Download - Bond Issuing Trends
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
1/20
19852005
CDIAC# 08-03 | APRIL 200
CAL I FORNIA DEBT & INVESTMENT ADV ISORY COMMISSIO
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
2/202
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
3/20
an overview o local governmentgeneral obligation bond issuancetrends (1985-2005) 1
WHAT ARE CALIFORNIAS GO
BOND REQUIREMENTS?
GO bonds are secured either by a
pledge o the ull aith and credit
o the issuer or by a promise to
levy property taxes in an unlimited
amount as necessary to pay debt
service, or both. GO bonds issued by
the State o Caliornia are ull aith
and credit bonds that are pledged
by the states general und instead
o tax revenue, whereas local
agencies typically are authorized toissue GO bonds payable rom ad
valorem property taxes. In addition,
State bonds require majority voter
approval as opposed to GO bonds
that are issued by local agencies,
which require either two-thirds or 55
percent voter approval. Article XVI,
Section 8 o the State Constitution,
states that local agencies (i.e.,
county, city, town, or school district)
may not incur indebtedness withouttwo-thirds voter approval.
In 2000, Proposition 39 modied
this article, which authorizes bonds
or repair, construction, or replace-
ment o kindergarten through 2th
grade school acilities, community
college districts, and county
education oces or saety, class
size, and inormation technology
needs i the bonds receive 55percent approval o the local vote.
General obligation (GO) bonds have historically provided
local agencies with the lowest borrowing costs among
the types o long-term bonds they may issue because
o their broad security pledge, which yield the highest
possible bond rating and widest investor acceptance. In
Caliornia, GO bonds are backed either by a pledge o
the ull aith and credit o the issuer or by a promise to
levyad valorem property taxes in an unlimited amount
as necessary to pay debt service. Local governments
use the latter approach because they generally are not
authorized to issue ull aith and credit bonds. Because
o this pledge o revenues, the State Constitution
requires that local governments seek voter approval
prior to issuing GO bonds (see sidebar What are
Caliornias GO Bond Requirements?).
Even though the voter approval process may be
time intensive and costly to mount, Caliornia local
governments have continued to rely on GO bonds
as a nancing tool to construct, acquire, and make
improvements to real property such as public buildings,
roads, school acilities, and equipment. While the
volume o issuance over the past two decades has
varied signicantly, several patterns emerge. This issue
brie provides an overview o changes in the volume olong-term local government debt issuance rom 985 to
2005 (ocusing on GO bonds), discusses the variation
in issuance by issuer and purpose, and identies where
the greatest changes have occurred. While this issue
brie does not seek to identiy the many actors that
infuence the issuance o debt on a micro level, the
signicant change in the level o GO bond issuance ater
999 coinciding with the approval o Proposition 39
points to the infuence this law change has had on the
municipal nance market.
The Caliornia Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC)
provides inormation, education and technical assistance on public debt
and investments to state and local public agencies and other public
nance proessionals. CDIAC maintains a debt issuance database that
includes inormation on all public debt issuance sold since 985.
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
4/202
what has been the trend in volumeo long-term debt issuance?
2 Revenue bonds include pooled revenue bonds, conduit revenue bonds, public enterprise revenue bonds, public lease revenue bonds, and sales tax
revenue bonds. The approval processes or these bonds varies considerably, and may or may not require a vote o the electorate, depending on the
issuer and source o repayment. For more inormation, see CDIACs Caliornia Debt Issuance Primer at www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac.
3 Two noticeable spikes in revenue bond issuance occurred in 985 and 993. In 985, there were 62 revenue bond issuances, more than any
other year over the period. While some o these issuances were signicant in size (e.g., Orange County issued a $787. million revenue bond), the
spike in issuance appears to be attributable to the shear number o issuances. While the number o issuances in 993 was second only to 985,
4 issuers accounted or over hal o the total volume issued ($8.2 billion o the $5.5 billion issued). These issuers included the Los Angeles
Department o Water and Power ($.8 billion), San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency ($.2 billion) and Los Angeles County ($.0 billion).
4 Data presented are unadjusted unless noted. Adjusting or infation and population growth, while tempering the magnitude o change over the period
somewhat, did not change the overall ndings.
Between 985 and 2005, local governments issued
9,920 long-term bonds totaling $429.5 billion.
fgure 01 shows the distribution o issuance byvolume in ve-year intervals over the 20 year period.
Revenue bonds, certicates o participation/leases
(COPs), and GO bonds accounted or $335.0 billion
(78.0 percent) o the total volume o local government
bond issuance. Revenue bonds, which are repaid
through a specic source o revenues but not via a
pledge to levy additional taxes as necessary, accounted
or $202.9 billion (47.2 percent) o the total volume
o debt issuance. COPs, which involve the leasing o
public property in connection with the sale o municipal
securities that represent undivided interests in therental payments under the tax-exempt lease, were $73.7
billion (7.2 percent) o the total volume. GO bond
issuance ranked third in terms o total issuance volume
($58.4 billion or 3.6 percent). 2
fgure 02 shows the trend in issuance over the periodor the three types o bonds with the greatest volume o
issuance.
Revenue bond growth over the period remained airly
steady, with a slight upward trend (see fgure 02). 3The annualized average growth rate o revenue bonds
over the 20 years was 0.6 percent. The same general
pattern holds or COPs, though their annualized average
growth rate over the period actually declined somewhat
(-2. percent). In contrast, the volume o GO bond
issuance grew signicantly rom 985 to 2005the
annualized average growth rate or GO bonds was 8.2
percent. The increase in GO bond volume is particularly
signicant ater 999the annualized average growth
rate rom 999 to 2005 is 30.6 percent. O the $58.4
billion in GO bonds issued over the period, $4.0 billion
(70. percent) was issued ater 999. Even when the
data are adjusted or infation and population growth,
these trends hold. 4
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
5/20
fgure 02:comparison o local governments annual issuance,by bond types 19852005 (dollars in billions)
fgure 01:volume o long-term debt issuance 1
(dollars in millions)
Totals may not add due to rounding.
2 The types o projects nanced under other bonds were tobacco securitization, pension obligation, court judgments, and workers compensation.
3 This category encompasses the ollowing revenue bonds: pooled revenue bonds, conduit revenue bonds, public enterprise revenue bonds, public
lease revenue bonds, and sales tax revenue bonds.
debt type19851989 19901994 19951999 20002005
totaCerticates o Participation/Leases $ 5,505 $ 2,80 $ 6,535 $ 9,826 $ 73,67
General Obligation Bonds 2,003 5,057 0,373 40,969 58,40
Limited Tax Obligation Bonds 3,69 9,42 4,357 8,398 25,79
Other Bonds 2 ,396 4,25 4,634 2,360 22,64
Revenue Bonds 3 33,603 39,644 50,679 79,009 202,93
Special Assessment Bonds 4,45 3,067 3,66 2,520 2,89
Tax Allocation Bonds 5,523 8,456 5,360 3,822 33,6
Total $ 65,795 $ 9,705 $ 95,04 $ 76,905 $ 429,50
2003
2002
200
2000
999
998
997
985
2004
2005
99
992
993
994
995
996
990
986
987
988
989
$8
$2
$4
$6
$0
$0
$6
$4
$2
volume
Certiicates o Participation/Leases
General Obligation Bonds
Revenue Bonds
3
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
6/204
Totals may not add due to rounding.
2 Includes county issuers and the City and County o San Francisco.
3 Includes public nancing authorities, joint powers authorities, and conduit issuers, among others.
4 This category encompasses the ollowing revenue bonds: pooled, conduit, public enterprise, public lease, and sales tax revenue bonds.
what type o long-term debtinstruments do local governmentsuse?
The types o long-term debt issued by a local
government are a unction o many actors (such as
legal authorization, debt policy guidelines, existingportolio composition, project type, costs o issuance,
and market demand). fgure 03 details debt typeand volume (in aggregate) by ve local government
issuer categories with the largest total volume o bond
issuance over the period; the remaining local issuers
mostly special districtsare grouped together into the
sixth Other Issuers category. The largest issuers by
volume o long-term debt over the period (excluding
the Other Issuers category) have been authorities
($79.5 billion), ollowed by cities ($76.2 billion) andschool districts ($50.8 billion). The type o debt issued,
however, diered signicantly by issuer category. While
authorities and cities have mostly issued revenue bonds
over the period (approximately $64.5 billion and $42.0
billion, respectively), school districts largely have issued
GO bonds ($39.0 billion), ollowed by cities ($4.7 billion
or 8.0 percent) and counties ($2.6 billion or
4.4 percent).
fgure 03:
long-term debt issuance, by debt type and issuer category 1
19852005 (dollars in millions)
debt type
Certicates o $ 7,89 $ 5,595 $ ,664 $ 6,65 $ ,073 $ 2,54 $ 73,6
Participation/Leases
General Obligation Bonds 4,655 2,572 39,045 0 0 2,3 58,4
Revenue Bonds 4 4,972 4,320 85 64,463 5,973 76,2 202,9
Other Bonds 2,43 2,769 24 8,426 27,495 33,368 94,4
Total $ 76,229 $ 45,256 $ 50,88 $ 79,504 $ 34,54 $ 43,6 $ 429,5
cities
coun
ties
2
scho
ol
districts
auth
orities
3
rede
velopm
ent
agen
cies
othe
r
issu
ers
tot
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
7/205
The increased use o GO bonds particularly by school
districts becomes more apparent when viewed over
time. fgure 04 shows a comparison o GO bondissuance by issuer category aggregated in ve year
increments over the 20-year period. Between 985 and
990, water districts issued the greatest volume o GO
bonds ($. billion), ollowed by school districts ($425
million) and counties, cities and city/county ($396
million). From 990 to 994, however, this rank-order
changedschool districts exceeded all other public
agency issuers in volume o GO bond issuance, though
the amount (approximately $3.0 billion) was still less
than hal o the total volume o GO bond issuance.During 995 to 999, school districts became the
dominant issuer o GO bonds, selling $8.0 billion
(77.2 percent). The amount o school district GO bond
issuance grew dramatically ater 999; rom 2000
to 2005, school districts issued $36.2 billion (88.4
percent) o the total volume o GO bonds.
fgure 04:
comparison o go bond issuer category by volume 119852005 (dollars in millions)
Totals may not add due to rounding.
issuercategory
School Districts $ 425 2.2 % $ 2,48 42.5 % $ 8,02 77.2 % $ 36,99 88.4 %
Counties, Cities, 396 9.8 ,594 3.5 ,685 6.2 3,55 8.7
City/County
Special Districts 64 3.2 82 .6 264 2.5 46 0.4
Water Districts ,078 53.8 ,47 22.7 386 3.7 70 .7
Miscellaneous 0 0.5 27 0.5 25 0.2 32 0.8
Utility Districts 3 .6 59 .2 0 0.0 42 0.
Total $ 2,003 00.0 % $ 5,057 00.0 % $ 0,373 00.0 % $ 40,969 00.0 %
%oftotal
volu
me
vo
lume
%oftotal
volu
me
vo
lume
%oftotal
volu
me
vo
lume
%ofto
volu
mvo
lume
19851989 19901994 19951999 20002005
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
8/206
what types o projects have beenfnanced with go bonds?
The types o projects nanced through debt issuance
vary widely depending on the type o debt being issued.
For example, counties, cities and school districts mayuse GO bonds to nance the acquisition, construction,
or completion o projects involving real property such
as hospitals, parks and school buildings. Revenue
bonds (such as public enterprise revenue bonds and
public lease revenue bonds) typically are used to
nance projects or which a stream o revenues, rents,
or ees are generated to support repayment o the
bonds including power systems, stadiums, and airports.
COPs may be issued to nance a project or which the
local agency has statutory authority to lease the acility
including school buildings, police stations and restations.
fgure 05 shows the distribution by purpose o thetotal volume o long-term debt issuance. From 985-
2005, local governments issued a total o $227.4 billion
(52.9 percent) or capital improvements, $75.2 billion
(29.6 percent) or education purposes, and $38.6 billion
(9.0 percent) or housing purposes using both GO bonds
and non-GO bonds. 5
While the amount o issuance or capital improvements
exceeds all other categories, issuance or this purpose
is done primarily using non-GO bonds (see fgure 06).Capital improvements were the primary purpose or
issuing $26.8 billion (58.4 percent) o non-GO bonds
over the period, ollowed by $38.5 billion or housing
(0.4 percent) and $37. billion or redevelopment
(0.0 percent).
In contrast, fgure 07 shows that GO bonds werealmost exclusively issued or education purposes(80.7 percent), ollowed by capital improvements
(8.0 percent) and hospital/health care acilities (.
percent). The signicant use o GO bonds or education
purposes is a relatively new phenomenon.
fgure 05:
long-term issuance(go and non-go debt by purpose type)19852005
total volume
$429.5 billion
5 CDIAC denes capital improvements as those inrastructure or
public property improvements, construction or acquisition that are not
related to education, hospital/health care or housing. Projects that
would be grouped under capital improvements include those involving
correctional acilities, airports, water, waste water, public transit, etc.
CapitalImprovements52.9%
Education17.5%
Housing9.0%
Hospital/Health
Care Facilities6.3%
Other5.7%
Redevelopment8.6%
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
9/20
fgure 06:non-go bond issuance
by purpose type 19852005
total volume
$371.1 billion
fgure 07:
go bond issuance by purpose type19852005
total volume
$58.4 billion
CapitalImprovements58.4%
Commercial/IndustrialDevelopment0.8%
Education6.3%
Hospital/HealthCare Facilities
7.1%
Housing10.4%
Insurance/
Pension Funds3.7%
Other2.0%
PollutionControl0.1%
Redevelop-ment10%
StudentLoans1.2%
Education80.7%
CapitalImprovements18%Other
0.01%
Housing0.2%
Hospital/HealthCare Facilities
1.1%
7
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
10/208
2003
2002
200
2000
999
998
997
985
2004
2005
99
992
993
994
995
996
990
986
987
988
989
$6
$20
$0
$2
$8
$4
volume
fgures 08 and 09 show the variation in non-GObond issuance and GO bond issuance or the types o
projects with the highest total volume over the period:
capital improvements, education, and housing. Non-GO
bond issuance includes revenue bonds and COPs.
For most o the period, non-GO bond issuance remained
airly steady, regardless o project type. Except or 993
and 2003, the volume o non-GO capital improvement
issuance generally ranged between $6 billion and $2
billion annually. The variation in volume o non-GO
bond issuance or education or housing purposes had a
smaller rangebetween $0 and $4 billion annually over
the 20 year period.
By contrast, the variation in volume o GO bond issuance
or education purposes is signicant.
fgure 08:non-go bond issuance
19852005 (dollars in billions)
fgure 10 contrasts the increased use o GO bondsin the latter hal o the period with COPs issued or
education purposes. From 985 to 995, issuance
levels are airly fat. Beginning in 996, and particularly
ater 999, the volume o GO bond issuance or
education purposes increases rapidly. GO bond issuance
grew rom $2.0 billion in 999 to $0.4 billion in 2005.
The average annualized rate o growth over this six-yearperiod was 3.2 percent. By comparison, the average
annualized rate o growth or COPs during this period
was 0.03 percent.
This rather sharp increase in the use o GO bonds or
education purposes coincides with the passage o
Proposition 39 in November 2000.
Capital Improvements
Education
Housing
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
11/20
2003
2002
200
2000
999
998
997
985
2004
2005
99
992
993
994
995
996
990
986
987
988
989
$8
$2
$0
$0
$6
$4
$2
volume
$4
2003
2002
200
2000
999
998
997
985
2004
2005
99
992
993
994
995
996
990
986
987
988
989
$8
$2
$0
$0
$6
$4
$2
volume
fgure 09:go bond debt
19852005 (dollars in billions)
fgure 10:comparison o certifcates o participation to go bonds
or education 19852005 (dollars in billions)
Capital Improvements
Education
Housing
Certiicates o Participation
General Obligation Bonds
9
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
12/200
Proposition 39
Proposition 39 permits K-2 school districts, community
college districts, and county education oces to issue
bonds or school acilities i the bonds are approved by
55 percent o the vote, as opposed to the previous two-
thirds approval requirement. However, in order to qualiy
a GO bond under Proposition 39, certain requirements
must be met, such as class size, technology needs,
independent perormance and nancial audits (see
sidebar What Does Proposition 39 Require?).
fgure 11 displays the major propositions aecting alocal governments ability to issue bonds or raise ees
overlaid on a graph o GO bond issuance volume. 6
The change in volume o GO bond issuance pre- and
post-Proposition 39 is signicant. The variation can be
attributed in large part to a signicant increase in the
number o issuances since 2000. Since the passage o
Proposition 39, both the number o education measures
on the ballot and percent approved have increased
substantially. Figure 2 provides a list o the passage
and ailure rate or Kindergarten through 2th grade (K-
2) GO bond measures ound on local general election
ballots since 986. During this period, the number o
such measures increased rom two in 986 to a high o
88 in 2002. Also, the passage rate has increased since
2000. In 2000, 53 percent o the measures passed.
Since then, in each election over three-ourths o all
measures passed.
WHAT DOES PROPOSITION 39
REQUIRE?
Caliornia voters approved Proposition
39 in the 2000 General Election. This
proposition lowered the voting require
ment or passage o local school
bond measures rom two-thirds to 55
percent. In addition, it allows property
taxes to exceed the one percent
cap in order to repay the bonds. To
issue a bond under the lower voter
threshold, certain requirements must
be ullled:
Bond proceeds can be usedonly or construction, rehabilitation,
equipping school acilities, or
acquisition/lease o real property or
school acilities.
A list o school projects to beunded must be included in the
issuance and certication that the
school board has evaluated saety,
class size reduction, and inormation
technology needs in developing the
list.
School boards are required to
conduct annual, independent nanciaand perormance audits until all bond
unds have been spent to ensure that
the bond unds have been used only
or the projects listed in the measure
Proposition 39 also requires that
each local K-2 school district provide
charter school acilities sucient to
accommodate the charter schools
students. The district, however, would
not be required to spend its general
discretionary revenues to provide
these acilities or charter schools.
Instead, the district could choose
to use these or other revenues
including state and local bonds.
6 The enactment o Proposition 3 in 978 restricted the ability o a
local government to make an unlimited pledge o repayment on GO
bonds by limiting (with certain exceptions) the ad valorem tax rate to
not greater than one percent. With the passage o Proposition 46 in
June 986, voters were able to consider local GO bonds or the rst
time since 978. Proposition 46 allowed the sale o GO bonds only
or the acquisition or improvements o real property (e.g., re and
police stations, schools, streets and various public works projects),
i such sale is approved by two-thirds o the voters. The approval o
Proposition 28, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, in the November 996
General Election increased existing voter approval requirements or
general taxes, property-related ees, and assessments. It also imposed
restrictions and new procedural requirements or the passage o local
ees and assessments. Additionally, Proposition 28 allowed voters to
repeal by initiative previously approved taxes.
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
13/20
fgure 11:annual go bond issuance and passage o signifcant propositions
19852005 (dollars in billions)
fgure 12:number o local government k12 go bond measures 1
passage, ailure, and passage rates
general ellections, 19862006
2003
2002
200
2000
999
998
997
985
2004
2005
99
992
993
994
995
996
990
986
987
988
989
$8
$2
$0
$0
$6
$4
$2
vo
lume
$4
proposition
46
passed ailed total passageyear measures measures measures rate
986 2 0 2 00.0%
988 8 5 3 6.5%
990 3 9 2 25.0%
992 8 9 7 47.%
994 5 5 20 25.0%
996 7 8 6.%
998 20 8 38 52.6%2000 23 7 30 76.7%
2002 70 8 88 79.5%
2004 47 6 53 88.7%
2006 50 2 62 80.6%
Source: CDIAC State and Local Bond and Tax Ballot Measures reports or appropriate year.
proposition
218
proposition
39
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
14/202
where have the greatest changesin go issuance occurred?
The volume o GO bond issuance varies widely by region.
This analysis divides the state into nine dierent regions
as ollows:
1 los angeles: Los Angeles, Orange, and VenturaCounties
2 san diego: Imperial and San Diego Counties
3 inland empire: Riverside and San BernardinoCounties
4 san rancisco (SF Bay Area): Alameda, ContraCosta, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties
5 san joaquin valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera,Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare
Counties
6 sacramento valley: Butte, Colusa, El Dorado,Glenn, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama,
Yolo, and Yuba Counties
7 central coast: Monterey, San Benito, San LuisObispo, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz Counties
8north coast:
Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, and
Mendocino Counties
9 mountain: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo, Lassen,Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra,
Siskiyou, Trinity, and Tuolumne Counties
fgure 13 shows the total GO bond issuance volumeor each region. Not surprisingly, the Los Angeles
region issued the greatest total volume o GO bonds
over the time rame, approximately $22 billion (37.6
percent) ollowed by the SF Bay Area ($6.8 billion, 28.7
percent) and San Diego ($4.8 billion, 8.3 percent). The
region with the least amount in GO bond issuance was
the North Coast region ($39.0 million, 0.2 percent).
fgure 14 shows similar trends or the total GO bondissuance or education purposes or each region. The
rising volume o issuance ater 999 is signicant or
many regions o the state, resulting in two- and three-
old increases rom the previous period.
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
15/203
fgure 14:
go bond issuance by region or education 11985-2005 (dollars in millions)
fgure 13:go bond issuance by region 1
1985-2005 (dollars in millions)
region 19851989 19901994 19951999 20002005 total
1 - Los Angeles $ 874 $ ,767 $ 3,333 $ 5,980 $ 2,954
4 - SF Bay Area 292 ,470 3,82 ,69 6,752
Multiple 2 485 54 56 3,544 5,059
2 - San Diego 88 25 479 4,052 4,834
5 - San Joaquin Valley 96 496 930 ,834 3,456
3 - Inland Empire 4 348 54 ,779 2,682
6 - Sacramento Valley 5 204 433 ,598 2,250
7 - Central Coast 2 42 268 768 ,080
9 - Mountain 7 45 4 94
8 - North Coast 2 0 32 05 39
Total $ 2,003 $ 5,057 $ 0,373 $ 40,970 $ 58,402
Totals may not add due to rounding.
region 19851989 19901994 19951999 20002005 total
1 - Los Angeles $ 8 $ 39 $ 2,64 $ 3,925 $ 6,939
4 - SF Bay Area 65 802 2,909 9,606 3,482
2 - San Diego 5 79 440 3,944 4,478
5 - San Joaquin Valley 77 495 904 ,70 3,277
3 - Inland Empire 9 25 443 ,698 2,40
6 - Sacramento Valley 5 200 39 ,58 2,77
7 - Central Coast 0 39 235 698 972
9 - Mountain 7 43 03 54
8 - North Coast 0 32 99 32
Total $ 459 $ 2,86 $ 8,0 $ 33,355 $ 44,02
Totals may not add due to rounding.
2 Includes bond issues that span more than one cou
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
16/20
1985
1986
46prop
4
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
17/20
20
39prop2000
218prop
1996
conclusion
GO bonds have long been a useul nancing method
that local governments have relied on to assist in
nancing inrastructure projects because o their low
borrowing costs and widespread investor appeal. Theiruse over the past 20 years has changed signicantly,
most notably ater the passage o Proposition 39.
Once primarily used by public utilities or capital
improvements, GO bonds now are primarily issued by
school districts or K-2 improvements. Most o the
GO bond issuance or education purposes occurs in
three regions o the stateLos Angeles, SF Bay Area
and San Diego. However, even in other areas o the
state, the use o GO bonds or education has increased
substantially. Whether this trend will continue over the
next 20 years will depend on many actors including the
level o interest rates, population growth, inrastructurecapacity/maintenance needs, and the use o alternative
nancing methods. While this issue brie does not
address these causal actors, it does provide a baseline
or understanding historical local government GO bond
issuance patterns that may promote discussion on the
choice o nancing methods or providing or current and
uture inrastructure needs o local agencies throughout
the state.
5
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
18/20
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
19/20
-
7/29/2019 Bond Issuing Trends
20/20
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Nova Edwards, Research Analyst,
researched and authored this
issue brie.
John Decker, Executive Dire ctor,
and Kristin Szakaly-Moore, Director
o Policy Research, reviewed and
edited this issue brie.
CALIFORNIA DEBT & INVESTMENT
ADVISORY COMMISSION
Caliornia Debt and Investment
Advisory Commission
95 Capitol Mall, Room 400
Sacramento, CA 9584
Phone: 96.653.3269Fax: 96.654.7440
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac
All Rights Reserved.
Permission is granted to use this document with written credit given to CDIAC.