Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Former Luzerne County controller Walter Griffith’s official challenge of a county debt restructuring package will force the county to pay $300,000 more per month until the matter is resolved, according to an email sent to county council members.
Griffith filed the challenge with the state Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), which must clear county borrowing proposals.
According to an email to council from county Chief Solicitor C. David Pedri:
DCED recently informed the county that Griffith filed a challenge seeking to stop the proposed issuance of bonds.
Although Griffith received paperwork on protocol regarding complaints, he failed to file a complaint conforming to the state’s legal guidelines. In its discretion, DCED granted Griffith an extension until April 14 to refile his complaint.
This extension also suspends DCED approval process of the county’s borrowing application. The state also will need time to consider and rule on his complaint, preventing the county from meeting its projected timeline to close on the restructuring by April 15.
“It is estimated by the county’s financial advisor that, due to the filing by Mr. Griffith of this defective complaint, the county will now incur approximately $300,000 per month of additional costs on the previously issued bonds until they could be refunded or refinanced (based on current market conditions),” Pedri wrote.
A council majority supported the new debt package to extract the county from an inherited 2006 bond containing spiraling fees.
The borrowing of up to $166.7 million will be used to terminate the $88.5 million bond from 2006, fund early close-out fees and refund other bonds from 1998, 2002 and 2005 so repayments can be locked in at lower interest rates, officials said.
The county currently owes an estimated $395 million in debt through 2027. If the restructuring is completed as expected, the county will owe $405 million through 2029, officials said.
The new package would eliminate the risk of variable rates and fees and reduce annual debt repayments by about $3 million, officials said.
The 2006 bond included a fee that had increased from about $220,000 to $2.7 million annually and was subject to further increases in April.
Griffith said he filed the challenge primarily because he does not believe the county followed home rule charter requirements to release ordinances in advance for public review and input. He said he will file an amended complaint according to state guidelines.
He said the urgent deadline is not his fault because council and the administration were warned about potential problems with the 2006 package as far back as the fall of 2012.
“They had plenty of opportunity to take care of this problem, so for them to turn around and blame me now is nonsense,” Griffith said.
Griffith said he isn’t convinced the restructuring is in the county’s best interest but would not have filed a complaint if he believed the package met charter requirements.