BOND ISSUE PLANNING. Presentation to: FPS 2030 Committee. Prepared by:

Transcription

1 BOND ISSUE PLANNING Prepared by: Trevor Carlson Managing Director Public Finance (206) Presentation to: FPS 2030 Committee January 27, 2015 Since Member SIPC and NYSE. Piper Jaffray & Co.

2 About Piper Jaffray & Co. Public Finance & Institutional Debt Teambased approach to deliver best client solutions Deep industry expertise in key growthoriented sectors Global reach in the world s leading capital markets Fullservice capabilities and execution excellence Built on a 115+ year track record of quality service and customer success Public Finance Municipal Sales Municipal Underwriting & Trading Derivative Products Loan Syndications Corporate & Institutional Equity Investment Banking Equity & Fixed Income Sales & Trading Equity & Fixed Income Research Equity & Debt Capital Markets Asset Management United States Minneapolis, MN (headquarters) Albany, NY Albuquerque, NM Atlanta, GA Austin, TX Baltimore, MD Birmingham, AL Boise, ID Boston, MA Charleston, WV Charlotte, NC Chicago, IL Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH Denver, CO Des Moines, IA El Segundo, CA Hartford, CT Houston, TX Hauppauge, NY Indianapolis, IN Jacksonville, FL Kansas City, MO Memphis, TN Milwaukee, WI Nashville, TN New York, NY Orange County, CA Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ Pittsburgh, PA Portland, OR Sacramento, CA Salt Lake City, UT San Antonio, TX San Francisco, CA Seattle, WA St. Louis, MO Washington, DC United Kingdom London China Hong Kong* Switzerland Zurich Equity & Fixed Income Master Limited Partnerships Balanced Investments Private Equity Investments Piper Jaffray Companies is a leading middle market investment bank and asset management firm. Securities brokerage and investment banking services are offered in the United States through Piper Jaffray & Co., member SIPC and FINRA ; in Europe through Piper Jaffray Ltd, authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority; and in Hong Kong through Piper Jaffray Asia Limited, Piper Jaffray Asia Securities Limited, and Piper Jaffray Asia Futures Limited, all of which are registered with the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. Asset management products and services are offered through three separate investment advisory affiliates registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Advisory Research Inc.; FAMCO, Inc.; and Piper Jaffray Investment Management LLC. *Registration pending. 1

3 2014 Washington School Bond Election Results DATE COUNTY ISSUER PAR AMOUNT YES RESULT Nov14 KING Highline School District No. 401 $385,065, % FAILED Nov14 LEWIS Toledo School District No. 237 $23,500, % FAILED Nov14 SAN JUAN Lopez Island School District No. 144 $9,600, % PASSED Aug14 PIERCE Peninsula School District No. 401 $60,000, % FAILED Apr14 CLALLAM Sequim School District No. 323 $154,325, % FAILED Apr14 COLUMBIA Dayton School District No. 2 $19,955, % FAILED Apr14 DOUGLAS Bridgeport School District No. 75 $3,900, % FAILED Apr14 KING Lake Washington School District No. 414 $404,000, % FAILED Apr14 LINCOLN ReardenEdwall School District No. 9 $8,405, % FAILED Apr14 MASON Pioneer School District No. 402 $23,875, % FAILED Apr14 SNOHOMISH Everett School District No. 2 $259,400, % FAILED Apr14 SNOHOMISH Lakewood School District No. 306 $66,800, % PASSED Apr14 THURSTON Tenino School District No. 402 $38,000, % FAILED Apr14 WALLA WALLA Walla Walla School District No. 140 $10,216, % FAILED Apr14 WHITMAN Oakesdale School District No. 324 $7,100, % FAILED Apr14 YAKIMA Highland School District No. 203 $8,500, % FAILED Feb14 ADAMS Lind School District No. 158 $4,000, % PASSED Feb14 ASOTIN Clarkston School District No. J $38,000, % FAILED Feb14 CHELAN Wenatchee School District No. 246 $66,500, % PASSED Feb14 DOUGLAS Bridgeport School District No. 75 $3,900, % FAILED Feb14 GRAYS HARBOR Elma School District No. 68 $8,400, % FAILED Feb14 KING Bellevue School District No. 405 $450,000, % PASSED Feb14 KING Lake Washington School District No. 414 $755,000, % FAILED Feb14 KING Mercer Island School District No. 400 $98,800, % PASSED Feb14 KING Northshore School District No. 417 $177,500, % PASSED Feb14 LINCOLN ReardenEdwall School District No. 9 $8,405, % FAILED Feb14 OKANOGAN Tonasket School District No. 404 $6,000, % FAILED Feb14 SNOHOMISH Edmonds School District No. 15 $275,000, % PASSED Feb14 SNOHOMISH Everett School District No. 2 $259,000, % FAILED Feb14 SNOHOMISH Lakewood School District No. 306 $66,800, % FAILED Feb14 SNOHOMISH Mukilteo School District No. 6 $119,150, % PASSED Feb14 THURSTON North Thurston School District No. 3 $175,000, % PASSED Feb14 THURSTON Tenino School District No. 402 $38,000, % FAILED Feb14 THURSTON Tumwater School District No. 33 $136,000, % PASSED Feb14 WHATCOM Ferndale School District No. 502 $125,000, % FAILED Feb14 WHATCOM Lynden School District No. 504 $46,000, % FAILED Feb14 WHITMAN Oakesdale School District No. 324 $7,160, % FAILED Feb14 YAKIMA Highland School District No. 203 $8,500, % FAILED Feb14 YAKIMA Naches Valley School District No. JT3 $22,850, % PASSED Feb14 YAKIMA Sunnyside School District No. 201 $10,000, % PASSED 2

4 February 2015 Ballot Washington School Bonds DATE COUNTY ISSUER PAR AMOUNT Feb15 BENTON Kennewick School District No. 17 $89,500,000 Feb15 CHELAN Cascade School District No. 228 $69,500,000 Feb15 CLALLAM Port Angeles School District No. 121 $98,254,000 Feb15 CLALLAM Sequim School District No. 323 $49,265,000 Feb15 CLARK Washougal School District No (Prop. 5) $57,685,000 Feb15 CLARK Hockinson School District No. 98 $39,900,000 Feb15 COWLITZ Toutle Lake School District No. 130 $7,095,000 Feb15 GRANT Moses Lake School District No. 161 (Prop. 2) $98,000,000 Feb15 JEFFERSON Chimacum School District No. 49 $34,800,000 Feb15 KING Highline School District No. 401 (Prop. 2) $376,033,461 Feb15 KING Snoqualmie Valley School District No. 410 $244,400,000 Feb15 KITTITAS Ellensburg School District No. 401 $31,677,544 Feb15 LEWIS Chehalis School District No. 302 $35,950,000 Feb15 MASON Pioneer School District No. 402 $25,409,930 Feb15 OKANOGAN Tonasket School District No. 404 $6,980,000 Feb15 SKAGIT Anacortes School District No. 103 $86,900,000 Feb15 SPOKANE Spokane School District No. 81 (Prop. 2) $145,000,000 Feb15 SPOKANE Orchard Prairie School District No. 123 $1,230,000 Feb15 SPOKANE Nine Mile Falls School District No. 325 $29,450,000 Feb15 SPOKANE Mead School District No. 354 $69,500,000 Feb15 SPOKANE Central Valley School District No. 356 $121,900,000 Feb15 SPOKANE Cheney School District No. 360 (Prop. 2) $44,885,830 Feb15 STEVENS Chewelah School District No. 36 $10,520,000 Feb15 THURSTON Yelm Community Schools $53,900,000 Feb15 WHATCOM Blaine School District No. 503 $45,000,000 Feb15 WHATCOM Nooksack Valley School District No. 506 $27,995,000 Feb15 YAKIMA Granger School District No. 204 (Prop. 2) $11,740,000 3

5 Election Dates and Timeline 2015 Special Election and Resolution Filing Dates, Under Current Law Election Date Resolution Filing Date Approximate Ballot Mailing Date (1) February 10, 2015 December 26, 2014 January 23, 2015 April 28, 2015 March 13, 2015 April 10, 2015 August May 8, 2015 July 17, 2015 November 3, 2015 August 4, 2015 October 16, 2015 (1) Ballots are required to be mailed no later than 18 days prior to the election date. Ideal Time Frame for Major Decisions Facility Needs Planning Bond Issue Planning Select Election Date Draft Election Resolution File Ballot Title With Co. ELECTION 12 Months 12 Months 4 Months 2.5 Months (1) Special elections. (2) Primary or presidential election. 4

6 Franklin Pierce School District s Election Results Historical Bond Elections Date Par Amount % Yes Result May08 $78,554, % FAILED Mar08 $78,554, % FAILED Feb98 $25,500, % PASSED Historical M&O Levy Elections Date 1st 2nd 3rd 4th % Yes Result Feb14 $16,738,651 $17,449,000 $17,993,905 $18,429, % PASSED Feb10 $13,593,970 $14,151,323 $14,731,527 $15,335, % PASSED Feb06 $10,810,524 $11,513,208 $12,261,567 $13,058, % PASSED Apr02 $8,360,000 $8,860,000 $9,390,000 $9,960, % PASSED Feb02 $8,360,000 $8,860,000 $9,390,000 $9,960, % FAILED Feb98 $6,400,000 $6,650,000 $6,950,000 $7,300, % PASSED Feb96 $5,800,000 $6,000, % PASSED Apr94 $5,300,000 $5,500, % PASSED Feb94 $5,300,000 $5,500, % FAILED Feb92 $4,381,105 $4,611, % PASSED Feb88 $3,400,000 $3,200, % PASSED 5

7 Franklin Pierce School District s Election Results Date 1st Historical Capital Project Levy Elections 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th % Yes Result Feb14 $1,411,394 $1,439,622 $1,482,811 $1,527, % PASSED Feb12 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 $5,500, % PASSED Feb10 $1,323,164 $1,349,628 $1,390,116 $1,431, % PASSED Feb06 $1,022,667 $1,084,037 $1,149,080 $1,218, % PASSED May96 $750,000 $800,000 $900,000 $950,000 $950, % FAILED Feb96 $750,000 $800,000 $900,000 $950,000 $950, % FAILED Date 1st Historical Transportation Levy Elections 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th % Yes Result Apr94 $1,041,120 $1,138, % PASSED Feb94 $1,041,120 $1,138, % FAILED 6

8 Overview of Bonds and Capital Levies Bonds are the primary method used by Washington school districts to finance the local share of major capital projects because: Cash is generated up front Payments can be spread over time Districts have some control over taxpayer impacts VoterApproved Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bonds New revenue created Repaid with property taxes Approved with a 60% yes vote, 40% validation 5% debt capacity 40year maximum term (match useful life of asset) NonVoted Limited General Obligation (LGO) Bonds 2014 Bond Assessed Value $2,819,359,212 Statutory Capacity Rate 5.000% Total Statutory Capacity $140,967,961 Less: Outstanding Voted Debt ($11,935,000) Less: Outstanding NonVoted Debt $0 Plus: Debt Service Fund Balance $0 Remaining Capacity $129,032,961 Repaid with existing revenue Can t be used for new construction 3/8 of 1% debt capacity Public hearing required if more than $250, Bond Assessed Value $2,819,359,212 Statutory Capacity Rate 0.375% Total Statutory Capacity $10,572,597 Less: Estimated NonVoted Debt $0 Less: Refunding Use of NonVoted Debt ($720,000) Remaining Capacity $9,852,597 Capital Projects Levy One to sixyear collection cycle Pay costs to construct, modernize or remodel school facilities (includes technology improvements) Additional capital levy may be authorized for the same period (e.g. technology and new roof) No interest cost Significantly reduced interest earnings Possible life cycle mismatch Simple majority (50% + 1) 7

9 Tax Rate History Historical Levy Rates Bond Levy Capital Project Levy Technology Levy Transportatio n Levy M&O Levy Total 1996 $1.23 $0.89 $4.30 $ $1.21 $4.26 $ $1.27 $4.14 $ $2.15 $4.20 $ $2.04 $4.05 $ $2.17 $3.88 $ $1.89 $3.68 $ $1.79 $4.09 $ $1.63 $4.09 $ $1.41 $4.01 $ $1.25 $3.62 $ $1.24 $0.30 $3.07 $ $0.87 $0.29 $2.94 $ $0.51 $0.29 $3.07 $ $0.57 $0.32 $3.43 $ $1.03 $0.39 $3.99 $ $1.17 $0.44 $4.60 $ $1.23 $2.50 $5.36 $ $1.06 $2.46 $5.36 $8.89 8

10 Tax Rate Comparables 2014 Pierce County School Districts Capital District Assessed Value Bonds M&O Projects Trans. Total $ $ $ Carbonado SD No ,606,238 $ $ $10.26 FranklinPierce SD No ,819,359, Orting SD No ,147, Tacoma SD No ,436,065, White River SD No ,005,016, University Place SD No. 83 2,523,509, Dieringer SD No ,317,608, Bethel SD No ,864,722, Clover Park SD No. 400 Washington 4,491,858,473 School Districts Puyallup SD No. 3 ( ,850,878,403 With Similar Assessed 1.85 Value) Capital Sumner District SD No ,838,973,325 Assessed Value Bonds 2.22 M&O 3.71 Projects Trans. Total 5.93 $ $ FranklinPierce Eatonville SD No. SD 404 No ,112,232,703 $2,819,359,212 $ $ $ Mount Steilacoom Vernon SD SD No. No ,387,863,827 3,063,256, Tukwila Fife SD No. SD No. 417/ ,792,973,261 2,772,396, Bremerton Peninsula SD SD No. No ,917,802,576 2,866,929, BurlingtonEdison SD No ,753,018, Arlington SD No. 16 2,993,125, Cheney SD No. 360/316 2,746,294, Walla Walla SD No

11 Outstanding Voted Debt Profile Series Principal Issued Principal Outstanding (as of 1/23/2015) Call Date and Price Final Maturity Refunding Option UTGO Ref., 2013 $9,495,000 $9,055,000 Noncallable 12/1/2017 N/A UTGO Ref., 2005 $19,865,000 $8,600,000 Noncallable 12/1/2014 N/A Moody s Aa

12 Financial Plan There are a number of items to consider when creating a financial plan. Project Budget Timing What are the estimated costs of the project? When do you need the money? What are the estimated revenues to help pay for the project? Bonds? State match? What is the construction draw schedule? Tax law considerations Provide funds when needed for project costs (IRS 85% spenddown within three years) Investment earnings? Arbitrage rebate exemptions Impact fees? Spenddown test Issuance amount (issue $15 million or less per year) Taxpayer Impact What is the impact of the project on property owners (taxpayers)? Tax rates are the standard means of communicating the tax impact on property owners. The tax rate will be affected by the assumptions used for the following: Interest Rates Bond Rating Assessed Value Bond Structure 11

13 Interest Rates Lower interest rates result in lower tax rates for bonds Interest rates are determined when bonds are sold General Obligation Bond Buyer Index History 13.00% 12.00% One Snapshot 11.00% 5.00% Interest Rate 10.00% 9.00% 8.00% 7.00% Interest Rate 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% Jan14 May14 Sep14 Jan % 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% Jan90 Jan95 Jan00 Jan05 Jan10 Jan15 12

14 Bond Rating Rating agencies will consider the District s debt, financial performance, and governmental factors, and the local economy. Rating Options Debt Factors District s underlying rating (Aa3) State guarantee (Aa1) Debt repayment structure Debt burden Future capital needs Financial Performance Factors Governmental Factors Accounting and reporting methods Revenue/expenditure trends Annual operating and budgetary performance General fund balance Legal and political relationships between state and local levels of government Tenure of governmental officials and frequency of elections Background and experience of key members of administration Local Economy Factors Geographic location/proximity to transportation networks, cities, etc. Infrastructure of area (roads, utility systems, transportation facilities) Size/structure/diversity of tax base (concentration of largest taxpayers) Population base (age, education, labor skills, income/wealth levels) Employment base (reliance on particular industries) 13

15 Credit Analysis: How the Rating Agencies View Franklin Pierce Moody s Rating Credit Strengths Aa3 Satisfactory financial operations that are structurally balanced Low debt burden that amortizes rapidly Concerns Declining enrollment trend that is showing signs of reversing Significant capital needs projected in the next five years 14 14

16 Assessed Value Franklin Pierce School District s Bond Assessed Value $4,500,000,000 $4,000,000,000 $3,500,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $2,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $500,000,000 $ History Projection 2014 bond assessed value: $2,819,359,212 Compound average growth rate ( ):2.68% Compound average growth rate ( ):6.38% Final 2012 Final 2013 Final 2014 Assumed 2015 Assumed 2016 Assumed 2017 and on 9.8% growth 10.5% growth 2.3% growth 0.0% growth 1.0% growth 2.0% annual growth Higher assessed values will lower the District s tax rates (but not the overall payment). An individual s taxes will be based on the assessed value of his or her own property. Dissecting the components that make up the assessed value growth will be important. How much of the growth is related to new construction versus increased value of existing properties? 15

17 Assessed Value Assessed Value Total % Change 1996 $1,279,582, $1,361,172, % 1998 $1,449,740, % 1999 $1,522,445, % 2000 $1,641,802, % 2001 $1,792,753, % 2002 $1,982,414, % 2003 $2,046,367, % 2004 $2,163,794, % 2005 $2,343,682, % 2006 $2,751,869, % 2007 $3,416,950, % 2008 $3,792,838, % 2009 $3,919,270, % 2010 $3,760,437, % 2011 $3,413,373, % 2012 $3,078,433, % 2013 $2,754,879, % 2014 $2,819,359, % 16

18 Projected Tax Rates Franklin Pierce School District No. 402 Projected Tax Rates Rating: Interest Rates: Calculation Factors Aa1 (State Guarantee); Aa3 (Underlying) 2016 Issue: Current rates plus 1.00 percent All Other Issues: Current Plus 1.00 Percent Assessed Value Increases at: R&P Timber % 6.50% Preliminary % 0.00% NOTES: % 0.00% (1) 2014 voter approved Bond and Capital Levy amounts % 0.00% (2) 2015 through 2018 voter approved Capital Levy amounts. Budgeted Bond levy amount. Issue Structure: Combined Level Tax Rate (3) Utilizes DS Fund reserves. (4) Requires use of 1 year interfund loan ($2 million). Issue 1 Issue 2 Total (5) Authorization amount targets projected voted debt capacity limit. Bonds Issued: 12/1/ /1/2017 (6) Builds DS Fund reserves. Issue Size: $75,500,000 $75,500,000 $151,000,000 (in 1,000's) Bond M&O Debt Service Projected Tax Rates Levy Assessed Assessed Prior Total Capital Prior Total Capital Combined Value Value Debt Issue Issue Bonds Levy Debt Issue Issue Bonds Levy Tax Rates 2014 $2,819,359 $2,819,341 $3,082 $0 $0 $3,000 $6,946 (1) $1.09 $0.00 $0.00 $1.06 $2.46 $3.53 (3) ,988,570 2,988,552 3, ,000 6,911 (2) ,018,455 3,018,437 3, ,076 6, ,078,824 3,078,805 3,068 2, ,593 6, (4)(5) ,140,400 3,140, ,525 3,000 5,526 1, (6) ,203,207 3,203, ,920 4,448 9, ,267,270 3,267, ,018 4,538 9, ,332,615 3,332, ,117 4,627 9, ,399,266 3,399, ,222 4,719 9, ,467,251 3,467, ,328 4,813 10, ,536,595 3,536, ,432 4,909 10, ,607,327 3,607, ,542 5,010 10, ,679,472 3,679, ,650 5,112 10, ,753,061 3,753, ,763 5,214 10, ,828,122 3,828, ,880 5,317 11, ,904,683 3,904, ,995 5,425 11, ,982,776 3,982, ,116 5,532 11, ,062,431 4,062, ,241 5,638 11, ,143,679 4,143, ,362 5,758 12, ,226,552 4,226, ,491 5,871 12, ,311,082 4,311, ,620 5,988 12, ,397,303 4,397, ,753 6,106 12, ,485,248 4,485, ,890 6,226 13, ,574,952 4,574, ,381 13, ,666,451 4,666, ,759,779 4,759, ,854,974 4,854, Total Debt Service: $110,391 $111,633 Total Interest: $34,891 $36,133 Net Interest Cost: 3.57% 3.61% Fp_97 17

19 Next Steps Project Planning District s Role Refine project scope and local share of required funds Refine tax rate projections Looking Ahead Debt Service Fund cash flow planning and budget Future financing and levy needs Election Resources 2015 Statewide Voter Survey Conference Sept. 24, 2015 Attendance at Facility / Bond Committee meetings Presentation of information for community and civic organization meetings Briefing of County Assessor and Treasurer Community Surveys Piper Jaffray & Co. PreElection Service Provide bond issue planning Attend community meetings Meet with Facilities Committee Act as resource to Election Committee survey research Coordinate work with County Treasurer Apply for bond ratings and bond insurance applications PostElection Service Coordinate financing team activities Prepare Official Statements Market bond find the investors Provide investment analysis Provide ongoing assistance: Debt Service Fund cash flow analysis SEC disclosure compliance Refunding analysis Arbitrage rebate assistance 18

20 Piper Jaffray is providing the information contained herein for discussion purposes only in anticipation of being engaged to serve as underwriter or placement agent on a future transaction and not as a financial advisor or municipal advisor. In providing the information contained herein, Piper Jaffray is not recommending an action to you and the information provided herein is not intended to be and should not be construed as a recommendation or advice within the meaning of Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of Piper Jaffray is not acting as an advisor to you and does not owe a fiduciary duty pursuant to Section 15B of the Exchange Act or under any state law to you with respect to the information and material contained in this communication. As an underwriter or placement agent, Piper Jaffray s primary role is to purchase or arrange for the placement of securities with a view to distribution in an arm slength commercial transaction, is acting for its own interests and has financial and other interests that differ from your interests. You should discuss any information and material contained in this communication with any and all internal or external advisors and experts that you deem appropriate before acting on this information or material. The information contained herein may include hypothetical interest rates or interest rate savings for a potential refunding. Interest rates used herein take into consideration conditions in today s market and other factual information such as credit rating, geographic location and market sector. Interest rates described herein should not be viewed as rates that Piper Jaffray expects to achieve for you should we be selected to act as your underwriter or placement agent. Information about interest rates and terms for SLGs is based on current publically available information and treasury or agency rates for openmarket escrows are based on current market interest rates for these types of credits and should not be seen as costs or rates that Piper Jaffrey could achieve for you should we be selected to act as your underwriter or placement agent. More particularized information and analysis may be provided after you have engaged Piper Jaffray as an underwriter or placement agent or under certain other exceptions as describe in the Section 15B of the Exchange Act. 19