Member of the reality-based community of progressive Massachusetts blogs
Bond ratings affect a lot more than people realize. The cost of borrowing money can skyrocket after a bad bond rating, making long-term investments in infrastructure, such as school buildings and city redevelopment projects, costly, and scaling them down considerably.
Think of it this way: when you refinance that 7% mortgage to a 6% rate, that can mean several hundred dollars of savings a month, which could make a huge difference in your personal budget. The same is true of borrowing money on the scale a city or town does. Less money in repaying a loan can mean a lot more money freed up for more projects, getting more done with the same amount of loan.
So when City Manager Lynch announces that Moody’s has “affirmed Lowell’s long-term bond rating of A3 and removed the city’s negative outlook” this is an impressive and important element in our city’s strategy for improving itself on all levels.
I can’t resist noting (bold mine):
Moody’s stated that the rating “reflects the city’s improving financial position, which remains strained but has begun to stabilize after several years of reserve draws.” … “Removal of the negative outlook reflects the city’s progress in effectively reversing the city’s decline through implementing financial policies and generating positive operating results in fiscal 2007,” reports Moody’s.
One wonders where we would be if we had not had a change in direction…its management…three years ago. This is not an academic thought-balloon nor is it a political gloat - I really do believe that Lowell was at a crossroads, and I can’t think of one sane person who would want to go back to management that is more political and less technocratic. The difference is astounding, and astronomical in its implications.
And this difference was all “we” ever wanted. That’s what the opposition never understood. It was never about getting “our guy” in anywhere. It was about the job, and getting the job done. Now that we see the results, I think we can agree that this was a laudable goal. Yes, it is and was altruistic. All screaming to the contrary by those who took our efforts personally.
I’ll say it again and again…it matters who you elect (or otherwise put in charge). It always matters.
[powered by WordPress.]
43 queries. 0.940 seconds
June 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Although it is progress to remove the negative outlook, we have a way to go to really improve the interest rates we are charged. It will take time, and probably incremental increases in the fees that support the enterprise funds.
Moody’s ratings in descending order are:
Aaa, Aa1, Aa2, Aa3, A1, A2, A3, Baa1, Baa2, Baa3, etc.
A sampling of cities in Massachusetts:
Aaa - Cambridge
Aa1 - Boston
Aa2 - none in sample
Aa3 - none in sample
A1 - Quincy
A2 - Brockton
A3 - Lowell, New Bedford, Worcester
Baa1 - Fall River, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Lynn, Pittsfield, Holyoke
Baa2 - none in sample
Baa3 - Springfield
June 27th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Reversing the trend has to start somewhere and it starts with the removal of the negative outlook. Moody’s moves very slowly and methodically with very small baby steps. They like to see proof as they go along. It’s a long process. This is the first step in what I see as many if the current manager remains in place. Congrats to the Manager and his staff and the members of the council that supported the change in management. They did what was in the best interest of the City, not themselves. The finances of the City where mismanaged in my opinion by the previous administration. Erroneous, misleading and sometimes downright wrong information was provided to the Council regarding our finances. The ability to make a good decision lies squarely with the information you’re provided to make it with. We can’t expect councilors to track every receipt and monitor every expenditure the city makes. That’s what we pay a manager and his/her staff to do. The problem lies with the ability to trust the information. When they felt they could no longer trust the information they were given to work with, they were right to replace the Manager. That’s where their only real control lies. Some of them took some real hits because of it, and continue to, but in the end the results speak for themselves.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
One of the commenters in the the editorial mentioned that the city doesn’t pay anything for park maintenance? Is that true?
If it’s true that the Spinners do all the maintenance, are the ‘handback’ requirements in the lease written well enough to ensure proper maintenance. By most reports I hear (I don’t go to the stadium) it’s maintained pretty well.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am
To have gone from two audit letters from the DoR to the first step to a better bond rating is a huge thing. Imagine if that audit had gone forward? I wonder if we’d have seen a significant downgrading.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I should say, had gone forward without budget improvement which followed the change in management…I assume we actually DID get audited after receiving letters, though I’m not sure.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Mr. L, I am not privy to the contract, but my understanding is that the Spinners maintain the park, and contribute $25K per year to a capital fund for the park upgrades and repairs. It would be nice to know how large that fund is, and who can spend from it, for what, and what has been done using those funds. It can’t be a lot of money, but over 10 years there would be $250K to be accounted for.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Don’t forget ‘handback’. There have to be incentives in the contract to actually do responsible maintenance, not just be responsible for it.
Hopefully there is something in there about handback condition.