BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
826 (Wright)
Hearing Date: 5/18/2009 Amended: 5/13/2009
Consultant: Bob Franzoia Policy Vote: GO 12-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 826 would, regarding general obligation bonds,
do the following:
- Require the State Treasurer to determine, with regard to bonds
that have an effective fixed interest rate through a hedging
contract, that the hedging contract either significantly reduces
variable rate risk or qualifies for integration with the bonds
in calculating the yield on the bonds under certain federal
rules.
- Provide that amounts payable or contractual obligations
regarding bonds that bear a variable interest rate are backed by
the full faith and credit of the state if the bond act was
approved by the voters after January 1, 2002.
- Provide that instead of payments owed by the state from
exceeding a specified maximum rate after an offset, that the
payment of any amounts owed by the state shall be deemed to be
included with the appropriation for interest on the bonds. This
bill would allow the payments of interest on a bond and the
payments on a hedging contract that exceed the maximum rate in a
fiscal year to be paid in subsequent fiscal years, under
specified conditions.
- Would delete the condition in existing law which requires when
the finance committee, created by the bond act determines to
issue commercial paper notes, for purposes of determining the
principal amount of outstanding bonds, that the principal amount
deemed outstanding be the maximum amount authorized in the
resolution.
- Increase from two years to five years the maturation date on
notes issued on a negotiated or a competitive bid basis.
- Revise provisions regarding the competitive sale of bond and
the conditions for bidding in a competitive sale or purchasing
in a negotiated sale.
- Require a bond finance committee, if determining that
refunding is necessary or advisable to effect a savings in debt
service cost to the state, to include as interest on a refunded
bond, the interest, if any, which will result from a related
hedging contract.
- Authorize the finance committee, when determining debt service
savings, to base the interest of a refunding bond upon the
effective fixed interest rate under a hedging contract.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Revision of negotiated bond Likely no new costs; potential
savings from General
sales provisions lower interest rates or by avoiding
penalties
when project funding is delayed
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: According to the State Treasurer the above
provisions are technical and provide greater flexibility in the
sale of bonds. Some of the provisions are suggested by the
Department of Justice which reviews and approves the terms and
conditions of bond sales.
Page 2
SB 826 (Wright)
This bill proposes changes to clarify negotiated sales of bonds.
In the years since the General Obligation Bond Law (GOBL) was
adopted, the bond market has changed dramatically. For example,
at one time all state general obligation bond sales were done at
competitive bid. Later, provisions were added to the GOBL to
permit negotiated sales under certain conditions, but the
presumption remained that competitive bids were preferred. In
current circumstances where the state has to issue bonds in
multi-billion dollar sales, and with a very volatile market,
negotiated sales will be used far more frequently than
competitive sales, and hence the provisions of the GOBL are
being revised to more fully treat negotiated sales.
The Department of Justice and bond counsel have suggested
changes to clarify existing law and also to provide the state
with more flexibility in light of the changes that have taken
place in the bond market. These changes are designed to ensure
that the state has the opportunity to issue bonds under the best
structure and at the best rates possible. However, fluctuating
rates make it difficult to quantify any potential cost savings.
On occasion, short term negotiated sales may have a higher
initial rate but result in overall savings by avoiding the
payment of penalties that may occur on public works projects
when the state cannot meet contractual funding obligations.