Taking Stock in Stockton!

eBlog

September 7, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Municipal Bankruptcies Are Complicated Affairs. Really.

August 17, 2018

Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider a rejection of an appeal challenging Jefferson County’s approved plan of debt adjustment from its chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, and the recurring governance challenge in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico whether the elected Governor and Legislature—or a federal Judge, or a Control Board ought to be making vital governing decisions.

Please note, there will be a temporary respite for eGnus and eBlog readers before publications resume the last week of this month.

A Fiscally Appealing Chapter 9 case? The U.S. Eleventh Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to Jefferson County’s chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy plan of debt adjustment, holding (please see Andrew Bennett et al v. Jefferson County, No. 15-11690, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, August 16, 2018), holding that the U.S. District Court had erred when  it dismissed Jefferson County’s appeal, holding that the Chapter 9 case brought by a group of ratepayers of Jefferson County’s sewer system could be brought due to the concept of “equitable mootness,” a doctrine the court wrote which, until yesterday, “we have not been asked to apply in a chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy case,” with the court adding: “Municipal bankruptcy proceedings are usually complicated affairs, and the chapter 9 proceeding for Jefferson County, Alabama, involving about $3.2 billion in total sewer-related debt—has proved no different.”

Under the terms of the decision, the County would cut over $100 million in general fund expenditures, and the creditors will write off a significant amount of outstanding debt—over the course of the next four decades, the County is directed to implement a series of single-digit sewer rate increases—totaling about 365%–an amount which the court noted was “not far off of the national increase in inflation in the previous 40 years.” The court, in effect, with its decision, rejected the assertion by County ratepayers that their plan “validated corrupt government activity.”

The court also reviewed, de novo, the lower court’s conclusion that the doctrine of equitable mootness applied to this case—at that lower court, Jefferson County had argued the doctrine of equitable mootness applied and barred the ratepayers’ appeal from the U.S. bankruptcy court. The court here agreed, explaining why said doctrine could apply in a municipal bankruptcy case. (Essentially, the doctrine, the court explained, the courts may, under certain circumstances, reject bankruptcy appeals if the underlying rulings which would have gone into effect would have been “extremely burdensome.” The court went on to decide that some of the principles “will weigh more heavily in chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy cases “precisely because of how many people may be affected,” unlike in a chapter 11 bankruptcy, noting previous chapter 9 municipal bankruptcies we have written about in Stockton and Vallejo, where the district courts’ reasoning involved the implications that “municipalities and their bankruptcies implicate issues of sovereignty; whereas corporations or individuals and their bankruptcies do not—and that, accordingly, it is important for us to tread carefully where self-governance is concerned.” The court further noted: “In addition, it is not at all clear in which direction the ratepayers’ federalism arguments will cut from one chapter 9 bankruptcy to the next. Given the interests of the municipality and those of its residents (among others), there is a countervailing argument that a court ought to be more solicitous to the municipality that has obtained confirmation of its plan….”

Finally, the court recognized that “given the centrality of the constitutional rights to the fabric of the republic, there is a fair argument to be made that we should allow some leniency when a party which has allowed a bankruptcy plan to go into effect asserts,” adding, with regard to federalism concerns, “it will be appropriate to note them when deciding whether the doctrine should bar an appeal in a particular bankruptcy case,” which, is, as the court noted: “precisely what we did.”

 Jefferson County Commissioner David Carrington, a previous State & Local Leader of the Week, who led the county’s negotiations during its municipal bankruptcy case, said County leaders are pleased with the ruling, noting: “We were always confident in our Chapter 9 plan of adjustment,” but wincing that the years of litigation had come at great expense to county taxpayers running into “hundreds of thousands of dollars in frivolous litigation fees that could have been used for capital improvements to the sewer system.” (The County had filed its plan of debt adjustment in November of 2011—a plan subsequently approved by the court five years ago. Nevertheless, as the dean of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, Jim Spiotto, noted, the case had become one of the longest municipal bankruptcy cases in U.S. history.

Another Appeal. Meanwhile, south of Jefferson County, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló confirmed yesterday that the executive branch will also appeal the decision of Judge Laura Taylor Swain, the judge assigned by the federal court to deal with the quasi chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy of Puerto Rico—a decision in which it was determined that the PROMESA Oversight Board has the authority to impose its certified fiscal plan and budget, with the Governor stating: “It has become very clear what is the unworthy colonial situation in Puerto Rico, where some courts have decided that in some aspects of the budget the hands are tied to the Legislative Assembly and somewhat to the executive to make determinations, so of course we are going to appeal,” with his comments coming in the wake of Judge Swain’s dismissal, earlier this month, of nine of the allegations presented in the suit of the Financial Advisory Authority and Fiscal Agency (Aafaf), as well as all the allegations of the lawsuit filed by the Puerto Rico Legislature—and the legislative leadership, where the respective leaders, Thomas Rivera Schatz and Carlos “Johnny” Méndez, already filed an information motion before the court notifying it they would attend the First Circuit of Appeals of Boston—albeit, Governor Rosselló, noted, he would not provide them with the power to “make executive decisions with the vehicle of the executive order.”

Colocar el Interruptor. Nearly a year after Hurricane Maria plunged Puerto Rico into physical and fiscal darkness, NPR’s Adrian Florida reports: “Now nearly 11 months after Hurricane Maria plunged Puerto Rico into darkness, officials there say they are done restoring the island’s power: no more lanterns, and no more “candles.” PREPA has announced its work restoring power to the island is done: it took almost a year, tens of thousands of new poles, thousands of miles of wire, and help from two federal agencies. She described it as a “restoration plagued by scandal and delays. It cost some $3 billion. And now that it’s done, experts agree the power grid is just as fragile as before the hurricane. This morning, Jose Ortiz, the fifth CEO to head the power utility since the storm, was offering a reality check on local radio station WKAQ. Some homes still don’t have power because they’re damaged

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

June 4, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

06/19/17

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hard Road to Fiscal Sustainability

eBlog

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider, Detroit’s remarkable route to fiscal recovery, before returning to the stark fiscal challenges to Puerto Rico’s economic sustainability.

The Road to Recovery from Municipal Bankruptcy.  Detroit, which has roared back from the largest municipal bankruptcy ever, but, in doing so paid an average 81% of what it owed to its municipal bondholders as part of its plan of debt adjustment, nearly 25% more than either San Bernardino or Stockton, now, in the wake of its decades of its more than 50% population decline  (In 1950, there were 1,849,568 people in Detroit; in 2010, there were 713,777.), is ready to tackle its housing dilemma. Post-chapter 9 Detroit inherited an estimated 40,000 abandoned lots and structures and an 80% erosion of its manufacturing base—that in a municipality where 36 percent of its citizens were below the federal poverty level, and, the year it filed for chapter 9, had reported the highest violent crime rate for any U.S. city with a population over 200,000.

Thus, Mayor Mike Duggan now vows that his administration plans to launch a street-by-street initiative effective August 1st to board up abandoned homes in the city while demolition crews continue razing blighted houses. That will be a painstaking challenge: in a city of 142 square miles, the city reports some 25,000 unsecured houses, the bulk of which have been scheduled to be razed—but, up to now, the pace of demolitions has been limited to 4,000-5,000 annually, according to the Mayor. Thus, he posits: “We’re going to go through and board up every house we can’t get to so we’re not just saying to people, ‘It’s going to be five years before we get to everything. Wait!’”

Mayor Duggan, speaking at the Mackinac Policy Conference, vowed the city will begin deploying six crews beginning at the end of next month, with the teams slated to go through each neighborhood and close off vacant and abandoned homes—homes that are susceptible to crime, to being scrapped for metal and finishings, and becoming uninhabitable safety hazards. Mayor Duggan made the announcement, as the city’s plan of adjustment and the city’s actions in implementing it appear certain to be fodder for the upcoming mayoral primary election set for August 8th—with whichever candidate is chosen slated to confront Michigan state Sen. Coleman Young II (D) in the November 7th general election. Indeed, unsurprisingly, Sen. Young (1st District), who previously served two terms in the Michigan House prior to being elected to the State Senate, is the son of former Detroit Mayor Coleman Young—who served as the Motor City’s Mayor from 1973-1994, this week blasted Mayor Duggan for waiting until his fourth year in office to address the safety hazard of unsecured houses: he accused his upcoming opponent of “playing games with the people and the public, because it’s election time,” adding he was “just amazed now all of sudden that he cares about the neighborhoods and he wants to do this…Where was he for the last 3.5 years in office? They just should have addressed that first.”

Currently the Duggan administration estimates city crews can board up 100-200 homes each week and that the effort will take two years to complete, so that, as Mayor Duggan notes: “By the end of two years, we’ll have every house in the city either demolished, reoccupied, or boarded…So at least it will be secure. Kids won’t be wandering in and out.” In making the statement, Mayor Duggan acknowledged the city has fallen well short of its avowed initial goal of razing 10,000 blighted homes annually, describing that as “not a practical goal.” Since Mayor Duggan took office in 2014, Detroit has razed some 11,593 blighted structures; there are 331 more contracted for demolitions, and then another 2,141 in the pipeline.

In making his responses, Mayor Duggan acknowledged that his initial commitment to raze more than 5,000 homes per year had gotten him into “trouble,” noting: “I feel bad for the people who took the grief for it, because I pushed them;” he said the city will post notices on unsecured privately owned homes for which city crews will be covering the windows and doors with plywood, noting: “We’ll go down and board up every house that’s not scheduled to come down in the next six to 12 months,” adding that the city’s budget is bearing the burden more often than not, because the cost of going after the home owners of such abandoned homes has proved impractical and costly: “You’ve got a lot of people in this town (who say), ‘My uncle died, left me the house, the house is in a bad neighborhood,’ they don’t even live here…To send them bills is not practical.” To date, for the most part, Mayor Duggan said the city has been delivering plywood to some neighborhood groups and relying on volunteers to board up houses on their streets; however, he added that there are a lot of neighborhoods with mostly senior citizens who “just physically can’t put these huge sheets of wood onto these houses…We finally said, ‘You know the most efficient way to do it just roll through the city.’”

On the Road to Fiscal Recovery. As we reported earlier this week, Detroit completed its most recent fiscal year with a $63 million surplus according to its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which the city filed with the Michigan Treasury Department on Tuesday, with Detroit CFO John Hill noting the FY2016 surplus was some $22 million higher than the city had projected, an outcome  to which he attributed the city’s improved financial controls, stronger-than-anticipated revenues, and lower costs due to unfilled vacancies—something, he told the Detroit News, the city believes “will have a lot of positive implications on the future.” In the near future, it offers the potential for Detroit to exit from state oversight by the Financial Review Commission under terms of Detroit’s plan of debt adjustment. Or, as Mayor Mike Duggan noted: “This audit confirms that the administration is making good on its promise to manage Detroit’s finances responsibly…With deficit-free budgets two years in a row, we have put the city on the path to exit Financial Review Commission oversight.” In fact, the city now projects an FY2017 $51 million surplus.

All this is increasing optimism that the 2017 audit of the Motor City’s finances could trigger a vote by the Commission to suspend its direct financial oversight, obviating the current required state oversight and requisite approvals on all the city’s budgets and contracts. Of the city’s reported $143 million in accumulated unassigned fund balances, including this year’s surplus, the city has allocated $50 million from its FY2016 balance as a down payment to help set up the city’s Retiree Protection Fund to help it address pension obligations scheduled to come due in 2024 under the terms of the city’s plan of debt adjustment. In addition, the city has set aside $50 million in its FY2018 budget for blight remediation and capital improvements—an amount which would leave a cushion of about $43 million in an unassigned fund balance—but which account could only be drawn from with the approval of Mayor Duggan, the City Council, or the state review commission. The city primarily draws from this account for one-time costs, such as to address blight and for its capital budget. CFO Hill has expressed hope the ongoing, positive cash flow and budget balances will enhance the city’s credit rating—and, thereby reduce its borrowing or capital costs.

What Constitutes Economic Sustainability? Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló has proposed an austere Fy2018 General Fund budget which, he reports, would reduce the territory’s operating expenses by 9.1%, describing his plan as comparable to “those we had established in the fiscal plan.” As proposed, the Governor would allocate at least $2.04 billion for pensions—an amount that would leave naught to meet Puerto Rico’s debt obligations: he noted that funding pensions was vital to protect Puerto Rico’s most vulnerable citizens—and that the “measures implemented in this budget are those that we had established in the fiscal plan.” Nevertheless, Gov. Rosselló said his budget was different from past budgets, because it was balanced: it projects that the central government would have sufficient balance to remit $404 million of $3.283 billion in scheduled debt service, or 12.3%, in FY2018. The budget does not include the debt from semi-autonomous and autonomous public sector entities, but shows near balance: $9.1 billion in revenue and $8.987 billion in spending, according to the Puerto Rico Office of Management and Budget, with an increase of nearly 6% in spending. In the Governor’s proposed budget, all General Fund payments for debt would be eliminated—guaranteeing a battle with the PROMESA Board, which, in its plan, had projected there would be $404 million available cash flow “post-measures” for FY2018, with the Board seemingly pressing to ensure funds were included in the budget to address Puerto Rico’s debt services to municipal bond holders—even as the Governor appears focused on protecting the territory’s most vulnerable citizens. In contrast, the PROMESA board certified decade-long quasi plan of debt adjustment incorporated the amount of municipal bond debt service to be paid each year—providing that amount be $3.28 billion.

The challenge is complex: with apprehension that the territory’s young professionals are increasingly leaving to New York and Miami, leaving behind an increasingly elderly and impoverished population—less able to remit taxes, but in greater and greater need for public services, and for promised pension payments, the critical planned increase by the Governor in public pension funding is imperiled: each of Puerto Rico’s three government pension systems is projected to run out of liquid assets in FY2018, unsurprisingly leading the Governor to propose allocating at least $2.04 billion in his budget to cover pension funding—marking a stark change from his previous budget, when the line item to cover “pay-as-you-go” pension funding was absent. (Puerto Rico has three public pension systems: the Employee Retirement System, the Teacher’s Retirement System, and the Judiciary Retirement System.) In contrast, the PROMESA Board, last March, in its decade-long oversight fiscal plan, ordered a cut in public pension obligations effective in FY2020, projecting fiscal savings for the subsequent six years in the range of $83 million. It is unclear whether those projections incorporated the potential fiscal impacts on either sales tax revenues, or the increased costs of aid to those falling below the poverty level.

In his proposed budget, Gov. Rosselló has recommended to the legislature a $9.56 billion FY2018 General Fund budget, seeking a 6.4% increase—but, after compensating for public pension obligations, actually providing 21.8% less for spending. Within his proposed budget, the Governor is asking for $583 million more for “other operating expenses,” but $555 million less for salaries and related costs, and retaining $195 million as a reserve. (In the wake of the final action by the Puerto Rico legislature, the PROMESA Board is authorized to reject any final budget and substitute its own.)

However, there is now a third party to this increasingly complex fiscal process, in the form of U.S. Judge Laura Swain, who, under PROMESA’s Title III municipal bankruptcy process, has some discretion of her own to consider changes in the amounts of debt paid in the next fiscal year—albeit, as we have learned from the chapter 9 proceedings in Detroit, San Bernardino, etc., the judicial system in these exceptionally complex chapter 9 cases acts with  considerable deliberation—not haste; moreover, unlike a normal chapter 9 process, PROMESA section 106(e) prohibits Judge Swain from deviating from the PROMESA Board’s certified fiscal plan and budgets.

Gov. Rosselló’s budget, unlike previous proposals, includes a $2 billion payment for Puerto Rico’s three public pension systems, noting: “One of the most important differences, he said, as mandated by the PROMESA Board, in this budget is that, contrary to the previous ones, it really is balanced,” adding that, as proposed, Puerto Rico had created a $200 million reserve. In addition, the Governor reported he would soon propose measures to simplify Puerto Rico’s tax system. Overall, his proposed plan contains some $924 million in revenue increases versus $851 million expense cuts for FY2018: among the key fiscal plan measures to increase FY2018 revenues is $519 million by extending the Act 154 foreign corporation tax and $150 million through improving tax compliance.

What Might it Mean to Puerto’s Rico’s Fiscal Future? The PROMESA Oversight Board, which had requested a structurally balanced budget, seeking a “once and done” approach to the Puerto Rico government’s fiscal crisis, had focused on immediate large spending cuts and revenue increases in the budget. Indeed, as proposed by the Governor, there are significant changes, including reductions in support for the University of Puerto Rico ($411 million) and $250 million to the island’s municipalities or muncipios. The plan encompasses freezing payroll increases and eliminating vacation and sick day liquidations—all with the aim to reduce Puerto Rico’s debt service costs by 76% through FY2026. San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz said, “The governor’s public policy has been to act as the messenger of the junta [i.e. the Oversight Board] and, in this way, has hidden behind it to become the executioner of Puerto Rico,” according to the El Vocero news web site. “The budget message will be another sign that the governor turns his back on the people.”

Monitoring Municipal Fiscal Stress

eBlog, 11/17/16

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we consider the evolving state takeover of Atlantic City, with the appointment by the state of what Mayor Don Guardian deemed the “occupation force.” We consider the role of the state and mechanisms for a state takeover—as well as the options for the municipality. Then we look west to an innovative state-local tax collection sharing effort between the State of Michigan and City of Detroit—mayhap appropriate in the emerging sharing economy; then west where, in the wake of municipal elections in post-chapter 9 Stockton, the newly elected Mayor begins thinking about the city’s further post municipal bankruptcy fiscal future. Then we swing back southeast to the historic small city of Petersburg, Virginia—where a private team has been hired to try to pilot the city—and the region—out of near insolvency. Then we look north, to the land of the incomparable Don Boyd of the Rockefeller Institute, who yesterday was a host to a fascinating session with New York Assistant Comptroller Tracey Hitchen Boyd who discussed with us the Empire State’s “groundbreaking Fiscal Stress Monitoring System to identify local governments and school districts experiencing financial strain.” Finally, with winter beginning to bite, we seek warmth in the Caribbean, venturing back to Puerto Rico, where the Puerto Rico Oversight Board created under the new PROMESA law preps for its meeting tomorrow—a meeting that will come during transition periods of administrations both in the federal and Puerto Rican governments—adding still greater challenges to the U.S. territory’s transition.

Share on Twitter

State Preemption of a Municipality? The twilight period during which Atlantic City has awaited its state takeover now appears to be over, or, as Mayor Don Guardian posed it, the “occupation force” of a “governor we don’t like” has been named. New Jersey has tasked Jeffrey Chiesa, a longtime ally and associate of Gov. Chris Christie—indeed, an associate the Governor once named to fill in as one of the state’s U.S. Senators in the wake of the death of former U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, and who also served as New Jersey’s Attorney General, to serve as the “director’s designee” to execute the state takeover of Atlantic City, from which position he will report to New Jersey’s Department of Community Affairs, under the leadership of Tim Cunningham, the Director of New Jersey’s Local Finance Board. In this new capacity, Mr. Chiesa will have far-reaching powers, including the authority to unilaterally hire, fire, eliminate departments and authorities, sell assets, terminate union contracts, and veto any action by City Council, according to the state’s Municipal Stabilization and Recovery Act. In its release, the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs said Mr. Chiesa would use his authority “judiciously.”

In the statement, Mr. Chiesa said: “It is my hope to work together with firm conviction and not disrupt the democratic process…I am committed to improving essential government and community services for the people of the Atlantic City…“I will listen to the people and work hand in hand with local stakeholders to create solutions that will prevent waste and relieve generations of taxpayers from the burden of long-term debt. We will put Atlantic City back on a path to fiscal stability.”

With regard to governance, the Department said Atlantic City Mayor and City Council will “maintain day-to-day municipal functions.”  Mr. Chiesa’s role will be to oversee “fiscal recovery efforts, ” with the release from the Department noting his immediate steps would include entering into PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreements with casinos, ensuring that debt service and county and school payments are made on time, in addition to exploring “right-sizing the City’s work force.” What and how Atlantic City’s elected government leaders will do—and what they may do could now be the outcome of the third branch of the state’s government: the courts, especially in the wake of Mayor Guardian’s making clear yesterday that the city was poised to go to court to block any actions by the state that it regards as civil rights violations. Early yesterday, Mayor Guardian said the city would go to court if the state takes actions “we see as unconstitutional.”

The road ahead promises to be steep: the state takeover comes with the Governor potentially leaving to join the new Trump Administration; Atlantic City has a roughly $100 million annual budget deficit and about $500 million in total debt. The city’s ratable base has declined from $20 billion in 2010 to $6 billion today as the casino town faced more competition in neighboring states: five of the city’s famed boardwalk casinos have closed since 2014—with significant implications for unemployment, per capita income, and assessed property values.

State Preemption. In the wake of last week’s state Local Finance Board vote to usurp major decision-making powers from Atlantic City’s elected leaders week, Local Government Services Director Timothy Cunningham noted: “The simple fact is Atlantic City cannot afford to function the way it has in the past…I look forward to meeting with Mayor Guardian and members of the City Council and starting the process of bringing this great city back to financial stability. It is my hope to work together with firm conviction and not disrupt the democratic process.”

As we have previously noted, the Board’s vote for the takeover came in the wake of the state Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Charles Richman rejecting the city’s fiscal-recovery plan last week—a plan which the Department criticized, because it failed to balance the city’s 2017 budget, ran a five-year shortfall of $106 million, and did not accurately estimate cost and revenue projections. In addition, the Department expressed concerns over the Bader (airport) Field sale, calling the water authority’s plan to issue $126 million in low-interest, long-term bonds to pay for the land “dubious at best.”

The Sharing Economy? The State of Michigan Tuesday committed to begin processing Detroit city business tax returns for the first time next January, enhancing a state-local partnership between the Motor City and the Michigan Department of Treasury that began last year with individual income tax returns and which will extend to business returns starting with the 2016 tax year. Under the new partnership, any business required to withhold city income taxes and any taxpayer who files under Detroit’s corporate partnership and fiduciary rules will be affected by the change: it will allow corporate filers to electronically submit their returns and use other online department services. In addition, partnership and fiduciary filers will submit their returns to the Treasury Department. As part of the reforms, the State’s handling of individual tax returns will allow filers to electronically submit both city and state returns. (Detroit residents pay a 2.4 percent individual income tax rate, while nonresidents pay a 1.2 percent rate. Detroit’s business income tax rate is 2 percent.)

Taking Stock in Stockton. In his first public comments since last week’s election, Mayor Anthony Silva this week said “the hate and the political battles” must end “if Stockton is truly going to heal and move forward.” Noting that: “Stockton is still a divided city,” the new Mayor said: “We have a new mayor, and he is now my mayor.” The outgoing Mayor spoke for five minutes at this week’s City Council meeting, the first such meeting since his lopsided loss last week to City Councilman Michael Tubbs. He graciously added: “I would expect anyone out there who claims to be my friend or one of my supporters not to participate in any sort of hate against the new mayor and to allow him the opportunity to lead.” (Mayor-elect Tubbs will take office January 1st.) Mayor Silva added: “I want you to pray and root for his success. Mayor-elect Tubbs, you have my support and you have my commitment for a smooth transition during the next month and a half. Congratulations.” The Mayor-elect did not refer to the outgoing Mayor’s comments during his own public remarks; rather he said Stockton has much to be grateful for as Thanksgiving approaches, referring especially to voters’ approval in the election of a one-quarter-cent sales and use tax to benefit Stockton’s library and recreation services: “Think of the gifts the voters gave us…That shows me that the residents in the city of Stockton are ready to get to work, that they want to be part of the solution. I think that bodes well for us at the end of this year as we move forward to next year.” (The Mayor-elect won his election by a 70-30 margin.) He added: “In Stockton, we love diversity. We don’t tolerate bigotry. If you’re LGBT, if you’re Muslim, if you’re undocumented, if you’re documented, if you’re immigrant, Stockton is your home, we love you, you’re part of our community.” Outgoing Mayor Silva noted that he had sent a text message to Councilmember Tubbs immediately after the election, and added that the two had “a great meeting” post-election meeting—a meeting he noted which “was important…because four years ago I never got a text message or a phone call or an email from my opponent (then-Mayor Ann Johnston), and then when I reached out to her I still never got one.” He added: “I would never wish this same action upon anyone, and Mayor-elect Tubbs and the new City Council do not deserve this type of hate, either.”

Addressing Municipal Dysfunction. Robert Bobb, the former Richmond, Virginia city manager whose consulting team has been hired on for hundreds of thousands of dollars by the nearly insolvent small, but historic city of Petersburg, Virginia told the City Council this week “There’s a lot of work to do, a lot of clean-up to do. We’re at it every day…There are a lot of dedicated people here who are working hard to help us.” Nevertheless, the challenge is significant: Mr. Bobb estimated the city has just $78,000 in cash in the wake of a debt payment due; yet it confronts critical payments to select vendors; a mandatory $427,000 payment to the school system; and tomorrow’s payroll—and that is after an unexpected fiscal gift: some $1.3 million that the team was able to scrounge up working with the administration of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and the Virginia Resources Authority from unused municipal bonds dating back to 2013. The challenge is made greater, moreover, in a city where nearly half the city’s children are estimated to live below the federal poverty line, according to U.S. Census data. Mr. Bobb also warned the Council that he remains unable to ascertain how much of the $18 million backlog in past-due bills the city owes that Virginia state officials identified over the summer has been resolved. About $10 million in accounts payable bills remain outstanding; however, there are many other categories of expenses. Moreover, as Nelsie Birch, Petersburg’s deputy interim City Manager and acting Finance Director noted: “That’s only for bills we’ve received,” adding that as of earlier this week there was more than $1 million in the city’s checking account, but “it’s more than spoken for,” noting that payroll costs about $1 million every two weeks. Unsurprisingly, the Council voted unanimously to allow the city manager to make the moves necessary to secure the funding. In addition, the Council authorized acting City Manager to move forward and secure $6.5 million in short-term financing to help Petersburg remain operating through the end of the year, with part of those funds to go toward a lump-sum payment of $1.2 million due by mid-December to help settle a lawsuit filed against the city by the regional South Central Wastewater Authority—where the municipality has been delinquent since last May, threatening the budgets of the other municipalities in its region. Petersburg has agreed to address its outstanding balance within two years, according to the statement, albeit how it will do so is something which remains to be resolved.

Good Gnus, Bad Gnus. Mr. Bobb advised the Council that his team’s fiscal analysis had, to date, discovered both good and bad news: in the latter category, among the most disappointing findings, they determined that a $92,000 cut made this year to the city’s Department of Social Services had triggered a loss of $600,000 in state funds needed to help Petersburg’s most vulnerable residents—especially its children. On the good gnus side, he told them that the dismissal of the South Central region’s lawsuit would clear the path for the city to move forward with short-term solutions that would offer his group the time and space to implement long-term plans to move the city back towards solvency, noting that the city, for the first time since the beginning of the fiscal year, had posted its current fiscal year budget online. However, he also reported that it was not just the city’s taxpayers who had been left in the fiscal dark in recent months: the municipality’s department heads had been operating without spending plans revised to address the $12 million in cuts made by the City Council last September to balance the budget for the first time in nearly a decade. The report, however, also advised Councilmembers that the City Council had voted to approve road projects Petersburg could not afford and that the city’s decentralized system of paying for goods and services was such that finance workers hoping to avoid further overspending could not see what resources had been committed until the office received an invoice. That meant, the team reported to the elected leaders, Petersburg will need to defer some past priorities, including postponing some utility upgrades such as water tank upgrades and overhauling sewage main and lines; museum and golf course upgrades; replacing City Hall; and planned work on other city facilities.

Early Fiscal Storm Warnings. New York Assistant Comptroller Tracey Hitchen Boyd this week, in a communication to New York local elected leaders, wrote that since the state, three years ago, had implemented a “groundbreaking Fiscal Stress Monitoring System to identify local governments and school districts experiencing financial strain,” the state had received suggestions from local leaders on ways to enhance that system, so that the state has opened a comment period to enhance the state’s ability to provide an early fiscal warning to local leaders in order to provide an opportunity to take corrective actions. The program, now in its fourth year, aims to provide an early warning of fiscal problems to local officials and citizens so that corrective actions can be taken before a true financial crisis occurs. The state is completing its fourth year of such reviews, evaluating every city, county, town, village, and school district based on a series of standard financial indicators. Each entity is scored annually to determine if, according to the measures, it falls within one of three levels of fiscal stress. The System also evaluates the general environmental factors affecting municipalities, or, as Ms. Boyd wrote: “We are completing our fourth year of FSMS reviews, evaluating every city, county, town, village, and school district based on a series of standard financial indicators. Each entity is scored annually to determine if, according to the measures, they are in one of three levels of fiscal stress. The System also evaluates the general environmental factors affecting municipalities.”

Federal Preemption. The Puerto Rico Oversight Board has scheduled its first session in Puerto Rico for tomorrow, with the meeting set outside of Fajardo, Puerto Rico. While the session will be by invitation only, it is scheduled to be streamed online at www.oversightboard.pr.gov, and to be followed by a press conference. It follows two earlier meetings convened in New York City. At this week’s session, the agenda includes a presentation by Conway MacKenzie Inc. on the government’s liquidity; a presentation by the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority; public testimony on Puerto Rico’s proposed fiscal plan; and the creation of procedures to approve transactions of the board’s “covered entities.” The session comes as the U.S. territory confronts a $3 billion cash shortfall in its current fiscal year—having disclosed that sum yesterday as part of its report it will be presenting to the PROMESA Board tomorrow—with that tidy sum coming due next February—assuming that would be the proximate date of the lifting of the current debt payment moratorium, but also optimistically assumes Puerto Rico will not have reached agreements with its creditors by that date: the tidy sum, after all, represents nearly 33% of Puerto Rico’s current approved fiscal year budget. Moreover, the island faces some $2.2 billion in municipal bond debt service between then and the end of its fiscal year—not to mention some nearly $850 million in unpaid municipal debt service. The territory’s government has sought to address its growing financial crisis via any number of avenues, including the deferral of payments to suppliers and the deferral of tax payments; however, it is running out of fiscal options.

Post Municipal Bankruptcy Governance

eBlog

Share on Twitter

eBlog, 11/09/16

Good Morning! In this a.m.’s eBlog, we observe election results in San Bernardino, where the voters, by a wide margin in a city in chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy longer than any other city in U.S. history, voted to move to a city manager type of governance; then we head sharply across the nation to New Jersey, where, this morning, the New Jersey Local Finance Board will begin the process for the state to determine if and how it would wrest governance authority from Atlantic City. Finally, we do a U-turn back to the West coast, where voters in post-chapter 9 Stockton voted to reject the incumbent mayor and elect one of the youngest new mayors in the nation—Councilmember Michael Tubbs, who jubilantly crowed:  “We have a great opportunity to show the nation, ‘How do you reinvent yourself?”  

Post Municipal Bankruptcy Governance. Voters in the nation’s city nearing the denouement of the longest-ever municipal bankruptcy are on the verge of replacing a governing document which many city leaders and, in our in-depth report, we believe has hobbled the city for years, voting by an official 60 percent margin to adopt Measure L, which would replace the San Bernardino City Charter with a new one—that is, the rules of the road that govern how the city is run, comparable to a state’s constitution, essentially moving the city to a city manager form of government, will change dramatically. The measure replaces San Bernardino’s charter with a new one, written over a two-year period by a committee based on state and national models. Or, as the head of the drafting committee which authored the new charter noted, “This is the beginning of a new day for the city, one that a lot of people worked very hard for, and I want to thank all of you: This city can now become what it used to be and what it should be.” His comments were in sharp contrast to former City Attorney James Penman, one of the leading opponents of Measure L, who said he was not surprised by the apparent defeat and hoped he was wrong in his predictions that the charter change would enable corruption, adding he prayed he was “wrong: I want to see San Bernardino do well, and I hope that whoever the future city managers are led well.” Mr. Penman stated that a city manager form of government works best when voter engagement is high—something which, historically, has not been the case in San Bernardino. However, advocates of Measure L believe that gloom will change, because turnout in future elections is projected to increase substantially, because it moves future elections for city officials from odd-number years to match California state elections—November of even-numbered years. (Four years ago, 61 percent of San Bernardino voters came out to vote for President, compared to the last Mayoral election in 2013 when the election turnout was below 16 percent.) Measure L was drafted over a two-year period by a committee based on state and national models. As adopted it provides that the offices of city attorney, city clerk, and city treasurer—currently elective offices—will instead be appointed, and responsibility for some day-to-day operations will shift from elected City Council members to the city manager, who is appointed by the City Council. In addition, pay for police will be set through collective bargaining, instead of through the unique formula San Bernardino has used for decades, which bases the pay on the average of 10 like-sized California cities. San Bernardino has operated under its own city charter, albeit amended several times, since 1905.

State Preemption of a Municipality? The New Jersey Local Finance Board will consider in the next few hours whether to wrest power and authority from Atlantic City’s Mayor and Council and grant them to a state official to turn around the city’s near insolvency in the wake of last week’s rejection of the city’s turnaround plan, when New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Charles Richman, in a 14-page reply, said the city’s supplemental information did not change his view, in some part because it was still overly reliant on state aid and a partnership with the state: “The extent to which the city minimizes the plan’s weaknesses by invoking the value of a partnership to propel the plan forward is, to me, confirmation that the plan does not stand on its own. Ergo, this morning, following are the ten powers the state can take under the so-called takeover law:

State Usurpation Powers. The state’s takeover law provides for state authority powers, including authority to “unilaterally modify, amend, or terminate any collective negotiations agreements, except those related to school districts.” The law also permits the state authority of “selling, conveying, leasing, monetizing, or otherwise disposing of any interest in any municipally-owned assets.” (The city’s Bader Field, a 143-acre former airstrip, and the Municipal Utilities Authority, the city’s waterworks, are considered two of the city’s most prized assets—and monetizing those assets had been a signal part of the city’s proposed, but rejected recovery plan.) The state can unilaterally “appoint, transfer, or remove employees” of the city, up to and including department and division heads; such state authority excludes appointed officials who have received tenure.

  • Enter shared services agreements.The state, under the law, may strike agreements with Atlantic County, other municipalities, or “any instrumentality of the state” to share or consolidate municipal services. (Atlantic City recently reached a shared services deal with Atlantic County for senior and health services.)
  • Restructure debt.The state can retain bond counsel, adopt bond ordinances, and take “any other steps necessary” to restructure and adjust debt. (Atlantic City has roughly $500 million in total debt.)
  • File papers in bankruptcy court. The State of New Jersey may file a chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy petition and other pleadings and papers with any United States court or federal bankruptcy court for the purpose of “effecting a plan of readjustment or composition of debts;” however, the state must first have the approval of the legislative Joint Budget Oversight Committee.
  • Abolish city departments.The state’s sweeping powers also include “dissolving, terminating, transferring, abolishing, or otherwise disposing of any municipal authority, board, commission, or department.”
  • Control legal affairs.The state can take over the city’s litigation and legal affairs, including suing in the city’s name, prosecuting, defending, and resolving litigation, arbitration, disputes, and controversies.
  • Purchasing goods and services.The state may procure any “goods, services, commodities, information technology, software, hardware, or other items” on behalf of Atlantic City; and
  • Veto meeting minutes.The state can veto minutes from the governing body and “any board, commission, or department” of the city. Copies of meeting minutes must be sent to the director of Local Government Services, who can approve or veto any action taken by the city.

In response to Atlantic City’s information and efforts to avert a state takeover, as well as Mayor Don Guardian’s epistle late last week to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, the Department, created to provide administrative guidance, financial support, and technical assistance to local governments, community development organizations, businesses and individuals, has scheduled the following agenda items for its meeting today:

11:15 AM City of Atlantic City
Atlantic – NJSA 52:27BB-87 0 Proposed Adoption of Municipal Budget

11:20 AM City of Atlantic City
Atlantic – NJSA 52:27BBBB-1 et seq. – Confirmation of Powers under Municipal Stabilization and Recovery Act. 

Under said Act, the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs has 150 days in which to approve or reject the city’s five-year plan. Should the Department find that the proposed plan failed to achieve fiscal stability, a state takeover would take effect. Moreover, the statute also provides authority for a state takeover if Atlantic City, at any point, fails to follow the five-year plan—although it permits Atlantic City the right to appeal the Commissioner’s decisions to a Superior Court judge.

In its 25-page document, as we previously noted, the city sought to respond to the criticisms of the state to its report and urge that the city’s proposed plan is the best way to address its fiscal future. The timing, one day after the Presidential election, is mayhap ironic, coming after last week’s closure of candidate Donald Trump’s Taj Mahal casino—one he once called “the eighth wonder of the world,” despite, ironically, taking his Atlantic City casinos through bankruptcy four times. Nevertheless, he last week said: “There’s no reason for this,” in a recent interview as his friend and fellow billionaire Carl Icahn prepared to close the casino. Thus, in another blow to the city’s tax base and employment and other sales and hotel tax revenues, the Taj Mahal closed its doors amid a strike by union members that had lasted more than 100 days, making it the fifth Atlantic City casino to close since 2014. Mr. Trump claimed both sides should have been able to work out an agreement to keep the casino open. Local 54 of the Unite-HERE union had gone on strike July 1st, after the Local was unable to agree with Mr. Icahn on a new contract to restore health insurance and pension benefits—benefits which were terminated two years ago in a federal bankruptcy court. So last August, Mr. Icahn decided to close the casino, stating it lacked a “path to profitability.” That path, according to candidate Trump, is now forever closed: “Once it closes, it’s too expensive to ever reopen it.” The casino’s closure of course impacted Atlantic City’s fiscal challenges: its impact in lost jobs (nearly 3,000 workers—bringing the total jobs lost by Atlantic City casino closings to 11,000 since 2014), reduced assessed property values.

New Hands at the Tiller. Stockton City Councilman Michael Tubbs appeared certain this morning to become Stockton’s first black mayor after vaulting to a resounding lead over incumbent Anthony Silva in an election upsetting night across the country. At the age of 26, the Mayor-elect of the formerly bankrupt city stated: “We have a great opportunity to show the nation, How do you reinvent yourself? I’m tired of talking about where we’ve been. I’m more interested in talking about where we’re going. We have to mature as a community and start demanding solutions.” Outgoing and defeated former Mayor Tony Silva said: “The people have spoken…I respect the will of the people. I want to thank everyone who believed in me and stood by me…My heart will always belong to Stockton. I will always be remembered as the People’s Mayor and I will support the new mayor and I will ask my supporters to also support him and help us make Stockton an amazing city.” Mayor-elect Tubbs’ victory margin was an overwhelming 40-percent. In his acceptance speech, Mayor-elect Tubbs noted: “You don’t get 70 percent of the vote out of nowhere…This victory is yours and ours. This room is what Stockton looks like. It’s people from gated communities and Conway Homes, black people, Asians, white people. Each of us is what it will take to move Stockton forward.” Indeed, it is a remarkable pinnacle for the new Mayor-elect, who was raised by a single mother in south Stockton, earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Stanford University and was elected to the Stockton City Council in 2012. The new Mayor noted, last night: “Stockton has a long history of turning tragedy into triumph…The Stockton I know, I met in this campaign…I am more resolute than ever that Stockton’s best days are ahead. This is a prelude to a beautiful chapter. Michael Tubbs will not write it himself. We will write it together.”