet FEMA requirements may not see their expenses reimbursed. Nevertheless, Chairman Bishop said he will not “let” any concern of FEMA “get in the way…FEMA will do its job,” he insisted when asked if he was worried that FEMA would not reimburse the Puerto Rico government for payments to Whitefish. (Last night, Governor Ricardo Rosselló Nevares confirmed that he was about to receive a report he had requested from the Office of Management and Budget about the contract.).

Chairman Bishop noted that, as a result of the destruction caused by Hurricane Maria, he is considering possible changes to the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), albeit, when asked about specific changes, he limited himself to saying that the Oversight Board “does not need more authority;” rather, he said, the focus now needs to be on the provision of power and drinking water. Asked by Majority Leader McCarthy whether the devastation he had witnessed makes him think that the aid mechanism for Puerto Rico should change, he answered that “a lot of infrastructure is needed, and we have to lift the electrical system…I spoke with (Minority Leader) Steny Hoyer. I do not think it would be the best use of taxpayers’ money to build the same grid that we had. We need a 21st century one that is more efficient and effective and we can do it with more transparency,” albeit he was unclear what he meant by transparency. Rep. Hoyer noted: “We know there is an urgency,”  adding the delegation needed to all go back to Washington, D.C. to work together, but “we need an urgency to fix the electrical system and for power to reach the whole island. Governor Rosselló Nevares, who accompanied them on the tour, has said that if the quality of life in Puerto Rico does not reach what it should be: “People will be disappointed, and they will leave.”

Human, Physical, & Fiscal Storms

October 3, 2017

Good Morning! In today’s Blog, we consider Connecticut and its capital city’s fiscal road—including the assessment of municipal bankruptcy for Hartford, and then, with the President set to visit today, the fiscal, legal, physical, and human challenges to Puerto Rico.

Visit the project blog: The Municipal Sustainability Project 

The Road to Municipal Bankruptcy. Connecticut Comptroller Kevin Lembo yesterday said the state, still lacking an FY2018 budget, remains on track to end the year with a deficit of $93.9 million under the provisions of an executive order by the Governor, even as Hartford City Council members yesterday received a legal report about the city’s bleak fiscal situation from advisers hired to explore chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy as one way to restructure Hartford’s fiscal future. An attorney from Greenberg Traurig, the firm hired by Hartford to assess the viability of Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection, and a representative from financial advisory group Rothschild & Co., stressed that even if Hartford were to file for bankruptcy, the city would remain under the leadership and control of elected officials. Greenberg Traurig attorney Maria DiConza advised: “When a municipality files for bankruptcy, a judge, a court, does not take over and run the city: The city continues to run itself during the court-supervised process.” She added that filing for Chapter 9 protection would allow the city to restructure debt and re-open contractual arrangements: “It’s not a process where the court is taking over operations of the city. And that’s something that’s really important to understand.” Moreover, Todd Snyder, a restructuring specialist with Rothschild & Co., stressed that Hartford’s elected leaders would not be superseded by the orders of a federal bankruptcy court, should city leaders opt to take Hartford’s affairs there: “I want to be very, very clear—a federal judge is not going to come in here and say, ‘Oh, you’re overspending in this area, and you should change the way you govern the city of Hartford…That’s not going to happen.”

In response, Councilmember Larry Deutsch asked what would happen if the city “stiffed the bondholders” of a looming $27 million bond payment at the end of this month—in response to which, Mr. Snyder replied that opting not to make that municipal bond payment would be “tantamount to making the decision that you are going to file for bankruptcy.” Ms. DiConza advised that the city’s municipal bondholders could not repossess city property to cover missed payments, but they could take Hartford to court and try to force the city to raise taxes to cover its debts.

Councilwoman Wildaliz Bermudez questioned whether the two attorneys were doing enough to divert the city from bankruptcy “at all costs,” having previously deemed Mayor Luke Bronin’s consideration of municipal bankruptcy “undemocratic.” To that, Ms. DiConza said: “The city is trying to avoid bankruptcy—‘at all costs’ is really a question for you,” referring to the Council: “What is the cost of the city avoiding bankruptcy? Is the cost that people are going with trash all over their lawn, because there’s no trash service? Is the cost that crime is going to go up, because there’s no payments to the police force? Is the cost that taxes go up? That’s the question the city has to decide. What are the costs of avoiding Chapter 9?” Mr. Snyder added that whether or not Hartford files for municipal bankruptcy, the city still needs to address longstanding structural issues with the city’s finances that see it posting deficits and increasing debt year after year: “There’s a need to address all the constituencies about making contributions to this solution: We live in a beautiful city, and people have valuable property. I would think that restructuring our obligations and entering into a new partnership with the state would enhance everybody’s life in the city.”

In a letter to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Mr. Lembo said the administration’s spending reduction authority under his executive order should allow him to meet current state savings targets, adding, however, that state spending trends so far, some 7.2 percent higher than the same period last fiscal year, demonstrate that fixed costs (including debt, state employee and teachers retirement and retiree health care) continue to rise, while discretionary spending is forcibly decreasing, writing: “The state’s municipalities, nonprofits and Connecticut residents, including the most vulnerable, depend on discretionary program spending for critical services and to enhance the quality of life…Vital programs that have faced significant cuts include Grants for Substance Abuse Services; Mental Health Service Grants; the Connecticut Home Care Program, Aid to the Disabled; Employment Opportunities; and the Early Care and Education program. He added: “The state’s capacity to meet its spending obligations is impaired by the inability to enact a budget that provides for policy changes that increase revenue. This problem is exacerbated each month as potential sources of additional revenue are foregone due to the absence of necessary changes to the revenue structure,” warning that as the “state enters the second quarter of the fiscal year, even a potential agreement to increase in the hospital tax remains in doubt, even though it would result in higher federal reimbursements. Moreover, ongoing budget uncertainty will slow Connecticut’s economic growth and could ultimately lead to the state and its municipalities receiving downgrades in credit ratings that will cost taxpayers even more…These results do not indicate Connecticut can grow its way out of the current revenue stagnation, especially in light of the state missing it revenue targets in the last two fiscal years.”

Adding to the downbeat state fiscal plight, he reported that preliminary state Department of Labor (DOL) data for August 2017 show that Connecticut lost 3,900 jobs during the month of August to a level of 1,687,200 seasonally adjusted, adding that July’s original preliminary job loss of 600 had been revised down by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to a loss of 1,100. Over the past 12-month period ending in August, the state has posted 6,000 new payroll jobs. During the last period of economic recovery, employment growth averaged over 16,000 annually. 

Physical & Fiscal Mayhem. Some two weeks after Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, creating a humanitarian crisis, President Trump arrives today to see first-hand the damage, becoming the first President of the United States to make an official visit in the wake of a crisis. The President will meet with Gov. Rosselló Nevares and San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz—who had alerted the media about the signal seeming disparities in responding to the human, physical, and fiscal crisis compared to Houston and Florida.

As President Trump visits Puerto Rico today, nearly two weeks after the destruction and havoc created by Hurricane Maria, officials report only 5% of the island has electricity and its schools are not close to reopening. Puerto Rico Secretary of Education Julia Kelleher told CNN on Sunday that some public schools might not resume classes until mid-month because of storm damage, though decisions will be made on a regional basis. The U.S. territory has 1,113 public schools and a student population of 350,000; however, only a small fraction (400) have been assessed for damage; thus, school districts from Florida to Massachusetts are anticipating an influx of Puerto Rican students displaced by the hurricane, so a different kind of relief operation is underway to identify which schools have space and which resources will be needed in the wake of last month’s loss, all across Puerto Rico, of power and communications. Officials hope to reopen some schools by mid-month. Edwin Meléndez, Director of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College in New York, said his conservative estimate is that more than 200,000 children and adults will leave Puerto Rico for the mainland—with his decision coming one day after President Trump took to Twitter to criticize the leadership of Puerto Rican leaders, especially San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz and those the President claimed “want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort.” The inexplicably belated, temporary suspension of the Jones Act has enabled FEMA to expand its delivery of food and water throughout Puerto Rico, though officials stressed that many people still lack the essentials: FEMA has, finally, been able to deliver food and water to all of Puerto Rico’s 79 municipalities; however, FEMA reports that some isolated areas of these municipalities may not have received the commodities, partly because lack of communication systems has hampered distribution efforts. As of late Sunday, there was safe drinking water available to 41% of Puerto Rico; FEMA has installed eleven regional staging areas for food and water distribution; some 5 percent off the island has power, and Gov. Ricardo Rossello reported the Army Corps of Engineers has begun a mission to repair the power grid. Over the next few days, close to a million gallons of gasoline and half a million gallons of diesel fuel will arrive, according to the Governor, who added that just over one-third of Puerto Rico’s residents now have phone service: all landlines are operating, but only about 11% of the cell towers are operational; 51 of 69 hospitals are running in some capacity now, along with 46 of 48 dialysis centers.

Brookings’ Michael O’Hanlon yesterday described the “patriotism, courage, compassion, and grit of the several thousand Coast Guard and other U.S. military personnel belatedly detailed by the White House to respond, writing: “But the overall approach might best be described as a modest response to a disaster: at a time when so many American citizens are suffering, we need to consider a much more massive effort.”

 

Leadership Challenges to Fiscal & Physical Recoveries

08/04/17

Share on Twitter

eBlog

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s blog, we consider the ongoing fiscal and physical recovery of Flint, Michigan—as well as the fiscal recoveries of Pontiac and Lincoln Park, and we look at the special fiscal challenge to Puerto Rico’s debts.

In Like Flint. EPA has okayed the State of Michigan’s plans to forgive $20.7 million in past water infrastructure loans owed by the City of Flint, relying on federal legislation enacted at the end of last year to provide states the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan program to forgive past loans owed to a state. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt noted: “Forgiving Flint’s past debt will better protect public health and reduce the costs associated with maintaining the city’s water system over time…Forgiving the city’s debt will ensure that Flint will not need to resume payments on the loan, allowing progress toward updating Flint’s water system to continue.” In response, Mayor Karen Weaver stated: “We appreciate the EPA’s continued assistance as we work to recover from the water crisis: We have come a long way, but there is still much more work that needs to be done. With help and support like this from federal, state as well as local entities, Flint will indeed bounce back.”

Emerging from State Fiscal Oversight. The Michigan Treasury Department reports that the Michigan municipalities of Pontiac and Lincoln Park have both sufficiently improved their fiscal conditions to warrant release from eight long years of state oversight: they may return to local control in the wake of Michigan Treasurer Nick Khouri’s announcement that the Pontiac and Lincoln Park Receivership Transition Advisory Boards would be dissolved and effective immediately, thereby returning full fiscal authority to the elected leaders of the respective municipalities. The Michigan Receivership Transition Advisory Boards, which have been monitoring the cities’ finances since the departure of emergency managers, have been dissolved—clearing the way for locally elected officials to resume complete control of the respective municipal governments again, with Lincoln Park now making regular contributions to its pension fund, with the Detroit suburb emerging from state oversight which commenced in 2014. Nearby Pontiac had sought a state financial review a decade ago—operating in the wake thereof under a consent agreement and an emergency manager. The Treasury today reports the municipality has a general fund balance of $14 million. Thus, the two municipalities join Wayne County, Benton Harbor, Highland Park, and four other municipalities in exiting such fiscal oversight; however, nine municipalities and school districts remain under some sort of state oversight, although the state has imposed an emergency manager only in Highland Park Schools. In making the announcement, Gov. Rick Snyder reported: “Under the guidance of the Receivership Transition Advisory Boards, both Lincoln Park and Pontiac have made significant progress to right their finances and build solid, fiscal foundations for their communities: This is a great achievement for the cities.”

In the case of Pontiac, the city’s debt long-term debt dropped nearly 80% under state oversight, from over $45 million to about $8.2 million since 2009, according to the Michigan Treasury Department, culminating at FY2016 year-end with a general fund balance of $14 million. At the same time, a blight remediation program in the city has succeeded in razing nearly 680 blighted residential properties since 2012, in no small part through CDBG assistance. Secretary Khouri noted: “Pontiac has seen great economic progress and opportunity since the lost decade.” The city of Lincoln Park cut its long term debt from more than $1 million in 2014 when it entered state oversight to $260,707. At the end of fiscal-year 2016, Lincoln Park ended with a general fund balance of $24.4 million.  The city entered state controlled emergency management in February 2014 and began its transition to local control in December 2015. “Today marks an important achievement for Lincoln Park residents, the city and all who have contributed to moving the city back to a path of fiscal stability,” Khouri said. Lincoln Park, with a population of close to 40,000, where Brad Coulter, who has served as the Emergency Manager, noted that the Hispanic and Latino population make up about 15% of Lincoln Park residents, describing the diversity as a “growing and an important part of the city” which as really helped “to stabilize the city.”

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

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

Municipal Moral & Fiscal Obligations

07/27/17

Share on Twitter

eBlog

Good Morning! In today’s iBlog, we consider the state & local fiscal challenge fiscal in the event of a moral obligation pledge failure; the ongoing, long-term revival and recovery of Detroit from the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history, and the revitalization fiscal challenges in Atlantic City and Puerto Rico.

A Fiscal Bogie or a Moral Municipal Bond? Buena Vista, Virginia, a small, independent city located in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia with a population of about 6,650, where the issue of its public golf course became an election issue—with the antis winning office and opting not to make the bond payments on the course they opposed—rejecting a moral obligation pledge on what has become a failed economic development project, as the city’s elected leaders chose instead to focus—in the wake of the Great Recession—on essential public services, putting the city in a sub par fiscal situation with Vista Links, which was securing the bonds, according to Virginia state records. The company, unsurprisingly,  has sued to get the monies it was promised—potentially putting at risk the city’s city hall and other municipal properties which had been put up as collateral. Buena Vista City Attorney Brian Kearney discerns this to be an issue of a moral obligation bond, rather than a general obligation municipal bond, so that “[W]e could not continue to do this and continue to do our core functions.” In the wake of the fiscal imbroglio, the Virginia Commission on Local Government (COLG)—which provides an annual fiscal stress study‒ended up playing a key role in the Petersburg effort in the General Assembly—finding that very poor management had led to an $18 million hole.

Here, the municipality’s default triggered negotiations with bond insurer, ACA Financial Guaranty Corp., which led to a forbearance agreement—one on which the city subsequently defaulted—triggering the Commonwealth of Virginia  to bar financing backup to the city from the state’s low-cost municipal borrowing pool, lest such borrowing would adversely impact the pool’s credit rating—and thereby drive up capital borrowing costs for cities and counties all across the state. In this instance, the Virginia Resources Authority refused to allow Buena Vista to participate in the Virginia Pooled Financing Program to refinance $9.25 million of water and sewer obligations to lower debt service costs—lest inclusion of such a borrower from the state’s municipal pool would negatively impact the pool’s offering documents—where some pooled infrastructure bonds, backed by the Commonwealth’s moral obligation pledge, are rated double-A by S&P Global Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service.

Seven years ago, the municipality entered into a five-year forbearance agreement with bond insurer ACA Financial Guaranty Corp.—an agreement which permitted Buena Vista to make 50% of its annual municipal bond payments for five years—an agreement on which Buena Vista defaulted when, two years ago, the City Council voted against inclusion of its FY 2015 budgeted commitment to resume full bond payments. That errant shot triggered UMB Bank NA to file a lawsuit in state court in 2016 in an effort to enforce Buena Vista’s fiscal obligation. In response, the municipality contended the golf course deal was void, because only four of the city’s seven council members had voted on the bond resolution and related agreements—which included selling the city’s interest in its “public places,” arguing that Virginia’s constitution mandates that all seven council members be present to vote on the golf course deal, because the agreement granted a deed of trust lien on city hall, police, and court facilities which were to serve as collateral for the bonds.

Subsequently, last March 22nd, the city filed a motion to dismiss the federal suit for failure to state a claim—a claim on which U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon held a hearing last Friday—with the municipality arguing that the golf course’s lease-revenue debt is not a general obligation. Therefore, the city appears to be driving at a legal claim it has the right to stop payment on its obligation, asserting: “The city seeks to enforce the express terms of the bonds, under which the city’s obligation to pay rent is subject to annual appropriations by the City Council, and ceases upon a failure of appropriations.” Moreover, pulling another fiscal club from its bag, the city claimed the municipal bonds here are not a debt of the city; rather, the city has told the court that the deed of trust lien for the collateral backing the bonds is void. That is an assertion which ACA, in its motion to dismiss, deemed an improper attempt to litigate the merits of the suit at the pleading stage, noting: “Worse, the city wants this court to rule that the city only has a ‘moral obligation’ to pay its debts, and that [ACA’s] only remedy upon default is to foreclose on a fraction of the collateral pledged by the city and the Public Recreational Facilities Authority of the city of Buena Vista….If adopted, this court will be sending a message to the market that no lender should ever finance public projects in Virginia because municipalities: (a) have unbridled discretion to not repay loans; and (b) can limit the collateral that can be foreclosed upon.” In a statement subsequently, ACA added: “It’s unfortunate that Buena Vista’s elected officials have forced ACA into court after recklessly choosing to have the city default on $9.2 million in debt even though the city has ample funds to make the payments that are owed…This is particularly troubling, because ACA spent years negotiating in good faith after the city claimed financial hardship, and even provided a generous forbearance agreement that reduced payments by 50% starting in 2011…After the city defaulted on that deal in 2014, it offered ACA only pennies on the dollar, while seeking to be absolved of all future burdens of this financing. Left with no reasonable alternative, we must look to the court for an equitable and fair outcome.”

In the nonce, as its legal costs mount, Buena Vista’s access to the municipal credit markets has not only adversely affected its ability to borrow from state financing programs, but also there is growing apprehension there could be implications for other local governments and potentially the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Finance Secretary Ric Brown, when this issue first cropped up, had written previous Buena Vista Mayor Mike Clements: “This ability cannot be jeopardized or put at risk by permitting a defaulting locality to participate in a state pool financing program such as the VPSA: The Commonwealth certainly expects localities to do what is necessary to meet their debt obligations and to protect Virginia localities’ reputation for fiscal discipline.” (Virginia’s Commission on Local Government has revealed that 53% of Virginia’s counties and cities are experiencing above average or high fiscal stress.).

Motor City Recovery. Louis Aguilar of the Detroit News this week reported that Detroit is expected to grow by some 60,000 residents by 2040—growth which would mark the first time Detroit’s population will have increased since the 1950s, according to a study by the Urban Institute, “Southeast Michigan Housing Futures,” which notes that Detroit will finally end its decades-long loss of residents. Xuan Liu, manager of research and data analysis for the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, said the study builds on recent analyses done by SEMCOG, the Michigan Department of Transportation, and the University of Michigan: “It is a reflection of both the improvements we’ve seen in the city and the changing demographic trends.” The report indicates the region’s population base will include a larger percentage of residents over the age of 65 who are more inclined to remain where they are; the population increase in population will be influenced by the continued inflow of young adults and a small but steady rise of the Latino population. The study warns these changes will present major challenges, including the doubling of senior-headed households over the next three decades: by 2040, the study projects these households will make up 37% of the region’s households versus 22% in 2010; it adds that African-American households in the Detroit metro area disproportionately suffered from the effects of the housing crisis:  African-American homeownership rates dropped from a higher than the national average in 1990 and 2000 to be in line with the national average by 2014. Interestingly, it projects that the demand for rental housing is expected to grow throughout the region, with aging households likely comprising the bulk of this net growth as established renter households age—but warning that the region, and Michigan more broadly, lack affordable rental housing for low-income households. Overall, the Metro Detroit region is expected to gain approximately 380,000 households by 2040, according to the study.

For the Motor City, the report found that by 2016, Detroit’s population had slowed to its lowest pace in decades, according U.S. Census data: as of one year ago, Detroit’s population was 672,795, a loss of 3,541 residents—a decline comparable to the previous year: between 2000 to 2010, Detroit was losing more than 23,700 annually, on average, according to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments; in the first decade of this century, the region lost 372,242 jobs, its population shrank by 137,375; and inflation-adjusted personal income retreated from 13.7% above the U.S. average to 4.8% below in 2010.

A Bridge to Tomorrow? The Detroit City Council this week okayed the $48 million agreement to open the way for the sale of city-owned property and streets in the path of the new Gordie Howe International Bridge to Canada—with the agreement also incorporating provisions to help residents living near the Delray neighborhood where the bridge will be located. Under the pact, the city will sell 36 city-owned parcels of land–land which Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority Director of Communications Mark Butler siad was needed for the Gordie Howe bridge project. Courtesy of Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority noted: “The funding relates to activities in advance of the P3 partner coming on board…As a normal course of business, WDBA, either directly or through the Michigan Department of Transportation, is providing funds to Detroit for property, assets, and services. The city in turn, is using those funds to purchase or swap homes outside of the project footprint, job training etc.” The bridge authority, a Canadian Crown corporation, will manage the Public-Private Partnership procurement process; the authority will also responsible for project oversight, including the actual construction and operation of the new crossing—whilst Canadian taxpayers will be fronting the funding to pay for the deal under an arrangement with the State of Michigan—under which there will be no cost or financial liability to Michigan or to Michigan taxpayers: Canada plans to recoup its money through tolls after the bridge is constructed. The Motor City will sell 36 city-owned parcels of land, underground assets, and approximately 5 miles of city owned streets needed for the bridge project. Under the agreement, the underlying property has been conveyed to the State of Michigan, but Canada is providing the funds. The bridge authority is expected to select a contractor for the project at the end of this year; construction will begin sometime next year.

Is There a Promise of Revitalization? The PROMESA Board this week appointed Noel Zamot to serve as Revitalization Coordinator for the U.S. territory—with Governor Ricardo Rosselló concurring the appointment would benefit Puerto Rico’s ability to compete—a key issue for any meaningful, long-term fiscal recovery. He added: “With over 25 years of experience in the aerospace and defense industry, we are convinced that Mr. Zamot will contribute to our economic development agenda and increase Puerto Rico’s competitiveness.” The federal statute’s Title V provided for such an appointment, a key part to any post chapter 9 plan of debt adjustment. Direct. PROMESA Board Chair José Carrión III noted: “Noel Zamot’s successful career and multifaceted experience interfacing between the government and the private sector in critical defense infrastructure areas will allow him to hit the ground running to foster strategic infrastructure investment expeditiously.” Mr. Zamot noted: “I am honored by this opportunity to serve and give back to Puerto Rico, my birthplace, and contribute to its success…Over more than two decades of professional experience, I have seen firsthand how investments in infrastructure can have a catalyzing effect on economic growth and prosperity.”

New Jersey & You. With major new developments under construction, renewed investor interest, and a slowly diversifying economy, it appears Atlantic City might be moving more swiftly from the red to the black—at a key point in political time, as voters in the city and New Jersey head to the polls next November for statewide and municipal elections—and, potentially, the end of state oversight of the city. Moreover, two new major projects are set to open next year, mayhap setting the stage for the city’s fiscal recovery—but also economic revitalization. Some of the stir relates to the purchase and $500 million renovation of the former Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort—an opening projected to bring thousands of jobs and a strong brand to the city’s famed boardwalk. But mayhap the more promising development will be the completion of the $220 million Atlantic City Gateway project: a 67,500 square foot development which will serve as a new campus for Stockton University, including an academic building and housing for 500 students, and the new South Jersey Gas headquarters: the company believes its cutting-edge headquarters will trigger recruitment and growth, as it is projected to bring 15,000 square feet of new retail to the boardwalk.  

Interestingly, what has bedeviled the city, low land prices‒at their lowest in decades, is now attracting successful developers, who have been buying up buildings: commercial real estate brokers note an uptick in leasing activity since the Gateway project was announced: the promise of jobs, residents, and revenue no longer overwhelmed by the gaming industry appears to be remaking the city’s image and adding to its physical and fiscal turnaround. Bart Blatstein, CEO of Tower Investments, notes: “Of course I see upside. This is what I do for a living. And it’s incredible–the upside in Atlantic City is like nowhere else I’ve seen in my 40-year career. Atlantic City is a great story. It’s got a wonderful new chapter ahead of it.”