Archive

debt funding

It’s Budget Time Again

July 14, 2014
debt funding, economy, finance, funding, planning, Reserve Funding, reserves, Revenues, Risk, Rural Utilities, Surpluses
Leave a comment

The good news is that for many local governments, property values are up and so is the economy, especially in urban areas.  However that does not mean that the budget approval difficulties of 2009-2012 have passed or been resolved.  In fact the arguments may continue despite improvements in financial position.  Why?  There are a number of policies that were implemented in the recession years that were especially difficult for utilities:

  1. Borrowed or transferred water and sewer monies to avoid raising taxes against falling property values (note that raising taxes on falling values would have yielded a zero sum game, but raising taxes commensurate might have “un”elected a few people
  2. Failing to have long-term financial plan and even fewer have multiyear budgets.  Included are automatic rate adjustments that some are questioning or deferring now, despite having been approved several years ago
  3. Bad investments – public or private.  In either case, if the revenues are not realized, the local entity gains no benefit.  This can include public private infrastructure investments, privatization or investing cash.  Scenarios need to be created to figure out what happens when things don’t go as planned.
  4. Failing to save for a rainy day before the crash.  Our grandparents knew we need to save for a rainy day.  We talk about the lowered level of savings among Americans and the potential issues that could arise if economic difficulties occur.  So exactly why do our elected leaders think it is a great idea not to collect monies in good times for a rainy day?  Other than politics that is?

 

We have identified four errors in public policy at the local level.  The questions for the 2015 budget are:

 

  1. Can we repay those funds we “borrowed” from during the down years?
  2. Can we keep the total revenues increasing (may not mean a tax increase, but certainly not a rollback)?
  3. Can we develop realistic scenarios for public investments.  Nothing worse than stranded infrastructure like that $6milion parking garage that grossed under $100 in the last 6 months because no one uses it because there is not business need for it.
  4. Can we develop reserve policies that allow local governments and especially utilities to create and maintain repair and replacement funds, reserves, and “savings” for the next rainy day.  It’s coming.  At some point.
  5. Can we develop a 5 year plan of where the community vision is?

I think this would be a start for a lot of us.

Advertisement

Economic Challenges or Challenges to Economics?

May 26, 2014
Congress, debt funding, economy, Education, finance, funding, infrastructure, innovation, Leadership, local government, management, planning, politics, Reserve Funding, reserves, Revenues, Surpluses, sustainability, Tax cuts, Uncategorized, utilities, Water Funding, water sewer management
Leave a comment

As you are aware, I have several hobbies and interest, and economics is one of them.  Economics has theorists from many different viewpoints, and the commonality among them is that there is no “school of thought” that explains everything.  So new schools get developed to explain the current events, or old ones that were discredits are resuscitated, but unfortunately we too often neglect the past, or at least the examples of the past.  Too often the obvious gets ignored.  For example, we cave money because we know there will be ups and downs.  Individual do it, so why don’t governments?  We know that we will pay for a product we need.  Demand drives the price.  If more people want it, the price goes up.  Been that way for…. ever maybe?  So in my recent reading I came across several musing that keep getting talked about by political pundits, but may be they are not what they appear to be.  So let’s take a look at a couple of these that might just affect us….

 

Is supply side economics is a myth developed by corporate economists to argue for lower taxes.  The concept is to give tax breaks to encourage manufacturers and businesses to produce more product which will reduce costs.  You know this is patently false.  Try selling your reclaimed water at a discount (or give it away) when it is raining.  Demand drives the economy, not supply.  Every economics student learns this in economics 101.  The supply side economics school developed as a means to explain stagflation in the 1970s. The idea what to give tax cuts to those who invested, so they would invest more to make new products, which would trickle down to the rest of us.  Still doesn’t work.  Why?  What they ignored was that the US industrial sector had saturated the US economy with goods and could not grow without new sectors to sell to.  Hence the push on Nixon to open up China to foreign trade and investment.  But opening foreign markets was great, except they could not afford our products.  So we had to make the products there, increase local wages so they could buy the products, and still shipped products back at a cheaper cost that to build them in America.  The idea is not new – recall Henry Ford set up the assembly line to cuts costs to allow him to increase wages so his workers could buy his cars.  The obvious question is when we saturate China, then what?  Africa?  Then what?  The economy cannot grow faster than the increase in population.  So why does supply side economics keep getting traction?  Did we mention those tax cuts….

 

To the big fashion in Germany and the EU is austerity.  Austerity is an economic idea that never seems to die despite very limited success and many, many failures.  It sounds great – cut costs and balance the budget while cutting revenues (income).  Ok, so let’s see how that works in your household – you quit your middle class job and take a minimum wage job.  You cut your expenses.  Except you can’t sell your house without a loss (and you do not have the cash to make up the difference) and you need your car to get to your new job.  But austerity says that if you eat rice, beans, cereal and Ramen noodles, you will soon be far better off than you are now.  No one will suffer.   Do you believe it?  Do you wonder why the Greeks and Irish are not doing so well today and why people are restless?  They used to devalue their currency, but the Euro prevents this.  They do not have away out.  Meanwhile Iceland devalued currency, let the banks fail, took over the bank assets, and are doing much better.  Austerity was not the option…. Just saying…  And who suffers the most?  Not the high income folks.

 

Tax cuts stimulate the economy.  Sounds great.  But, from 1944 to 1963, the income tax rate on the highest earning bracket in 1960 was 90% over $200,000.  Yes 90%!   The economy was great.  The middle class was born.  House ownerships jumped.  Education was up.  The economy in the 1970s stagnated after we cut tax rates.  We cut the income tax rate in the 1980s, but raised other taxes, and things improved, but then declined.  The economy improved after the Bush tax hike in 1991. It did not improve after the Bush tax cuts in 2001.  Interesting in their book Presimetrics, Mike Kimel and Mike Kanell noted that higher taxes seem to correlate with a better economy.  Is it because investors can’t sell stock so easily when they made a profit so corporations can count of investments longer?  Or is it that the increase in revenues allows the federal government to invest in more research and development that further stimulates the economy?  Did we mention the tax cuts favor the wealthy?

 

The moral of the story is that utility managers cannot ignore the economic realities around them.  We cannot be trapped by the musings of people who have hidden agendas, which means that our understanding of the way things are must extend beyond the utility itself.  The economy, economics, monetary policy, tax policy, demographics and change are areas that utility managers need to be current on.  Engineers and managers often understand these issues easily (most are mathematical) but we tend to focus only in out areas.  We need to become educated.  Recall the earlier blog where I noted the city manager who realized later that the reason elected officials tended to bad alternatives was they were being lobbied to approve the poorer options because their clients could make money from it.  You know many ideas that will be lobbied to elected officials and business people in the future.  You need to become educated on these ideas and how they affect your utility.  You know that rates that are too low will not increase revenues.  You know you need to expand sales when possible, perhaps serving new areas, and making the investments for same.  You know that not spending money will only increase the risk of failure in the system.  You know that not increasing pay will disenfranchise employees.  Prepare for these assaults so you can lead your utility down the proper path. 

Inheriting Infrastructure?

April 18, 2014
borrowing for infrastructure, debt funding, economy, engineering, Environment, finance, infrastructure, innovation, local government, management, reserves, Transportation, Uncategorized, utilities, Water Funding, water sewer management
Leave a comment

At a recent conference I was listening to a presentation by the Army Corps of Engineers explaining the investments made over the last 80 years.  Subsequent presentations discussed that the need to reinvest in infrastructure appears to be about 3.6% of infrastructure value per year, but that the US is spending about 2.4%.  The best condition of our infrastructure was in the 1980s, but decreases in reinvestment due to funding limitations has caused an ongoing decline in infrastructure value, which is why the ASCE report cards show most of our infrastructure at the D or D- level.  It is getting old and it needs repair and replacement.  You would rarely buy a house, never maintain it, and expect it to live in it without problems for 50 years.  Roofs leak, pipes need replacing, mechanical equipment, lights and appliances fail.  It is the cost of owning a home. You have to update.  Most times the new equipment is more efficient that the old stuff, saving money.  So why do we do this with infrastructure?

More interesting was the response to how some of these agencies may deal with this backlog of deferred maintenance.  So far I have heard the Corps, state transportation agencies, state land agencies and another federal government say that they are figuring out means to prioritize the assets and dispose of those not needed.  So let’s see how that would work and I kid you not, these are suggestions:

  •          Abandon state roadways and let local governments deal with them.  Of course these are roads that are challenged – like they flood constantly and the cost to raise them is cost prohibitive, but the city has development along the corridor
  •          The state has low value wetlands they will donate to the underlying county – not that you can do anything with this land- it is not developable, but needs to be monitored and maintained
  •          There is a waterway that has leaking dikes but serves very few people.  Let’s give it to the local community as they are the only ones who use it.
  •          We have monitoring equipment, but it really provides more information locally that regionally, so let’s give it to them 

Hey I like the idea of giving, but seriously, how does the “recipient” deal with this problem.  The low value assets are low value because they serve limited people and are deemed to have little economic or useful value or are too expensive to maintain.  So what does the recipient do with it?  They do not have nearly the resources that larger governmental entities have, and if the big guys cannot find the money, will locals?  Are we just kicking the problem to the next guy?  Sounds like used car sales to me.

It sounds suspiciously like the argument I have heard several times from a city manager who talked about cutting the size of local government, only what he did was contract with other entities to do the services, which means cuts in employees for his city, but the cost is just transferred to another entity.  The rate/taxpayers will foot the bill unless the service is completely discontinued.  In his case, they all paid more.

The State of Florida and the federal government have both cut employees and both contract heavily for services that never used to be contracted.  There is a whole industry of contracting for government work that used to be done in-house.  In other words, they privatized portions of the operations.  But did the cost of government decrease in either case?  No. 

So going back to the initial question – will governments abandon infrastructure?  The answer appears to be yes, but the problem is that that infrastructure IS being used by people so the reality of full abandonment is impossible.  The result will be that underlying local entities will be stuck with the bill.  Planning is needed.  “Fail to plan = Plan to fail” as my friend Albert says.  We need to identify where these “gifts” may occur and identify a means to deal with the inherent obligation that goes with them.  For water and sewer utilities, waterways and roadways are of particular concern, but so could watersheds and well sites. 

 

Will the Default in Detroit Affect Me?

April 8, 2014
borrowing for infrastructure, debt funding, Detroit, economy, engineering, Environment, finance, infrastructure, innovation, local government, Michigan, planning, politics, Risk Management, stormwater, sustainability, Uncategorized, utilities
20 Comments

So Detroit defaulted on it’s debt obligations.  Do does that impact you?  Well, that depends on whether you are a utility looking revenue bonds, a city looking for general fund bonds or some combination.  The issue in Detroit with debt is that they pledged the full faith and credit of their taxing authority to repay the debt.  Their taxing ability was insufficient to accomplish this goal, which means that there could now be distrust in that promise for other cities.  So if you are a city and you are making this pledge, Detroit could impact you, or at least create more review on your balance sheets.  If you are a utility that is pledging revenues that have no limitations on amount, the concern is likely less.  Of course in either cases, the question is what the rest of your balance sheet looks like.  If you have no reserves, do not charge the full cost for service, have a heavy debt load, have high rates already, or send a lot of funds to the general fund, that could be a problem.  If you have avoided these pitfalls, the bond market will see much less of an issue. 

Keep in mind that Detroit is not the only default – another big one is the Birmingham and several other create questions about general fund uses of funds, which makes it of greater importance to keep our financial house in order.  IN part this can be done by creating the appropriate enterprise funds and remove those services from the general property tax fund.  That permits local focus on the true cost of general taxing users and creates a delineation between general fund and enterprise costs.  That can help elected officials focus on the true general fund issues:  police, fire, EMS, administration without hiding those costs with subsidies from other funds.

 

Infrastructure Replacement

March 10, 2014
Banking industry, borrowing for infrastructure, debt funding, economy, engineering, finance, funding, infrastructure, Leadership, local government, management, planning, Revenues, Risk, sustainability, Uncategorized, underwriters, utilities, Water Funding, water sewer management
Leave a comment

We all know that our infrastructure is deteriorating.  Deferred maintenance increases the risk of system failure. The need for capital reinvestment within the utility industry has historically been very low. As a result, in its “2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” the American Society of Civil Engineers assigned a grade of “D” to America’s drinking water systems, citing billions of dollars of annual funding shortfalls to replace aging facilities near the end of their useful lives and to comply with existing future federal water regulations (ASCE, 2013).  AWWA estimates that investments of at least $1 trillion are needed over the next 25 years.

While a pay-as-you-go capital funding seems like the best way to go, that is difficult to accomplish with the large outlays needed to upgrade the infrastructure system and the controls on rates often exercised by local officials.  As a result, borrowing is required and the condition of infrastructure and the lack of reserves are a part of how the utility is viewed by those who lend monies.   Utility managers need to understand how the lending agencies evaluate risk. 

Lenders use many tests.  Among them are: whether the utility’s annual depreciation expense is used of accumulated as reinvestment in the system, whether adequate reserves are present, whether  annual capital spending that is below the amount of annual depreciation and the amount of revenues in excess of projected debt (debt service coverage).  The target debt service coverage may depend upon the requirements of the underwriter, the rating agencies and the investors.  Debt service coverage could be as low as 15% or as high as 50%.  In 2012, the median all-in annual debt service coverage excluding connection fees for utilities rated “AAA” by Fitch Ratings was 220%, while the median for AA-rated and A-rated utilities was 180% and 140%, respectively. (Fitch, 2012).  

A working capital target of 90 days of rate revenue is a minimum, but since 2008, more is likely to be required depending on the size of the system and the history of revenues.  Where the revenues were stable despite 2008, less may be required.  For those utilities that suffered major decreases, reserves should be far larger – perhaps a year or more.  Other criteria that could be used to evaluate the projects when borrowing money include public health and safety, regulatory compliance, system reliability, the risk and consequences of asset failure, redundancy, community/customer benefit  and sustainability. At the same time, the expectation is that  the utility systems that retain all monies in the system to be utilized to improve the system and pay for debt service, except those used  for the purchase of indirect services from the General Fund that are justified with indirect cost studies. 

 

Despite the above, rate are an issue.  Fitch Ratings has indicated that it considers rates for combined water and wastewater service that are higher than 2% of the median household income – or 1% for an individual water or wastewater utility – to be financially burdensome (Fitch, 2012).  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers that rates for an individual water or wastewater utility that are greater than 2% of median household income may have a high financial impact on customers. (EPA, 1997). Utilities with a stronger financial profile might have residential charges for combined water and wastewater service that are less than or equal to 1.2% of median household income, or less than or equal to 0.6% for an individual water or wastewater utility. All revenues generated through system operations generally must remain within the system and can only be used for lawful purposes of the system.

Canadian utilities employ more formal polices to establish fiscal policies to provide reserves to insure stability in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Reserve targets focus on ensuring liquidity in the event there is an interruption in funding, increased capital costs due to new regulatory requirements or a short term funding emergency – all the issues evaluated by the bankers.  Reserve targets are policy decisions. Benchmarking is an evolving practice within Canadian public sector utilities particularly as it relates to financial planning and capital financing. The benchmarking exercise provides valuable information to help assess fiscal performance, the needs of customers, and provide the tools to help support optimum performance. 

%d bloggers like this: