Texas Bond Review Board 2022 Local Government

Texas Bond Review Board
2022 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ANNUAL REPORT
Texas Bond Review Board
Local Government
Annual Report 2022
Fiscal Year Ended August 31, 2022
Greg Abbott, Governor

Chairman
Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor
Dade Phelan, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts
Rob Latsha
Executive Director
January 2023
i
ii
Executive Summary
The Texas Bond Review Board (BRB) has no direct oversight of local government debt
issuance. Chapter 1231 of the Texas Government Code requires the BRB to prepare
statistical reports on local government debt. This information on debt issued by political
subdivisions is primarily prepared by the issuer, collected by the Office of the Attorney
General (OAG) as a part of the review and approval procedures as required under Chapter
1202 of the Government Code, and then forwarded to the BRB for its report on local debt
statistics. Data that has not been provided to the BRB on intergovernmental loans, privately
placed loans, or any other debts that is not in the form of a public security are not reflected
in this report. Also, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Section 1202.008, conduit debts
incurred by nonprofit corporations created by the local governments are not required to
provide issuance information to the BRB. As a result, conduit debt is not reflected in this
report except for data presented in Appendix B, Texas Local Government Conduit Debt, and
certain data presented in Appendix F, Commercial Paper. The data in this report and on the
website is compiled from information provided to the BRB from various sources and has
not been independently verified.
The BRB separates the local government issuances into seven categories: Cities, Towns,
Villages (Cities); Public School Districts (School Districts); Water Districts and Authorities
(WD); Counties; Other Special Districts and Authorities (OSD); Community and Junior
College Districts (CCD); and Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities (HHD).
Major Findings
• As of fiscal year-end 2022, Texas local governments had $284.15 billion in
outstanding debt (Table 1.1), an increase of $53.51 billion (23.2 percent) over the
past five fiscal years. Of that amount, 65.7 percent ($186.73 billion) is GO debt
secured by local ad valorem tax collections, while the remaining 34.3 percent ($97.42
billion) is secured by revenues generated by various projects such as water, sewer,
and electric utility fees (Chapter 1).
• Over the past five fiscal years, local government debt issuance increased by 33.7
percent ($10.98 billion) from $32.62 billion in fiscal year 2018 to $43.61 billion in
fiscal year 2022. During that period, new money issuance increased by 39.9 percent
($8.31 billion) from $20.83 billion to $29.14 billion. Refundings increased by 22.6
percent ($2.67 billion) from $11.80 billion to $14.47 billion (Chapter 1).
• Over the past five years, School Districts have consistently accounted for the highest
amount of tax-supported debt outstanding, while Cities and WD accounted for the
second and third highest amounts, respectively (Chapter 2).
• The most recent U.S. Census Bureau data for total state and local debt outstanding
show that for census year 2020, Texas was the nation’s second most populous state,
and it ranked third among the 10 most populous states in terms of total (GO and
revenue) local debt per capita, seventh in state debt per capita, and fourth in total
state and local debt per capita with 82.1 percent of the state’s total debt burden at the
local level (Chapter 1).
• Capital Appreciation Bond (CAB) par issued for Texas local governments during
fiscal year 2022 was 0.4 percent ($161.8 million) of the total CAB and CIB debt
issued ($43.61 billion). OSD issuances accounted for 66.8 percent ($108.1 million) of
iii
the total CABs issued for local governments during fiscal year 2022. Of the total par
issued by OSDs, 5.1 percent was issued as CAB par. Since fiscal year 2010, School
Districts) have issued the most CAB debt of all government types. In fiscal year
2022, School Districts issued 30.8 percent ($49.8 million). In fiscal year 2022, CAB
maturity amounts accounted for 2.2 percent ($9.05 billion) of the total debt service
outstanding, including both CAB and CIB (Chapter 4).
• Since fiscal year 2013, CO debt outstanding has increased by 48.2 percent ($6.24
billion) from $12.96 billion outstanding in fiscal year 2013 to $19.21 billion
outstanding in fiscal year 2022. Cities accounted for 80.1 percent of the total CO
debt outstanding at fiscal year-end 2022 (Chapter 5).
• As of fiscal year 2022, tax-supported CO debt for Cities accounted for 38.3 percent
($15.37 billion) of the total Cities tax-supported debt outstanding, while Counties
CO debt accounted for 23.8 percent ($3.16 billion) of total Counties tax-supported
debt outstanding. HHD CO debt outstanding accounted for 27.2 percent ($667.6
million) of total HHD tax-supported debt outstanding (Chapter 5).
• During fiscal year 2022, a total of 251 local governments held 536 bond elections
approving the potential issuance of $32.16 billion of additional debt. Approximately
$13.98 billion of bond election debt was defeated during fiscal year 2022. Separately,
on November 8, 2022, 106 local governments held 212 bond elections, with 77 local
governments approving 139 bond elections totaling $19.27 billion. Approximately 73
bond elections were defeated totaling $3.37 billion of potential debt (Appendix A).
• Excluding conduit debt, private placements, and short-term notes, the weighted
average for total cost of issuance (COI), including underwriter’s spread, increased to
$48.40 per $1,000 in 2022 from $42.38 per $1,000 in 2021. The average transaction
size increased to $30.7 million in 2022 from $27.0 million in 2021 and the average fee
increased to $518,359 from $410,603 in 2021, respectively. Tax-supported (GO)
competitive transactions generally had the highest cost per $1,000 for smaller
transaction sizes (Appendix D).
• Of the $5.64 billion of charter school debt outstanding, as of October 31, 2022, an
estimated $3.84 billion was guaranteed by the Texas Permanent School Fund Bond
Guarantee Program (Appendix C).
• Approximately 79 issuers that issued debt in fiscal year 2022 received a tax-supported
general obligation (GO) rating upgrade, and 15 issuers received a GO rating
downgrade from at least one of the three major credit rating agencies, Fitch Ratings,
Moody’s Investors Service, and Standard & Poor’s (Appendix H).
For limitations on the purpose and use of this report, see the disclosure preceding Chapter 1.
iv
Contents
Chapter 1: Texas Local Debt in Perspective ....................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Texas Local Government Tax-Supported Debt ............................................. 11
Chapter 3: Texas Local Government Revenue Debt ........................................................ 19
Chapter 4: Capital Appreciation Bonds ............................................................................... 25
Chapter 5: Certificates of Obligation ................................................................................... 33
Appendix A: Bond Election Results ........................................................................................ 43
Appendix B: Texas Local Government Conduit Debt ......................................................... 61
Appendix C: Texas Charter Schools ........................................................................................ 65
Appendix D: Cost of Issuance .................................................................................................. 69
Appendix E: Build America Bonds .......................................................................................... 77
Appendix F: Commercial Paper ............................................................................................... 79
Appendix G: Overview of Texas Local Governments with Debt Outstanding................ 85
Appendix H: Overview of Texas Local Government Rating Changes ............................... 91
Appendix I: Glossary ................................................................................................................ 95
v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
vi
Figures
Figure 1.1: Texas Local Government — Total Debt Outstanding per Capita ................ 4
Figure 1.2: Texas Local Government — Debt Outstanding by Fiscal Year .................... 6
Figure 1.3: Texas Local Government — Total Debt Outstanding as a Percent of

Personal Income ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2.1: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding by

Fiscal Year .........................................................................................................12
Figure 2.2: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding per

Capita .................................................................................................................13
Figure 2.3: Texas Local Government — Per Capita Tax-Supported Debt as a

Percentage of per Capita Personal Income ..................................................14
Figure 2.4: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt-Service

Requirements ....................................................................................................18
Figure 3.1: Texas Local Government — Revenue Debt Outstanding by

Fiscal Year .........................................................................................................20
Figure 3.2: Texas Local Government — Revenue Debt Outstanding per Capita.........21
Figure 3.3: Texas Local Government — Revenue Debt-Service Requirements

by Fiscal Year ....................................................................................................24
Figure 4.1: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds

Issued 2008–2022 .............................................................................................28
Figure 4.2: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds Maturity

Amount Outstanding 2008–2022 ..................................................................30
Figure 4.3: Texas Local Government — Total Debt Service Outstanding

2008–2022 .........................................................................................................30
Figure 4.4: Texas Local Government — Ratio of Total Debt Service/Total

Par for Debt Outstanding ...............................................................................31
Figure 4.5: Texas Local Government — Ratio of ISD Debt Service/Par for
ISD Debt Outstanding ....................................................................................31
vii
Figure 5.1: Texas Local Government — Total Certificates of Obligation Debt
Outstanding ......................................................................................................33
Figure 5.2: Texas Local Government — Certificates of Obligation Debt Issuance

by Cities, Counties, and Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities
by Fiscal Year ...................................................................................................34
Figure 5.3: Texas Cities — Total Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding ..............................36
Figure 5.4: Texas Counties — Total Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding ........................40
Figure 5.5: Texas Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities — Total

Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding .................................................................42
Figure D.1: Texas Local Government — Total Direct Bond Costs for
Fiscal Year 2022................................................................................................70
Figure D.2: Texas Local Government — Bond Counsel Fees for

Fiscal Year 2022................................................................................................71
Figure D.3: Texas Local Government — Financial Advisor Fees for

Fiscal Year 2022................................................................................................71
Figure D.4: Texas Local Government — Total Ratings Fees for Fiscal Year 2022 .......72
Figure D.5: Texas Local Government — Total Underwriter’s Spread Fees

for Fiscal Year 2022 .........................................................................................72
Figure F.1: Texas Local Government — Non-Conduit Commercial Paper

Outstanding .......................................................................................................79
Figure F.2: Texas Local Government — Commercial Paper/Non-Public Debt -

Authorized and Outstanding Balances as of August 31, 2022 ..................81
Figure F.3: Texas Local Government — Conduit Commercial Paper Outstanding .....83
viii
Tables
Table 1.1: Texas Local Government — Debt Outstanding as of August 31, 2022 ....... 3
Table 1.2: Total State and Local Debt Outstanding: 10 Most Populous States .............. 4
Table 1.3: Texas Local Government — Debt Outstanding by Fiscal Year .................... 5
Table 1.4: Texas Local Government — Rate of Debt Retirement................................... 7
Table 1.5: Texas Local Government — Debt Issuance by Fiscal Year ........................... 9
Table 2.1: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding by

Fiscal Year .........................................................................................................11
Table 2.2: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt Issuance by

Fiscal Year .........................................................................................................16
Table 2.3: Texas Local Government — Rate of Tax-Supported Debt Retirement .....17
Table 3.1: Texas Local Government — Revenue Debt Outstanding by

Fiscal Year .........................................................................................................19
Table 3.2: Texas Local Government — Revenue Debt Issuance by Fiscal Year .........22
Table 3.3: Texas Local Government — Rate of Revenue Debt Retirement ................23
Table 4.1: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds Issued in

Fiscal Year 2022................................................................................................26
Table 4.2: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds Par Amount
Issued by Fiscal Year .......................................................................................26
Table 4.3: Texas Local Government — Top 20 Most Expensive Capital

Appreciation Bonds Outstanding as of August 31, 2022 ...........................27
Table 4.4: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds Outstanding

as of August 31, 2022 ......................................................................................29
Table 5.1: Texas Local Government — Top 20 Issuers with Certificates of

Obligation Debt Outstanding as of August 31, 2022 .................................35
Table 5.2: Texas Cities — Top 30 Issuers with Certificates of Obligation

Outstanding as of August 31, 2022 ...............................................................37
ix
Table 5.3: Texas Cities — Big 6 Cities with Certificates of Obligation
Table 5.4: Texas Counties — Top 20 Issuers of Certificates of Obligation

Table 5.5: Texas Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities with Certificates

of Obligation Outstanding as of August 31, 2022.......................................41
Table A.1: Texas Local Government — Number of Bond Election Propositions

Approved by Fiscal Year .................................................................................43
Table A.2: Texas Local Government — Estimated Bond Election Results by

Fiscal Year .........................................................................................................44
Table A.3: Texas Local Government — Carried Propositions - Bond Elections

May 07, 2022 .....................................................................................................45
Table A.4: Texas Local Government — Defeated Propositions - Bond Elections

May 07, 2022 .....................................................................................................51
Table A.5: Texas Local Government — Carried Propositions - Bond Elections

November 02, 2021 .........................................................................................54
Table A.6: Texas Local Government — Defeated Propositions - Bond Elections

November 02, 2021 .........................................................................................58
Table B.1: Texas Local Government — Conduit Debt Issuance by Fiscal Year..........62
Table C.1: Total Charter School Debt by Issuer (Estimated) as of

October 31, 2022 ..............................................................................................67
Table C.2: Charter School Debt Outstanding Guaranteed by the Permanent

School Fund as of October 31, 2022 (Estimated) .......................................68
Table D.1: Texas Local Government — Total COI for Fiscal Year 2022 .....................69
Table D.2: Texas Local Government — Cost of Issuance Statistics Summary

for Fiscal Year 2022 .........................................................................................74
Table E.1: Texas Local Government — Build America Bond Debt Outstanding .......77
Table E.2: Texas Local Government — Top Five Issuers with Build America Bond
Debt Outstanding ...........................................................................................78
x
Table F.1: Texas Local Government — Commercial Paper Outstanding by
Fiscal Year .........................................................................................................80
Table F.2: Texas Local Government — Texas BIG 6 Cities - Commercial

Paper Outstanding ...........................................................................................82
Table F.3: Texas Local Government — Conduit Commercial Paper Outstanding .....83
Table H.1: Texas Local Government — 2022 Issuers with GO Rating Upgrade
Since Previous Issuance...................................................................................92
Table H.2: Texas Local Government — 2022 Issuers with GO Rating

Downgrade Since Previous Issuance .............................................................94
xi
xii
Cautionary Statements
Section 1202.008 of the Texas Government Code authorizes the Office of the Attorney General to
collect local debt information and to send that information to the Texas Bond Review Board (BRB)
for inclusion in debt statistic reports. Chapter 1231 of the Texas Government Code requires the BRB
to submit biennial reports with such data to the legislature. This report is intended to satisfy this
Chapter 1231 duty.
The data in this report and on the BRB’s website is compiled from information reported to the BRB
from various sources and has not been independently verified. The reported debt and defeasance data
may vary from actual debt outstanding, and the variance for a specific issuer or types of or all issuers
could be substantial.
Local governments are not required to report data for debt that either is not considered a public
security as defined by state statute, e.g., a loan not evidenced by a note or evidenced by a note payable
to order, or does not require approval by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas,
such as certain short-term notes, certain bond anticipation notes, and certain lease purchase
agreements for personal property. Consequently, the BRB does not receive information on many
privately placed loans or intergovernmental loans. such as State Infrastructure Bank loans for
transportation or water development state participation loans that are not evidenced by a public
security. In addition, debt issuances for some component corporations of governmental entities, such
as housing finance corporations, industrial development corporations, and other conduit entities, are
not reported to the BRB. Outstanding debt excludes debt for which sufficient funds have been
escrowed to retire the debt either from proceeds of refunding debt or from other sources, if reported
to the BRB. Debt totals, percentages, trends, and other data are based entirely on debt and defeasances
reported to the BRB.
Future debt repayment and debt-service information for variable-rate, commercial paper, and other
short-term and demand debt is estimated on the basis of interest rate and refinancing assumptions
described in the report. Actual future data could be affected by changes in issuer financing decisions,
prevailing interest rates, market conditions, and other factors that cannot be predicted. Consequently,
actual future data could differ from the estimates, and the difference could be substantial. The BRB
assumes no obligation to update any such estimate of future data.
Historical data and trends presented are not intended to predict future events or continuing trends,
and no representation is made that past experience will continue in the future.
This report is intended to meet Chapter 1231 requirements and inform state leadership and the
Legislature. This report is not intended to inform investors in making a decision to buy, hold, or sell
any securities, nor may it be relied upon as such. Data is provided as of the date indicated and may
not reflect debt, debt service, population, or other data as of any subsequent date. This data may have
changed from the date as of which it is provided. For more detailed or more current information, see
the issuers’ websites or their filings at Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®). The BRB does
not control or make any representation regarding the accuracy, completeness, or currency of any such
site, and no referenced site is incorporated herein by reference or otherwise.
xiii
xiv
Chapter 1
Texas Local Debt in Perspective
Overview
Local governments in Texas issue debt to finance construction and renovation of government facilities
(e.g., schools, public safety buildings, city halls, and county courthouses), public infrastructure (e.g.,
roads, water, and sewer systems), and various other projects authorized by law. Key factors that affect
a government’s need and ability to borrow funds for infrastructure development include population
changes, revenue sources, tax rates and levies, interest rates, and construction costs. Local
governments issue two main types of debt: tax supported (general obligation or GO) and revenue.
GO debt is secured by the full faith and credit of the issuer’s ad valorem taxing power while revenue
debt is secured by a specified revenue source. Tax-supported debt includes debt secured by a
combination of ad valorem taxes and other revenue sources, even though the debt may be paid in
whole or in part from non-tax revenue. Tax-supported debt generally must be voter approved (with
the exception of Certificates of Obligation, tax notes, school district maintenance tax notes, certain
time warrants, and certain other obligations).
State law sets limitations on certain local government debt issuers by setting maximum ad valorem tax
rates per $100 of assessed property valuation. These rates vary by government type, but all must
generate sufficient funds based on annual ad valorem tax collections to provide for the payment of
the debt service on outstanding and projected ad valorem tax (GO) debt. Additionally, all public
securities issued by local entities must be approved by the Office of the Attorney General – Public
Finance Division (OAG) and registered with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA).
Texas Bond Review Board and Local Government Debt

The Texas Bond Review Board (BRB) has no direct oversight of local government debt issuance.
Chapter 1231 of the Texas Government Code requires the BRB to prepare statistical reports on local
government debt. This information on debt issued by political subdivisions is primarily prepared by
the political subdivision, collected as a part of the OAG review and approval procedures as required
under Chapter 1202 of the Government Code, and then forwarded to the BRB for its report on local
debt statistics. Intergovernmental loans, privately placed loans, and any other debts that are not in the
form of a public security are not reflected in this report. Also, conduit debts incurred by nonprofit
corporations created by the local governments are not reflected in this report except for data presented
in Appendix B, Texas Local Government Conduit Debt, and certain data presented in Appendix F, Commercial
Paper. The data in this report and on the website is compiled from information provided to the BRB
from various sources and has not been independently verified.
All reporting on local debt is presented on the agency’s website, the BRB Data Center, and the Texas
Open Data Portal. Visitors to the BRB website can search databases, access the data center, and access
the data portal to download spreadsheets that contain debt outstanding, debt issuances, debt ratios,
and population data as available by government type at each fiscal year-end. In fiscal year 2022, a
monthly average of approximately 4,541 different users of the BRB’s website downloaded various
datasets containing Texas local government debt data. The BRB posts this information to its website,
the data center, and the data portal annually within four months after the close of the state’s fiscal
year. Additionally, this data is supplied to the CPA’s office as well as the Legislative Budget Board and
the Texas Tribune for publication on their debt pages.
1
The BRB separates the local government issuances into seven categories: Cities, Towns, Villages
(Cities); Public School Districts (School Districts); Water Districts and Authorities (WD); Counties;
Other Special Districts and Authorities (OSD); Community and Junior College Districts (CCD); and
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities (HHD).
Local Government Debt Outstanding

As of fiscal year-end 2022, Texas local governments had $284.15 billion in outstanding debt (Table
1.1), an increase of $53.51 billion (23.2 percent) over the past five fiscal years. Of that amount, 65.7
percent ($186.73 billion) is GO debt secured by local ad valorem tax collections, while the remaining
34.3 percent ($97.42 billion) is secured by revenues generated by various projects such as water, sewer,
and electric utility fees. Over the past five fiscal years, tax-supported debt outstanding increased 24.4
percent ($36.58 billion), and revenue debt outstanding increased 21.0 percent ($16.93 billion).
School Districts accounted for 36.7 percent ($104.21 billion) of all local debt outstanding, and Cities
accounted for 31.9 percent ($90.70 billion). WDs held the third highest percentage and accounted for
15.4 percent ($43.72 billion) of all local debt outstanding. The remaining 16.0 percent ($45.53 billion)
was held by CCDs, Counties, HHDs, and OSDs.
2
Table 1.1
Texas Local Government
Debt Outstanding as of August 31, 2022
(amounts in millions)
Type of Issuer Tax-Supported* Revenue** Total Debt
Voter-approved tax 102,846.2 102,846.2
Maintenance tax (ed. equipment) 1,187.8 1,187.8
Public School
Lease-purchase contracts 176.4 176.4
Districts
Revenue (athletic facilities) 1.2 1.2
Subtotal $ 104,034.1 $ 177.6 $ 104,211.6
Tax 40,121.2 40,121.2
Cities, Towns, Revenue 50,465.9 50,465.9
Villages Sales Tax 112.5 112.5
Subtotal $ 40,121.2 $ 50,578.4 $ 90,699.6
Tax 21,569.7 21,569.7
Water Districts Revenue 22,125.0 22,125.0
and Authorities Sales Tax 23.0 23.0
Subtotal $ 21,569.7 $ 22,148.0 $ 43,717.7
Tax 156.6 156.6
Other Special Revenue 14,144.0 14,144.0
Districts and Sales Tax 5,703.4 5,703.4
Authorities Lease-purchase contracts 27.2 27.2
Subtotal $ 156.6 $ 19,874.6 $ 20,031.2
Tax 13,248.0 13,248.0
Revenue 2,485.3 2,485.3
Counties
Lease-purchase contracts 27.5 27.5
Subtotal $ 13,248.0 $ 2,512.9 $ 15,760.9
Community and Tax 5,147.2 5,147.2
Junior College Revenue 1,056.6 1,056.6
Districts Subtotal $ 5,147.2 $ 1,056.6 $ 6,203.8
Tax 2,454.1 2,454.1
Health/Hospital
Revenue 1,024.9 1,024.9
Districts and
Sales Tax 51.1 51.1
Authorities
Subtotal $ 2,454.1 $ 1,076.1 $ 3,530.1
Total Local Debt Outstanding $ 186,730.8 $ 97,424.1 $ 284,154.9
*Includes debt secured by a combination of ad valorem taxes and other revenue sources.
**Excludes conduit debt.
Source: Texas Bond Review Board - Bond Finance Office.
3
Table 1.2
TOTAL STATE AND LOCAL DEBT OUTSTANDING: 10 MOST POPULOUS STATES
Total State and Local Debt State Debt Local Debt Per
Population Amount Per Capita Per Capita Amount % of Total Per Capita Per Capita Amount % of Total Per Capita Capita
State (thousands) (millions) Amount Rank (millions) Debt Amount Rank (millions) Debt Amount Rank
New York 19,836 368,276 $18,566 1 156,004 42.4% $7,865 1 212,272 57.6% $10,701 1
California 39,238 519,537 13,241 2 144,041 27.7% 3,671 4 375,496 72.3% 9,570 2
Illinois 12,671 159,311 12,572 3 64,854 40.7% 5,118 2 94,457 59.3% 7,454 4
Texas 29,528 324,213 10,980 4 57,887 17.9% 1,960 7 266,326 82.1% 9,019 3
Pennsylvania 12,964 128,442 9,908 5 51,735 40.3% 3,991 3 76,707 59.7% 5,917 5
Michigan 10,051 81,886 8,147 6 34,403 42.0% 3,423 5 47,483 58.0% 4,724 8
Ohio 11,780 93,306 7,921 7 30,412 32.6% 2,582 6 62,894 67.4% 5,339 6
Florida 21,781 130,745 6,003 8 25,013 19.1% 1,148 10 105,732 80.9% 4,854 7
Georgia 10,800 62,963 5,830 9 14,116 22.4% 1,307 9 48,847 77.6% 4,523 9
North Carolina 10,551 47,759 4,526 10 15,099 31.6% 1,431 8 32,660 68.4% 3,095 10
MEAN $191,644 $9,769 $59,356 31.7% $3,250 $132,287 68.3% $6,520
Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances by Level of Government and by State: 2020, (the most recent data available). U.S. Census Bureau, Population
Division, July 2021 (released in December 2021).
The most recent U.S. Census Bureau data for total state and local debt outstanding shows that for
census year 2020 (the most recent data available), Texas continued to be ranked second in population,
third among the 10 most populous states in terms of local debt per capita, fourth in total state and
local debt per capita, and seventh in state debt per capita (Table 1.2).
Over the past 10 years, local government total debt (tax-supported plus revenue) increased $93.67
billion (49.2 percent). Over this time, the state’s population increased by an estimated 13.2 percent
(3.4 million), based on July 2021 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates (released December 2021).
During that same period, local government total debt outstanding per capita increased by 31.8 percent,
or $2,320 per person, from $7,303 per capita in fiscal year 2013 to $9,623 per capita in fiscal year 2022
(Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1
Total Debt Outstanding per Capita*
$12,000
$10,000
$9,072 $9,623
$8,000 $8,437 $8,717
$8,153
$7,303 $7,404 $7,537 $7,637 $7,844
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
*Includes debt secured by a combination of ad valorem taxes and other revenue sources. Excludes conduit debt.
Sources: Texas Bond Review Board - Bond Finance Office; U.S. Cenus Bureau, Population Division, July 1, 2021.
(Population totals used are one year in arrears due to timing of census estimate release dates.)
4
Table 1.3 lists the state’s local debt outstanding by category from highest to lowest total amount
outstanding.
Table 1.3
TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DEBT OUTSTANDING BY FISCAL YEAR
8/31/2018 8/31/2019 8/31/2020 8/31/2021 8/31/2022
Public School Districts
Tax-Supported* $83,887.0 $87,653.7 $92,889.4 $97,580.3 $104,034.1
Revenue** 268.7 258.8 219.4 196.3 177.6
Total $84,155.7 $87,912.5 $93,108.8 $97,776.6 $104,211.6
Cities, Towns, Villages
Tax-Supported* $33,132.4 $34,759.8 $34,915.4 $37,357.5 $40,121.2
Revenue** 42,027.2 43,084.1 44,685.9 46,876.5 50,578.4
Total $75,159.6 $77,843.9 $79,601.3 $84,234.0 $90,699.6
Water Districts and Authorities
Tax-Supported* $14,813.2 $16,153.4 $17,562.3 $19,259.2 $21,569.7
Revenue** 15,338.9 17,278.5 19,085.2 20,436.2 22,148.0
Total $30,152.1 $33,431.9 $36,647.5 $39,695.4 $43,717.7
Other Special Districts and Authorities
Tax-Supported* $166.2 $159.3 $152.5 $157.5 $156.6
Revenue** 17,963.4 18,568.8 18,571.7 19,583.9 19,874.6
Total $18,129.6 $18,728.1 $18,724.3 $19,741.4 $20,031.2
Counties
Tax-Supported* $11,558.6 $12,311.7 $12,798.3 $12,813.9 $13,248.0
Revenue** 2,538.8 2,486.3 2,485.3 2,577.2 2,512.9
Total $14,097.4 $14,798.1 $15,283.6 $15,391.2 $15,760.9
Community and Junior College Districts
Tax-Supported* $4,076.6 $4,067.2 $4,606.8 $4,939.6 $5,147.2
Revenue** 1,184.4 1,181.2 1,080.3 1,078.6 1,056.6
Total $5,260.9 $5,248.4 $5,687.0 $6,018.2 $6,203.8
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities
Tax-Supported* $2,517.2 $2,427.8 $2,462.4 $2,408.6 $2,454.1
Revenue** 1,175.9 1,125.1 1,177.1 1,098.6 1,076.1
Total $3,693.0 $3,552.9 $3,639.5 $3,507.2 $3,530.1
Total Tax-Supported* $150,151.2 $157,532.8 $165,387.1 $174,516.7 $186,730.8

Total Revenue** $80,497.2 $83,982.9 $87,304.9 $91,847.2 $97,424.1
Total Debt Outstanding $230,648.4 $241,515.7 $252,692.0 $266,363.9 $284,154.9
**Excludes conduit debt.
5
Figure 1.2 illustrates the local debt outstanding by category over the past 10 fiscal years.
Figure 1.2
TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DEBT OUTSTANDING BY FISCAL YEAR
(amounts in billions)
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Cities, Towns, Villages Community and Junior College Districts
Public School Districts Other Special Districts and Authorities
Water Districts and Authorities Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities
Counties
Excludes conduit debt.
Figure 1.3 illustrates the total local debt outstanding as a percent of personal income over the past 10
years.
Figure 1.3
Total Debt Outstanding as a Percent of Personal Income*
17.0%
16.9%
16.8%
16.6%
16.5%
16.6%
16.4% 16.5%
16.3%
16.4%
16.2%
16.2%
16.0% 16.1% 16.1%
15.8% 15.9%
15.6%
15.4%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
*Includes debt secured by a combination of ad valorem taxes and other revenue sources. Excludes conduit debt. Uses personal
income and population data one year in arrears.
Sources: Texas Bond Review Board - Bond Finance Office; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, July 1, 2021; Bureau of Economic
Analysis Personal Income Summary (last updated September 30, 2022-- revised statistics for 2017-2021).
6
Rate of Debt Retirement
Timely repayment of debt is an important factor used by rating agencies to assess a municipal issuer’s
financial performance. As a guideline, rating agencies look for a repayment schedule that retires 25
percent of principal one quarter through the life of the debt and 50 percent halfway through the life
of the debt. Generally, local governments issue debt with varying maturities up to 40 years.
Table 1.4 illustrates the amount of debt retired in the next five-, 10-, and 20-year periods for both tax-
supported and revenue debt outstanding as of fiscal year 2022.
Table 1.4
Rate of Debt Retirement*
($ in millions)
Tax-Supported Revenue
Debt Repaid (Principal Only) Debt Percent Debt Percent
Within Five Years
Public School Districts $22,279.0 21.4% $75.8 42.7%
Cities, Towns, Villages 13,829.9 34.8% 10,659.4 21.4%
Water Districts and Authorities 5,037.9 23.4% 4,426.4 20.4%
Other Special Districts and Authorities 53.9 34.4% 3,270.7 16.5%
Counties 4,394.3 33.3% 444.3 17.9%
Community and Junior Colleges 1,317.1 25.6% 364.4 34.5%
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities 516.0 21.0% 204.0 19.0%
Within Ten Years
Counties 8,184.2 62.0% 999.9 40.3%
Community and Junior Colleges 2,557.6 49.7% 685.6 64.9%
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities 1,084.6 44.2% 404.2 37.6%
Within Twenty Years
Counties 12,488.9 94.6% 1,924.7 77.5%
Community and Junior Colleges 4,669.7 90.7% 1,016.5 96.2%
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities 2,182.5 88.9% 896.7 83.3%
*Excludes commercial paper and conduit debt.
7
Debt Issuance and Use of Proceeds
Over the past five fiscal years, local government debt issuance increased by 33.7 percent ($10.98
billion) from $32.62 billion in fiscal year 2018 to $43.61 billion in fiscal year 2022. During that period,
new money issuance increased by 39.9 percent ($8.31 billion) from $20.83 billion to $29.14 billion.
Refundings increased by 22.6 percent ($2.67 billion) from $11.80 billion to $14.47 billion (Table 1.5).
During fiscal year 2022, 33.2 percent of local debt issuance was used to refund debt, 29.4 percent was
used to finance educational facilities and equipment, 15.3 percent was used to finance water-related
infrastructure, 9.9 percent was used for general purpose debt (such as a combination of purposes,
including public improvements, building or improving city halls and court houses), and 4.2 percent
was used to finance transportation projects. Water-related and transportation financings are likely
understated because some issuers, especially Cities, borrow for multiple purposes, over half of which
involve financings for water and transportation purposes. The remaining 8.0 percent of local debt
issuance was used for multiple purposes, including combined utility systems, commerce, computer
technology, economic development, fire safety, health related, housing and land, power, prisons and
detention centers, public safety, recreation, and solid waste.
8
Table 1.5
Debt Issuance by Fiscal Year*
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Issuers 921 966 1,166 1,267 1,036
Issuances 1,293 1,390 1,725 1,967 1,582
New Money $7,753.0 $7,622.9 $9,363.3 $8,987.6 $12,259.5
Refunding 2,875.2 2,113.2 6,176.9 8,817.9 3,513.7
Total Par Issued $10,628.2 $9,736.2 $15,540.2 $17,805.5 $15,773.1
New Money $6,658.4 $5,917.7 $4,863.4 $7,485.7 $9,117.3
Refunding 3,580.1 3,420.9 8,607.3 6,192.3 5,931.4
Total Par Issued $10,238.5 $9,338.6 $13,470.7 $13,678.1 $15,048.7
Water Districts
New Money $4,065.1 $4,259.8 $4,213.4 $3,595.0 $5,178.0
Refunding 1,085.0 1,299.7 2,712.7 3,505.0 1,641.2
Total Par Issued $5,150.1 $5,559.5 $6,926.1 $7,099.9 $6,819.2
Other Special Districts
New Money $49.2 $1,194.8 $190.2 $1,054.7 $743.5
Refunding 2,909.4 1,342.7 662.1 3,954.7 1,382.4
Total Par Issued $2,958.6 $2,537.5 $852.3 $5,009.3 $2,125.9
Counties
New Money $1,123.4 $1,533.8 $1,195.7 $1,338.1 $1,173.0
Refunding 1,082.0 303.9 1,184.8 829.5 1,639.6
Total Par Issued $2,205.4 $1,837.7 $2,380.5 $2,167.6 $2,812.7
New Money $682.7 $349.7 $808.0 $729.2 $548.7
Refunding 211.3 77.7 221.5 798.5 111.3
Total Par Issued $894.0 $427.3 $1,029.5 $1,527.7 $659.9
New Money $497.8 $39.4 $285.4 $79.1 $120.0
Refunding 52.1 245.3 342.1 78.3 246.9
Total Par Issued $549.9 $284.7 $627.5 $157.4 $366.9
Total New Money $20,829.5 $20,918.1 $20,919.3 $23,269.3 $29,140.0

Total Refunding $11,795.0 $8,803.5 $19,907.4 $24,176.1 $14,466.4
Total Par $32,624.6 $29,721.6 $40,826.7 $47,445.4 $43,606.5
*Excludes commercial paper and conduit issuances.
Source: Texas Bond Review Board - Bond Finance Office
9
10
Chapter 2
Texas Local Government Tax-Supported Debt
Overview
Tax-supported debt includes debt secured by a combination of ad valorem taxes and other revenue
sources, even though the debt may be paid in whole or in part from non-tax revenue. Tax-supported
debt generally must be voter approved, with the exception of Certificates of Obligation, tax notes,
school district maintenance tax notes, certain time warrants, and certain other obligations.
State law sets limitations on certain local government debt issuers by setting maximum ad valorem tax
rates per $100 of assessed property valuation. These rates vary by government type, but all must
generate sufficient funds based on annual ad valorem tax collections to provide for the payment of
the debt service on outstanding and projected ad valorem tax (general obligation or GO) debt.
Additionally, all public securities issued by local debt issuers must receive approval from the Office of
the Attorney General – Public Finance Division (OAG) and be registered with the Texas Comptroller
of Public Accounts.
Local Government Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding

As of fiscal year-end 2022, Texas local governments had $186.73 billion in outstanding tax-supported
debt, an increase of $12.21 billion (7.0 percent) over the 2021 total of $174.52 billion, and a 24.4
percent ($36.58 billion) increase over the past five fiscal years, from $150.15 billion in 2018 (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1
Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding by Fiscal Year
8/31/2018 8/31/2019 8/31/2020 8/31/2021 8/31/2022
Public School Districts $83,887.0 $87,653.7 $92,889.4 $97,580.3 $104,034.1
Cities, Towns, Villages 33,132.4 34,759.8 34,915.4 37,357.5 40,121.2
Water Districts and Authorities 14,813.2 16,153.4 17,562.3 19,259.2 21,569.7
Other Special Districts and Authorities 166.2 159.3 152.5 157.5 156.6
Counties 11,558.6 12,311.7 12,798.3 12,813.9 13,248.0
Community and Junior College Districts 4,076.6 4,067.2 4,606.8 4,939.6 5,147.2
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities 2,517.2 2,427.8 2,462.4 2,408.6 2,454.1
Total Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding* $150,151.2 $157,532.8 $165,387.1 $174,516.7 $186,730.8

Includes commercial paper; excludes conduit debt.
11
Over the past 10 fiscal years, tax-supported debt outstanding has increased $66.96 billion (55.9
percent) from $119.77 billion in 2013. Figure 2.1 illustrates local tax-supported debt outstanding by
local government type over the past 10 fiscal years.
As shown in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, Public School Districts (School Districts) have consistently
accounted for the highest amount of tax-supported debt outstanding, while Cities, Towns, Villages
(Cities) and Water Districts and Authorities (WD) accounted for the second and third highest
amounts, respectively.
Of the total Cities tax-supported debt outstanding, the Big 6 Cities (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio,
Austin, El Paso, and Fort Worth) accounted for an average of 31.8 percent over the last five years and
32.2 percent over the last 10 years.
Figure 2.1
Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding by Fiscal Year
$200
$160
$120
$80
$40
$0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Other Special Districts and Authorities Water Districts and Authorities
Public School Districts Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities
Counties Community and Junior College Districts
Excludes conduit debt; includes commercial paper.
12
Tax-Supported Debt per Capita
Local government tax-supported debt per capita increased over the past 10 years by 37.7 percent (or
$1,732 per person) from $4,592 per capita in fiscal year 2013 to $6,324 per capita in fiscal year 2022.
Over this time, the state’s population increased by an estimated 13.2 percent (3.4 million), based on
July 2021 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, which were released December 2021 (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2
Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding per Capita*
$7,000
$6,324
$6,000
$5,944
$5,706
$5,503
$5,000 $5,307
$5,099
$4,832 $4,920
$4,592 $4,679
$4,000
$3,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Sources: Texas Bond Review Board - Bond Finance Office; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, July 1, 2021.
13
Tax-Supported Debt as a Percentage of Personal Income
As reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, total personal income growth in Texas has
grown 53.3 percent in the past 10 years, from $1.15 trillion in 2012 to $1.77 trillion in 2021 (the most
recent data available). During the past five years, the growth was 27.4 percent, from $1.39 trillion in
2017. Per capita personal income has shown a 35.5 percent 10-year growth from $44,193 in 2012 and
a 22.0 percent five-year growth from $49,059 in 2017 to $59,865 in 2021 (based on the most recent
population and personal income totals available).
Per capita tax-supported debt, as a percentage of per capita personal income, has remained relatively
constant during the past 10 years (Figure 2.3). Over the 10-year period, the growth of the state’s
personal income per capita was 35.5 percent while the growth of tax-supported debt per capita was
37.7 percent, indicating personal income growth within Texas has generally kept pace with the state’s
local government tax-supported debt outstanding. Figure 2.3 below uses personal income and
population data one year in arrears.
Figure 2.3
Per Capita Tax-Supported Debt as a Percentage of per Capita Personal Income*
12%
11.0% 10.8% 10.7%

11%
10.4% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6%
10.5% 10.4%
10.2%
10%
9%
8%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Uses personal income and population data one year in arrears.
Sources: Texas Bond Review Board - Bond Finance Office; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, July 1, 2021;
Bureau of Economic Analysis Personal Income Summary (last updated September 30, 2022-- revised statistics for 2017-2021).
14
Tax-Supported Debt Issuance
New tax-supported debt issued during fiscal year 2022 totaled $29.21 billion ($22.54 billion in new
money and $6.67 billion in refunding debt). This is a decrease of 8.5 percent from the total of $31.94
billion issued in fiscal year 2021 and an increase of 38.3 percent from the total of $21.11 billion issued
in fiscal year 2018.
During this five-year period, School Districts have consistently issued the most tax-supported debt.
For fiscal years 2018 and 2020–2022, School Districts accounted for 50 percent or more of the total
tax-supported debt issued. In fiscal year 2019, School Districts accounted for 49.9 percent of the total
tax-supported debt issued. In fiscal year 2018, School Districts completed 308 GO issues for a total
of $10.63 billion (50.3 percent of the 2018 total), of which $7.75 billion was new money debt and
$2.88 billion was refunding debt. In 2022, School Districts completed 317 GO issues for a total of
$15.77 billion (54.0 percent of the 2022 total), of which $12.26 billion was new money debt and $3.51
billion was refunding debt.
Tax-supported new money debt issuance over the past five years has risen from $15.17 billion in 2018
to $22.54 billion in 2022 (an increase of 48.6 percent).
Tax-supported refunding debt issuance over the past five years declined from $5.95 billion in 2018 to
$4.18 billion in 2019, before rising to $14.18 billion in 2021. Tax-supported refunding debt decreased
to $6.67 billion in 2022. Over the past five-year period, there was an overall increase of 12.2 percent.
The amounts of Gross Cash Savings and Net Present Value Savings earned from tax-supported
refunding issuance over the past five years have fluctuated from $810.3 million and $588.2 million,
respectively, in 2018 to $886.7 million and $707.5 million, respectively, in 2022.
During that period, Texas local governments issued $42.34 billion in tax-supported refunding debt to
realize $6.84 billion in Gross Cash Savings and $5.45 billion in Net Present Value Savings.
Tax-supported debt issued over the past five fiscal years is shown below, excluding commercial paper
and conduit debt (Table 2.2).
15
Table 2.2
Tax-Supported Debt Issuance by Fiscal Year*
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Issuers 824 891 1,070 1,173 993
Issuances 1,065 1,189 1,471 1,667 1,321
New Money $7,753.0 $7,604.9 $9,362.3 $8,976.4 $12,259.5
Refunding 2,875.2 2,085.2 6,147.2 8,817.9 3,513.7
Total Par Issued $10,628.2 $9,690.0 $15,509.5 $17,794.2 $15,773.1
New Money $4,105.0 $3,855.9 $2,828.5 $4,956.5 $5,367.2
Refunding 1,474.0 830.4 2,345.1 2,242.2 1,353.2
Total Par Issued $5,579.0 $4,686.3 $5,173.6 $7,198.8 $6,720.4
New Money $1,681.2 $1,977.3 $1,955.2 $2,207.7 $3,153.7
Refunding 521.6 782.8 1,221.7 1,622.0 340.4
Total Par Issued $2,202.8 $2,760.1 $3,176.9 $3,829.7 $3,494.0
New Money $13.9 $11.0 $12.0 $21.8 $16.7
Refunding 0.0 18.2 17.1 5.1 0.0
Total Par Issued $13.9 $29.2 $29.1 $26.9 $16.7
Counties
New Money $680.3 $1,528.7 $1,190.6 $903.8 $1,167.0
Refunding 861.4 167.7 1,094.5 795.5 1,250.6
Total Par Issued $1,541.7 $1,696.3 $2,285.1 $1,699.4 $2,417.5
New Money $652.4 $231.1 $808.0 $648.9 $503.0
Refunding 165.3 50.8 196.3 644.8 92.9
Total Par Issued $817.7 $281.9 $1,004.3 $1,293.7 $595.9
New Money $285.1 $13.8 $175.7 $38.2 $76.4
Refunding 49.4 245.3 339.3 56.1 120.2
Total Par Issued $334.5 $259.1 $515.1 $94.3 $196.6
Total New Money $15,170.8 $15,222.6 $16,332.3 $17,753.4 $22,543.4

Total Refunding $5,947.0 $4,180.3 $11,361.2 $14,183.6 $6,670.9
Total Par $21,117.7 $19,403.0 $27,693.5 $31,937.0 $29,214.3
16
Rate of Debt Retirement
percent of principal a quarter through the life of the debt and 50 percent halfway through the life of
the debt. For debt outstanding as of fiscal year-end 2022, Texas local governments will repay 25.5
percent ($47.43 billion) of tax-supported debt within five years, 49.8 percent ($92.72 billion) within 10
years, and 87.0 percent ($162.11 billion) within 20 years (Table 2.3). As of August 31, 2022, the final
maturity for tax-supported debt was 39 years.
Table 2.3
Rate of Tax-Supported Debt Retirement*
($ in millions)
Percent Percent Twenty Percent
DEBT REPAID WITHIN: Five Years of Total Ten Years of Total Years of Total
Public School Districts 22,279.0 21.4% 45,670.4 43.9% 85,847.8 82.6%
Cities, Towns, Villages 13,829.9 34.8% 24,953.1 62.7% 37,967.9 95.4%
Water Districts and Authorities 5,037.9 23.4% 10,167.4 47.2% 18,802.9 87.3%
Other Special Districts and Authorities 53.9 34.4% 98.0 62.6% 145.2 92.7%
Counties 4,394.3 33.3% 8,184.2 62.0% 12,488.9 94.6%
Community and Junior College Districts 1,317.1 25.6% 2,557.6 49.7% 4,669.7 90.7%
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities 516.0 21.0% 1,084.6 44.2% 2,182.5 88.9%
TOTALS $47,428.1 25.5% $92,715.4 49.8% $162,105.0 87.0%
17
Tax-Supported Debt Service Outstanding
As of August 31, 2022, tax-supported debt-service requirements (principal and interest) projected over
the life of the debt totaled $268.50 billion, with all scheduled payments made by fiscal year 2062. Figure
2.4 illustrates annual tax-supported debt-service requirements for each of the local government types.
Figure 2.4
Tax-Supported Debt-Service Requirements*
($ in billions)
$18
$16
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
Water Districts and Authorities Other Special Districts and Authorities

Public School Districts Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities
Counties Cities, Towns, Villages
*Excludes commercial paper, Build America Bond subsidy, and conduit debt.
18
Chapter 3
Texas Local Government Revenue Debt
Overview
Revenue debt includes debt legally secured by a specified revenue source(s). Most revenue debt does
not require voter approval and usually has a maturity based on the life of the project to be financed.
Excluding conduit debt, Texas local governments had $97.42 billion in revenue debt outstanding as
of fiscal year-end 2022, an increase of $5.58 billion (6.1 percent) over the 2021 total of $91.85 billion,
and a 21.0 percent ($16.93 billion) increase over the past five fiscal years, from $80.50 billion in 2018
(Table 3.1).
Cities, Towns, Villages (Cities) accounted for 51.9 percent ($50.58 billion) of the total revenue local
debt outstanding, Water Districts and Authorities (WDs) accounted for 22.7 percent ($22.15 billion),
Other Special Districts (OSDs) accounted for 20.4 percent ($19.87 billion) and the remaining 5.0
percent ($4.82 billion) was attributable to Public School Districts, Community and Junior College
Districts (CCDs), Counties, and Health and Hospital Districts and Authorities (HHDs).
Cities revenue debt increased by 20.3 percent from $42.03 billion to $50.58 billion in the five-year
period. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, population growth in the state increased 4.4 percent
(1.24 million) from 2017 to 2021 (most recent data available, released December 2021). Urban areas
have experienced particularly rapid growth, creating the need for new infrastructure, including roads,
bridges, and new and expanded water and sewer systems. The majority of Cities revenue debt has
been used to finance general purpose needs, utility-related projects, including water, wastewater, and,
in some localities, electric utility systems. Of the total Cities revenue debt outstanding, the Big 6 Cities
(Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, and El Paso, including revenue debt issued by
the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport) accounted for an average of 79.6 percent over the last
five years and 81.4 percent over the last 10 years. Separately, WD revenue debt increased 44.4 percent
from $15.34 billion to $22.15 billion in the five-year period, and Public School Districts, CCDs,
HHDs, and Counties revenue debt all decreased during the same time period.
Table 3.1
Revenue Debt Outstanding by Fiscal Year*
8/31/2018 8/31/2019 8/31/2020 8/31/2021 8/31/2022
Public School Districts $268.7 $258.8 $219.4 $196.3 $177.6
Cities, Towns, Villages 42,027.2 43,084.1 44,685.9 46,876.5 50,578.4
Water Districts and Authorities 15,338.9 17,278.5 19,085.2 20,436.2 22,148.0
Other Special Districts and Authorities 17,963.4 18,568.8 18,571.7 19,583.9 19,874.6
Counties 2,538.8 2,486.3 2,485.3 2,577.2 2,512.9
Community and Junior College Districts 1,184.4 1,181.2 1,080.3 1,078.6 1,056.6
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities 1,175.9 1,125.1 1,177.1 1,098.6 1,076.1
Total Revenue Debt Outstanding* $80,497.2 $83,982.9 $87,304.9 $91,847.2 $97,424.1

*Includes commercial paper; excludes conduit debt.
19
Over the past 10 fiscal years, revenue debt outstanding has increased $26.71 billion (37.8 percent)
from $70.72 billion in 2013. Figure 3.1 illustrates local revenue debt outstanding by category over the
past 10 fiscal years.
Figure 3.1
Revenue Debt Outstanding by Fiscal Year*
$100
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Other Special Districts and Authorities Water Districts and Authorities Public School Districts
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities Counties Community and Junior College Districts
*Excludes conduit debt; includes commercial paper.
20
Revenue Debt per Capita
Local government revenue debt per capita increased over the past 10 years by 21.7 percent (or $588
per person) from $2,711 per capita in fiscal year 2013 to $3,299 per capita in fiscal year 2022. Over
this time, the state’s population increased by an estimated 13.2 percent (3.4 million), based on July
2021 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, which were released December 2021 (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2
Revenue Debt Outstanding per Capita*
$4,000
$3,000
$3,128 $3,299
$2,934 $3,012
$2,717 $2,745 $2,845
$2,711 $2,725 $2,704
$2,000
$1,000
$0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
*Excludes conduit debt.
Sources: Texas Bond Review Board - Bond Finance Office; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, July 1, 2021.
Revenue Debt Issuance

Excluding conduit debt, new revenue debt issued during fiscal year 2022 totaled $14.39 billion ($6.60
billion in new money and $7.80 billion in refunding debt). This is a decrease of 7.2 percent from the
total of $15.51 billion issued in fiscal year 2021 but an increase of 25.1 percent from the total of $11.51
billion issued in fiscal year 2018.
During this five-year period, Cities have consistently issued the most revenue debt. In fiscal year 2018,
Cities completed 110 issues for a total of $4.66 billion (40.5 percent of the 2018 total), of which $2.55
billion was new money debt and $2.11 billion was refunding debt. In 2022, Cities completed 136 issues
for a total of $8.33 billion (57.9 percent of the 2022 total), of which $3.75 billion was new money debt
and $4.58 billion was refunding debt. Cities revenue debt includes debt issued by the Dallas/Fort
Worth International Airport.
Revenue debt issued over the past five fiscal years, excluding commercial paper and conduit debt, is
shown in Table 3.2 below.
21
Table 3.2
Revenue Debt Issuance by Fiscal Year*
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Issuers 139 120 140 163 140
Issuances 228 201 254 300 261
New Money $0.0 $18.0 $1.0 $11.2 $0.0
Refunding 0.0 28.1 29.7 0.0 0.0
Total Par Issued $0.0 $46.1 $30.7 $11.2 $0.0
New Money $2,553.4 $2,061.8 $2,034.8 $2,529.2 $3,750.1
Refunding 2,106.1 2,590.6 6,262.3 3,950.1 4,578.2
Total Par Issued $4,659.5 $4,652.3 $8,297.1 $6,479.3 $8,328.3
New Money $2,383.9 $2,282.5 $2,258.2 $1,387.2 $2,024.4
Refunding 563.4 516.9 1,491.0 1,883.0 1,300.8
Total Par Issued $2,947.3 $2,799.4 $3,749.2 $3,270.2 $3,325.1
New Money $35.3 $1,183.9 $178.2 $1,032.9 $726.8
Refunding 2,909.4 1,324.5 645.0 3,949.5 1,382.4
Total Par Issued $2,944.7 $2,508.4 $823.2 $4,982.4 $2,109.2
Counties
New Money $443.1 $5.1 $5.1 $434.3 $6.1
Refunding 220.6 136.3 90.3 34.0 389.1
Total Par Issued $663.7 $141.3 $95.3 $468.2 $395.1
New Money $30.3 $118.6 $0.0 $80.3 $45.7
Refunding 45.9 26.9 25.2 153.7 18.4
Total Par Issued $76.3 $145.4 $25.2 $233.9 $64.1
New Money $212.8 $25.6 $109.7 $40.9 $43.6
Refunding 2.6 0.0 2.7 22.2 126.7
Total Par Issued $215.4 $25.6 $112.4 $63.1 $170.3
Total New Money $5,658.8 $5,695.4 $4,587.0 $5,515.9 $6,596.6

Total Refunding $5,848.1 $4,623.2 $8,546.1 $9,992.5 $7,795.5
Total Par $11,506.8 $10,318.6 $13,133.1 $15,508.4 $14,392.1
22
Revenue new money debt issuance over the past five years has risen from $5.66 billion in 2018 to
$6.60 billion in 2022. This is an increase of 16.6 percent.
Revenue refunding debt issuance over the past five years has risen from $5.85 billion in 2018 to $7.80
billion in 2022. This is an increase of 33.3 percent.
The amounts of Gross Cash Savings and Net Present Value Savings earned from revenue refunding
issuance over the past five years have fluctuated from $910.4 million and $548.1 million, respectively,
in 2018 to $1.07 billion and $747.3 million, respectively, in 2022.
During this period, Texas local governments issued $36.81 billion in revenue refunding debt to realize
$5.52 billion in Gross Cash Savings and $4.08 billion in Net Present Value Savings.
Rate of Revenue Debt Retirement

percent of principal a quarter through the life of the debt and 50 percent halfway through the life of
the debt. For debt outstanding as of fiscal year-end 2022, Texas local governments will repay 20.3
percent ($19.45 billion) of revenue debt within five years, 41.3 percent ($39.63 billion) within 10 years,
and 78.7 percent ($75.52 billion) within 20 years (Table 3.3). As of August 31, 2022, the final maturity
for revenue debt was 40 years.
Table 3.3
Rate of Revenue Debt Retirement*
($ in millions)
Percent Percent Percent
DEBT REPAID WITHIN: Five Years of Total Ten Years of Total Twenty Years of Total
Public School Districts $75.8 42.7% $131.3 74.0% $176.5 99.4%
Cities, Towns, Villages 10,659.4 21.4% 21,730.7 43.7% 40,183.3 80.9%
Water Districts and Authorities 4,426.4 20.4% 9,109.7 41.9% 17,077.6 78.5%
Other Special Districts and Authorities 3,270.7 16.5% 6,565.3 33.2% 14,242.7 72.1%
Counties 444.3 17.9% 999.9 40.3% 1,924.7 77.5%
Community and Junior College Districts 364.4 34.5% 685.6 64.9% 1,016.5 96.2%
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities 204.0 19.0% 404.2 37.6% 896.7 83.3%
TOTALS $19,445.1 20.3% $39,626.6 41.3% $75,517.9 78.7%
23
Revenue Debt Service Outstanding
As of August 31, 2022, scheduled revenue debt-service requirements (principal and interest) projected
over the life of the debt totaled $148.54 billion, with all scheduled payments made by fiscal year 2064.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the scheduled annual revenue debt-service requirements for each of the local
government types.
Figure 3.3
Revenue Debt-Service Requirements by Fiscal Year*
($ in billions)
$8
$8
$7
$7
$6
$6
$5
$5
$4
$4
$3
$3
$2
$2
$1
$1
$0
$0
Cities, Towns, Villages Water

Water Districts
Districts and and Authorities
Authorities
Other Special Districts and Authorities Counties
Counties
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities Community
Community and and Junior
Junior College
College Districts
Districts
*Excludescommercial
*Excludes commercialpaper,
paper,Build
BuildAmerica
AmericaBond
Bondsubsidy,
subsidy,and
andconduit
conduitdebt.
debt.
Source:Texas
Source: TexasBond
BondReview
ReviewBoard
Board--Bond
BondFinance
FinanceOffice.
Office
24
Chapter 4
Capital Appreciation Bonds
Overview
Capital appreciation bonds (CABs) are sold at a discounted price called the par amount. They are often
sold in combination with current interest bonds (CIBs). While the debt service for CIBs is paid
throughout the life of the obligation, principal and interest on CABs is paid at maturity. Interest on
CABs compounds semiannually and accumulates over the life of the bond, and the amount paid at
the maturity is called the maturity value. Interest rates for CABs are generally higher than for CIBs,
and CABs can be more expensive than CIBs because of the compounding interest. However, CABs
can be an effective financing tool if they are used moderately and with reasonable terms.
Premium CABs (PCABs) provide a lower initial stated par amount and are sold with a premium. PCABs
are issued to raise additional proceeds, preserve debt limits, and help local governments reach tax rate
targets. Local governments issue more PCABs than non-premium CABs.
Over the past decade, total CAB maturity amounts outstanding have decreased by 45.4 percent from
$16.57 billion in fiscal year 2013 to $9.05 billion in fiscal year 2022. Additionally, CAB maturity
amounts outstanding have decreased 2.5 percent from $9.28 billion outstanding in fiscal year 2021.
The outstanding CAB maturities range from fiscal years 2023 to 2057.
Heavy use of CABs can result in rating agency downgrades.
CABs are often used to refund existing CAB and CIB debt.
CABs Issued
Table 4.1 shows that the total CAB par issued for Texas local governments during fiscal year 2022 was
0.4 percent ($161.8 million) of the total CAB and CIB debt issued ($43.61 billion). Other Special
District (OSD) issuances accounted for 66.8 percent ($108.1 million) of the total CABs issued for
local governments during fiscal year 2022. Of the total par issued by OSDs, 5.1 percent was issued as
CAB par. Since fiscal year 2010, Public School Districts (School Districts) have issued the most CAB
debt of all government types. In fiscal year 2022, School Districts issued 30.8 percent ($49.8 million)
of the total CABs issued. Fiscal Year 2022 marks the first time since 2009 that OSDs issued more
CABs than School Districts. CABs have been used by School Districts to enable them to remain under
the 50-cent debt ceiling that limits the property taxes assessed for debt service costs to 50 cents per
$100 of assessed value. CAB issuances by School Districts are general obligation (tax) debt repaid with
ad valorem taxes.
For CAB debt previously issued and outstanding in fiscal year 2022, Texas local governments will owe
$5.27 in interest and principal for every $1 of principal borrowed.
The 84th Legislature (2015) passed House Bill 114, effective September 1, 2015, which prohibits Texas
local governments from issuing CABs secured by property taxes with terms of more than 20 years and
(with some exceptions) from refunding CABs to extend their maturity dates. It also limits each
government’s CAB debt to no more than 25 percent of its total outstanding bond debt, including
principal and interest. The 85th Legislature (2017) passed Senate Bill 295, which extends the allowed
maturity date for CABs issued for refunding purposes and financing transportation projects.
25
Table 4.1
Capital Appreciation Bonds Issued in Fiscal Year 2022 ($ in thousands)
% of CAB
Total Par Issued CAB Par/ % of CAB Par CAB CAB Maturity Maturity
Entity Type (CIB and CAB) CAB Par Total Par Issued Premium Amount Amount
Public School Districts $15,773,126 $49,871 0.32% 30.82% $72,504 $146,585 30.22%
Cities, Towns,Villages 15,048,717 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Water Districts 6,819,189 693 0.01% 0.43% 6,210 10,000 2.06%
Counties 2,812,658 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other Special Districts 2,125,943 108,140 5.09% 66.84% 0 324,015 66.81%
Comm Colleges/Junior Colleges 659,935 3,095 0.47% 1.91% 1,062 4,395 0.91%
Health/Hospital Districts 366,906 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Total $43,606,474 $161,800 0.37% 100.00% $79,775 $484,995 100.00%
Excludes commercial paper & conduit debt.
Table 4.2 shows CAB issued amounts for the last five fiscal years. Since 2018, the total amount of CAB
par issued has increased 834.0 percent from $17.3 million in fiscal year 2018 to $161.8 million in fiscal
year 2022.
Table 4.2
Capital Appreciation Bonds Par Amount Issued by Fiscal Year
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Public School Districts $16.3 $1.5 $91.7 $118.7 $49.9
Cities, Towns, Villages 0.4 - 0.4 - -
Water Districts and Authorities 0.6 0.3 1.2 3.7 0.7
Other Special Districts and Authorities - - - - 108.1
Counties - - 1.2 0.7 -
Community and Junior Colleges - - 0.3 1.7 3.1
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities - - - - -
Total CAB Par Amount Issued $17.3 $1.9 $94.8 $124.9 $161.8
Total Par Amount Issued* $32,624.6 $29,721.6 $40,826.7 $47,445.4 $43,606.5

CAB Par Amount % of Total 0.05% 0.01% 0.23% 0.26% 0.37%
* Includes current interest bonds. Excludes commercial paper authorizations and conduit issuances.
Source: Bond Review Board - Bond Finance Office.
26
Three ratios have been developed to compare CAB issuances. The first is the “Maturity Value/Par”
ratio, which is calculated by dividing the CAB maturity amount by the CAB par amount and represents
the total amount to be repaid (principal plus interest) compared to the par amount borrowed. This
ratio disregards premiums received on PCABs.
The second is the “Maturity Value/Proceeds” ratio, which is calculated by dividing the CAB maturity
amount by the total CAB proceeds, including the additional proceeds received as premium on PCAB
issuances. This ratio represents the total amount to be repaid at maturity (principal plus interest)
compared to the total amount of proceeds received (par plus premium).
The third is the “Accreted Interest/Proceeds” ratio (AIPR), which is calculated by dividing the CAB
maturity amount minus the original par amount by the total proceeds including the CAB premium.
This ratio represents the total amount of interest to be paid at maturity compared to the total amount
of proceeds received including premium (par plus premium).
Table 4.3 lists the top 20 most expensive CABs issued and outstanding as of fiscal year-end 2022 as
defined by the “Maturity Value/Proceeds” ratio. CABs become increasingly more expensive as interest
continues to compound with longer term maturities. For comparison, the Maturity Value/Proceeds
ratio for CIBs is generally less than 2.0 and the AIPR is generally less than 1.0. The decline in the
Maturity Value/Proceeds ratio compared to the Maturity Value/Par ratio shows the effect of including
the premiums on PCABs in the comparison. When the Maturity Value/Proceeds ratio equals the
Maturity Value/Par ratio, this means the CAB was sold at par without generating a premium.
Table 4.3
Texas Local Governent
Top 20 Most Expensive Capital Appreciation Bonds Outstanding as of August 31, 2022
Accreted
CAB Maturity Maturity Interest/
Closing Maturity Value/ Value/ Proceeds
Issuer Issue Date Date Par Proceeds Ratio
Forney ISD Unl Tax Ref Bonds Txbl Ser 2014A 2/18/2014 8/15/2053 12.69 10.87 10.01
Forney ISD Unl Tax Ref Bonds Ser 2014 2/18/2014 8/15/2053 10.17 8.34 7.52
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority Sr Lien Rev Ref Bonds Ser 2001A 5/17/2001 5/15/2041 7.10 7.10 6.10
Forney ISD Unl Tax Ref Bonds Txbl Ser 2013B 8/27/2013 8/15/2043 7.94 6.89 6.03
Hutto ISD Unl Tax Ref Bonds Ser 2012A 5/3/2012 8/1/2044 249.18 6.71 6.68
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority Third Lien Rev Ref Bonds Ser 2004A-3 8/5/2004 5/15/2040 6.41 6.41 5.41
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority Jr Lien Rev Bonds Ser 2001H 1/2/2002 5/15/2042 6.15 6.15 5.15
Anna ISD Unl Tax School Bldg Bonds Ser 2010 4/8/2010 8/15/2043 12.00 5.82 5.33
Forney ISD Unl Tax Ref Bonds Ser 2013A 8/27/2013 8/15/2043 9.35 5.49 4.90
Lake Worth ISD Unl Tax Ref Bonds Ser 1995 9/21/1995 8/15/2024 8.25 5.31 4.66
Anna ISD Unl Tax School Bldg Bonds Ser 2009 10/15/2009 8/15/2042 7.57 5.26 4.56
Galena Park ISD Unl Tax School Bldg & Ref Bonds Ser 1996 8/20/1996 8/15/2031 6.09 5.11 4.27
Crowley ISD Unl Tax Ref & School Bldg Bonds Ser 1993 5/19/1993 8/1/2023 9.87 5.04 4.53
Central Texas Regional Mobility Auth Sr Lien Rev Bonds Ser 2010 3/11/2010 7/1/2040 5.03 5.03 4.03
Hillsboro ISD Unl Tax School Bldg & Ref Bonds Ser 2001 2/15/2001 8/15/2031 75.90 4.94 4.88
Alvarado ISD Unl Tax Ref Bonds Ser 1995 6/29/1995 8/15/2025 14.78 4.83 4.50
Frisco ISD Unl Tax School Bldg & Ref Bonds Ser 2002 9/24/2002 8/15/2034 11.65 4.79 4.37
Crowley ISD Unl Tax School Bldg & Ref Bonds Ser 2002 2/19/2002 8/1/2031 47.10 4.78 4.67
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority Sr Lien Rev Ref Bonds Ser 2014A 12/23/2014 5/15/2054 4.77 4.77 3.77
Frisco ISD Unl Tax School Bldg & Ref Bonds Ser 1999 8/10/1999 8/15/2029 59.78 4.73 4.65
Excludes commercial paper and conduit debt.
27
Figure 4.1 illustrates the total CAB par amount issued, the total proceeds received (including premiums
on PCABs), and CAB maturity amounts (total debt-service owed at maturity) since 2008.
Figure 4.1
Capital Appreciation Bonds Issued 2008–2022
$3.0
$2.5
$2.0
Billions
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Excludes conduit debt. CAB Par CAB Proceeds CAB Maturity Amount
28
CABs Outstanding
Table 4.4 provides a comparison between the total CAB debt outstanding and total CIB and CAB debt outstanding for each type of local government
entity. The CAB maturity amount outstanding (principal plus interest) is 2.2 percent ($9.05 billion) of total debt-service owed by local governments.
School Districts owe the most CAB debt service at 44.7 percent of total CAB debt-service owed among all local governments. While CAB par was
0.6 percent of total CIB and CAB par outstanding at fiscal year-end 2022, CAB interest accounted for 5.4 percent of total interest owed.
Table 4.4
Capital Appreciation Bonds Outstanding as of August 31, 2022 ($ in thousands)
CAB
Maturity % of CAB
Total Par Total Interest Total Debt CAB Maturity Amount/ % of CAB Maturity
Outstanding CAB Par CAB Par/ Outstanding CAB Interest/ Service Amount Total Debt Par Amount
Entity Type (CIB+CAB) Outstanding Total Par (CIB+CAB) CAB Interest Total Interest (CIB+CAB) Outstanding Service Outstanding Outstanding
Public School Districts $104,161,641 $659,120 0.63% $53,372,326 $3,388,651 6.35% $157,533,967 $4,047,771 2.57% 38.36% 44.74%
Cities, Towns, Villages 89,477,986 164,095 0.18% 38,819,042 873,074 2.25% 128,297,028 1,037,168 0.81% 9.55% 11.46%
Water Districts 43,293,945 82,950 0.19% 17,500,674 186,620 1.07% 60,794,618 269,570 0.44% 4.83% 2.98%
Other Special Districts 19,920,926 764,495 3.84% 14,557,107 2,767,106 19.01% 34,478,033 3,531,602 10.24% 44.49% 39.03%
Counties 15,683,440 28,102 0.18% 6,033,047 74,723 1.24% 21,716,487 102,825 0.47% 1.64% 1.14%
Comm Colleges/Junior Colleges 6,203,761 8,433 0.14% 2,559,445 12,927 0.51% 8,763,205 21,360 0.24% 0.49% 0.24%
Health & Hospital Districts 3,530,111 11,149 0.32% 1,924,277 26,757 1.39% 5,454,388 37,906 0.69% 0.65% 0.42%
Total $282,271,810 $1,718,345 0.61% $134,765,917 $7,329,857 5.44% $417,037,727 $9,048,202 2.17% 100.00% 100.00%
Excludes commercial paper, conduit debt and Build America Bond subsidies.
29
Figure 4.2 below shows the maturity amount (principal plus interest) for each local government entity
with CABs outstanding since 2008.
Figure 4.2
Capital Appreciation Bonds Maturity Amount Outstanding 2008–2022
($ in billions)
$18
$16
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Public School Districts Community and Junior Colleges Other Special Districts and Authorities
Water Districts and Authorities Counties Cities, Towns, Villages
Health/Hospital Districts
Figure 4.3 shows CIB debt service and CAB debt service for all local governments since 2008. In fiscal
year 2022, CAB maturity amounts accounted for 2.2 percent ($9.05 billion) of the total debt service
outstanding.
Figure 4.3
Total Debt Service Outstanding 2008-2022
($ in billions)
$450
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$-
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
CIB Debt Service CAB Debt Service

Excludes commercial paper, conduit debt, and Build America Bond subsidies.
30
Figure 4.4 compares the ratio of total debt service to total par outstanding for CIB and CAB debt for
all local governments. On average, issuers of CAB debt paid $3.73 in principal and interest for every
$1 of principal borrowed since 2008 compared to $1.61 for CIB debt.
Figure 4.4
Ratio of Total Debt Service/Total Par for Debt Outstanding
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
CIB CAB
Figure 4.5 compares the ratio of School District debt service to ISD debt outstanding for CIB and
CAB debt. On average, School Districts paid $4.31 in principal and interest for every $1 of principal
borrowed since 2008 for CAB debt compared to $1.57 for CIB debt.
Figure 4.5
Ratio of ISD Debt Service/Par for ISD Debt Outstanding
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
CIB CAB
31
32
Chapter 5
Certificates of Obligation
Certificates of Obligation (COs) are authorized by the Certificate of Obligation Act of 1971,
Subchapter C of Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code. COs are generally issued as tax-
supported debt to pay for: the construction of a public work; the purchase of materials, supplies,
equipment, machinery, buildings, land, and rights-of-way; and professional services, such as engineers,
architects, attorneys, and financial advisors. Debt for COs is paid from ad valorem taxes and/or a
combination of revenues available from other sources. CO issuance does not require voter approval
unless a valid petition of 5 percent of the voters requesting an election is presented.
With the passage of House Bill 1378 during the 84th Legislative Session (2015), effective January 1,
2016, a CO may not be issued if the voters rejected a bond proposition for the same purpose within
the preceding three years, except in the case of public calamity, public health, or unforeseen damage
to public property, or to comply with a state or federal regulation. House Bill 477 passed during the
86th Legislative Session (2019), effective September 1, 2019, added additional requirements for the
publishing of notices of intention to issue a CO prior to the date the issuer proposes to pass an order
or ordinance authorizing the issuance of a CO. Only Counties, certain Cities, Towns, Villages, (Cities),
and Health and Hospital Districts and Authorities (HHDs) are authorized to issue COs.
Since fiscal year 2013, CO debt outstanding has increased by 48.2 percent ($6.24 billion) from $12.96
billion outstanding in fiscal year 2013 to $19.21 billion outstanding in fiscal year 2022. Cities accounted
for 80.1 percent of the total CO debt outstanding at fiscal year-end 2022 (Figure 5.1).
33
Figure 5.2 illustrates the relative amounts of CO debt issued by Cities, Counties, and HHDs over the
past 10 fiscal years.
Figure 5.2
Certificates of Obligation Debt Issuance by
Cities, Counties, and Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities by Fiscal Year*
$4.0
$3.5
$3.0
$2.5
$2.0
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Cities Counties Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities
*Certificates of Obligation may only be issued by Cities, Counties, and Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities.
Includes debt secured by a combination of ad valorem taxes and other revenue sources. Excludes conduit debt.
34
The 20 highest issuers of CO debt accounted for 38.0 percent of all CO debt outstanding (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1
Top 20 Issuers with Certificates of Obligation Debt Outstanding
as of August 31, 2022
($ in millions)
Denton $625.0
San Antonio 590.0
El Paso 584.2
Bexar County 576.2
Travis County 508.0
Waco 461.6
Bexar County Hospital District (University Health Syste 391.5
Conroe 349.1
Frisco 345.1
Austin 335.7
College Station 326.8
Lubbock 326.0
Hidalgo County 297.9
Celina 266.7
San Marcos 260.1
Temple 246.3
Dallas County 232.9
Grand Prairie 221.0
Pflugerville 189.4
Odessa 157.9
Subtotal $7,291.3
Other CO Issuers 11,917.1
Total $19,208.3
Includes debt secured by a combination of ad valorem taxes and other revenue sources.
35
Over the past 10 fiscal years, tax-supported CO debt outstanding has increased by 63.3 percent ($5.96
billion) from $9.41 billion to $15.37 billion. As of fiscal year 2022, outstanding tax-supported CO debt
represents 38.3 percent of the total Cities tax-supported debt outstanding and 16.9 percent of the total
Cities debt outstanding, including revenue debt. Figure 5.3 illustrates the portion of total Cities tax-
supported debt attributable to COs. As of fiscal year 2022, 670 Cities had tax-supported CO debt
outstanding.
36
The top 30 Cities with CO debt outstanding accounted for 47.2 percent ($7.25 billion) of the total
Cities CO debt outstanding (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2
Texas Cities
Top 30 Issuers with Certificates of Obligation Outstanding
CO as % of City
CO Amount CO Debt per Tax-Supported
($ in millions) Capita* Debt Outstanding
Denton $625.0 $4,219 65.0%
San Antonio 590.0 406 24.5%
El Paso 584.2 861 36.9%
Waco 461.6 3,306 77.3%
Conroe 349.1 3,698 81.0%
Frisco 345.1 1,637 36.9%
Austin 335.7 348 20.8%
College Station 326.8 2,723 75.6%
Lubbock 326.0 1,249 49.8%
Celina 266.7 11,201 95.6%
San Marcos 260.1 3,793 64.4%
Temple 246.3 2,884 69.3%
Grand Prairie 221.0 1,120 48.9%
Pflugerville 189.4 2,832 43.2%
Odessa 157.9 1,404 68.9%
Bryan 148.3 1,708 63.0%
Round Rock 148.3 1,197 46.7%
Pearland 147.4 1,170 35.5%
Richardson 143.9 1,237 41.3%
Waxahachie 138.4 3,191 67.1%
Garland 135.5 560 37.8%
Granbury 131.9 11,546 82.8%
Flower Mound 128.9 1,669 84.9%
Laredo 127.3 497 45.8%
Georgetown 123.8 1,642 34.8%
Abilene 123.4 987 34.1%
Sugar Land 121.6 1,112 40.5%
Leander 118.8 1,770 61.6%
Irving 116.4 458 15.6%
Mansfield 114.8 1,544 83.3%
Subtotal $7,253.8
Other Cities 8,119.7
Total $15,373.5
* Population data from the U.S. Census, Population Division, July 2021.
37
The CO debt for the Big 6 accounted for 10.8 percent ($1.65 billion) of the total Cities’ CO debt
outstanding (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3
Texas Cities
Big 6 Cities with Certificates of Obligation Outstanding
CO Debt CO as % of Issuer's Rank by
CO Amount per Tax-Supported CO Debt
($ in millions) Capita Debt Outstanding Outstanding
San Antonio $590.0 406 24.5% 2nd
El Paso 584.2 861 36.9% 3rd
Austin 335.7 348 20.8% 7th
Fort Worth 71.1 76 7.8% 51st
Dallas 58.7 46 3.0% 60th
Houston 13.0 6 0.4% 213th
Subtotal $1,652.7
Other City CO Issuers 13,720.7
Total $15,373.5
* Population data from the U.S. Census, Population Division, July 2021.
38
Counties
As of August 31, 2022, Texas Counties had $3.16 billion of CO debt outstanding. Of the Counties
with CO debt outstanding, their CO debt accounted for 38.1 percent of their total tax-supported debt
outstanding. Of the 87 Counties with CO debt outstanding, the top 20 had $2.69 billion (85.2 percent)
of the total Counties CO debt outstanding (Table 5.4).
Table 5.4
Texas Counties
Top 20 Issuers of Certificates of Obligation Outstanding
CO Amount ($ CO Debt per % of Issuer's Tax-
in millions) Capita* Supported Debt
Bexar County $576.2 $284 28.7%
Travis County 508.0 389 51.9%
Hidalgo County 297.9 338 81.1%
Dallas County 232.9 90 98.4%
Fort Bend County 129.8 151 19.5%
Cameron County 121.2 287 56.8%
Brazoria County 94.0 248 69.9%
San Patricio County 86.0 1,234 87.9%
Bell County 76.9 203 52.0%
Nueces County 74.3 211 44.5%
Webb County 71.5 267 67.1%
Potter County 65.4 561 97.2%
Tom Green County 57.1 478 100.0%
Chambers County 52.3 1,071 60.9%
McLennan County 47.0 179 78.1%
Comal County 46.1 264 37.8%
Brazos County 44.7 189 55.0%
Ector County 42.0 260 100.0%
Williamson County 34.7 54 3.0%
Bastrop County 31.7 310 75.0%
Subtotal of Top 20 CO Issuers $2,689.7 $236 39.4%
Other CO Issuers 467.6 108 31.8%
Total $3,157.3 $201 38.1%

* Population data from the U.S. Census, Population Division, July 2021. Total population based
on issuers with debt outstanding. Excludes conduit debt.
39
Over the past 10 fiscal years ending August 31, 2022, Counties CO debt outstanding has increased by
19.1 percent from $2.65 billion to $3.16 billion (Figure 5.4).
40
As of August 31, 2022, three HHDs had CO debt outstanding totaling $667.6 million (Table 5.5).
These issuances accounted for 27.2 percent of total HHD tax-supported debt outstanding and 18.9
percent of total HHD debt outstanding, including revenue debt.
Table 5.5
Texas Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities
with Certificates of Obligation Outstanding
COs as % of
Tax-Supported
Amount* Debt
Issuer ($ in millions) Outstanding
Bexar County Hospital District (University Health
System) $391.5 44.8%
El Paso County Hospital District 126.6 40.8%
Harris County Hospital District 76.4 100.0%
Travis County Healthcare District 73.2 93.7%
Total $667.6
41
Figure 5.5 shows HHD CO debt outstanding relative to total tax-supported HHD debt outstanding.
During the 10-year period, HHD CO debt outstanding decreased 25.7 percent from $898.3 million in
2013 to $667.6 million in 2022.
42
Appendix A
Bond Election Results
Bond elections are required before the issuance of certain debt obligations that pledge unlimited or
limited ad valorem taxes of a local government for repayment. Bond elections are generally held on a
uniform election date. Section 41.001 of the Election Code states a uniform election date is one of
the following: the first Saturday in May in an odd numbered year; the first Saturday in May in an
even numbered year (excluding counties); or the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Texas local governments are not required to provide the Texas Bond Review Board (BRB) with
bond election information. Such information has been obtained from various sources, including
newspaper articles, the Municipal Advisory Council’s Texas Bond Reporter, official statements, and the
U.S. Department of Justice.
Table A.1 shows the number of voter-approved bond elections for the past five fiscal years. During
fiscal year 2022, a total of 251 local governments held 536 bond elections approving the potential
issuance of $32.16 billion of additional debt. Approximately $13.98 billion of bond election debt was
defeated during fiscal year 2022. Approximately 36 local governments cancelled 80 elections during
the May 2, 2020, and Nov 3, 2020, elections.
Separately, on November 8, 2022, 106 local governments held 212 bond elections, with 77 local
governments approving 139 bond elections totaling $19.27 billion. Approximately 73 bond elections
were defeated totaling $3.37 billion of potential debt.
Table A.1
Number of Bond Election Propositions Approved by Fiscal Year
Total Percentage
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Approved
Elections Percent Elections Percent Elections Percent Elections Percent Elections Percent
Carried Carried Carried Carried Carried Carried Carried Carried Carried Carried
ISDs 97 73% 100 81% 50 77% 133 74% 156 49% 65%
Cities 67 83% 88 98% 20 67% 68 87% 49 70% 84%
WDs 81 94% 93 90% 29 91% 39 87% 110 77% 86%
OSDs 0 N/A 0 N/A 1 100% 0 N/A 0 N/A 100%
Counties 8 80% 6 100% 6 86% 5 63% 3 50% 76%
CCDs 0 0% 3 100% 1 100% 2 67% 0 N/A 75%
HHDs 0 0% 3 100% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A 60%
Total 253 81% 293 89% 107 78% 247 79% 318 59% 75%
Source: Bond Buyer, Municipal Advisory Council's Texas Bond Reporter, and U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division - Voting Section.
43
Table A.2 shows the voter-approved election amounts for the past five fiscal years for each of the
local government categories.
Table A.2
Estimated Bond Election Results by Fiscal Year
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Election Amount $13,472.1 $14,340.6 $7,232.9 $16,030.6 $25,338.4
Amount Approved 11,854.0 11,820.7 5,785.2 13,914.4 15,722.9
Percent Approved 88.0% 82.4% 80.0% 86.8% 62.1%
Election Amount $3,890.6 $3,153.8 $906.0 $3,002.4 $3,138.7
Amount Approved 3,659.5 3,123.7 870.7 2,663.9 2,784.3
Election Amount $8,037.0 $7,577.6 $2,557.8 $1,756.9 $16,872.5
Amount Approved 7,808.3 7,254.4 2,451.7 1,497.8 13,060.5
Election Amount $0.0 $0.0 $3,500.0 $0.0 $0.0
Amount Approved 0.0 0.0 3,500.0 0.0 0.0
Percent Approved N/A N/A 100.0% N/A N/A
Counties
Election Amount $707.4 $917.0 $712.6 $392.4 $798.0
Amount Approved 562.4 917.0 698.6 334.3 595.0
Election Amount $48.5 $1,353.7 $825.0 $152.8 $0.0
Amount Approved 0.0 1,353.7 825.0 138.9 0.0
Percent Approved 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.9% N/A
Election Amount $7.2 $841.5 $9.0 $0.0 $0.0
Amount Approved 0.0 841.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Percent Approved 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% N/A N/A
Total Election Amount $26,162.8 $28,184.2 $15,743.4 $21,335.0 $46,147.6
Total Amount Approved $23,884.3 $25,310.8 $14,131.2 $18,549.3 $32,162.6
Total Percent Approved 91.3% 89.8% 89.8% 86.9% 69.7%
Source: Bond Buyer, Municipal Advisory Council's Texas Bond Reporter, and U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights
Division - Voting Section.
44
The detailed results of the fiscal year 2022 elections are shown in Tables A.3 through A.6.
Table A.3
Carried Propositions
Bond Elections May 07, 2022
($ in millions)
Amount
Issuer County Purpose Carried
Abbott ISD Hill SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements $12.0
Alvarado ISD Johnson Athletic Facilities Improvements/School Building/Gym 125.0
Anahuac ISD Chambers School Building 47.0
Aransas County ISD Aransas SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 66.0
Argyle ISD Denton School Building, Atheltics, Renovations 267.9
Aubrey ISD Denton Athletic Facilities Improvements/School Building 385.9
Baird ISD Callahan School Building & Buses 17.0
Bartlett ISD Bell SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 20.0
Beckville ISD Panola SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 17.0
Belton ISD Bell School Building & Security/Technology 173.8
Blanco ISD Blanco School Building 40.0
Bloomington ISD Victoria School Building 1.1
Boerne ISD Kendall School Building 165.6
Bridge City ISD Orange School Building 72.4
Buena Vista ISD Pecos School Building & Buses 60.0
Bullard ISD Smith Athletic Facilities Improvements 103.0
Cameron ISD Milam School Building 15.9
Center ISD Shelby Athletic Facilities Improvements 12.0
Community ISD Collin School Building & Buses 595.6
Coolidge ISD Limestone SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 7.0
Cotulla ISD La Salle School Building, Athletic Facility, Transportation 65.0
Crandall ISD Kaufman School, buses, technology 365.0
Culberson County-Allamoore ISD Culberson School Building 23.0

Deer Park ISD Harris School Building & Buses 160.0
Del Valle ISD Travis School Building 300.0
East Chambers ISD Chambers SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 9.8
45
Table A.3 (continued)
($ in millions)
Amount
Public School Districts Cont'd
Fairfield ISD Freestone School Building Improvements $8.0
Florence ISD Williamson Athletic Facilities Improvements 49.3
Forney ISD Kaufman School Building 1294.0
Fort Stockton ISD Pecos Technology 3.0
Fredericksburg ISD Gillespie School, Buses, Tech 82.0
Galveston ISD Galveston School Building & Buses & technology 314.8
Granger ISD Williamson School Building, Athletic Facility & Transportation 44.0
Gunter ISD Grayson School Building 78.8
Harlandale ISD Bexar SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 125.0
Hays CISD Hays School Building & Buses 115.6
Hitchcock ISD Galveston SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 43.6
Humble ISD Harris School Building 775.0
Ingram ISD Kerr School Building & Buses 25.2
Kelton ISD Wheeler School Building & Buses 6.0
Klein ISD Harris School Building & Security 895.3
Krum ISD Denton School Building & Stadium 244.7
Lago Vista ISD Travis Housing Facility 26.5
Leon ISD Leon School Building 10.0
Littlefield ISD Lamb SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 39.1
London ISD Nueces School Building & Stadium 96.1
Lyford CISD Willacy Athletic Facilities Improvements 24.7
Mineola ISD Wood School Building 29.9
Montgomery ISD Montgomery Athletic Facilities Improvements 326.9
Normangee ISD Leon SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 18.6
Northside ISDa Bexar School Building & Buses 992.0
Pasadena ISD Harris Athletic Facilities Improvements 305.0
46
($ in millions)
Amount
Peaster ISD Parker School Building & Buses $3.5
Pleasant Grove ISD Bowie SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 39.9
Pottsboro ISD Grayson School Building 62.0
Prairiland ISD Lamar School Building 16.0
Sanger ISD Denton Athletic Facilities Improvements 130.0
Shallowater ISD Lubbock School Building 50.0
Spring Branch ISD Harris School Building & Technology 381.6
Taft ISD San Patricio Refunding Notes 5.4
Temple ISD Bell School Building 164.8
Thrall ISD Williamson SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 64.8
Trenton ISD Fannin School Building Improvements 0.8
Tyler ISD Smith School Building 89.0
Veribest ISD Tom Green School Building 15.5
White Settlement ISD Tarrant SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 115.0
Whitewright ISD Grayson School Building 15.0
Willis ISD Montgomery SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 143.1
Woodville ISD Tyler School Building 47.9
Public School Districts Total $10,444.5
Burleson Johnson Public Safety & Street $86.0
Cedar Park Williamson Public Safety Facilities & Transportation 158.8
El Campo Wharton Fire Station Improvements 1.7
Fort Worth Tarrant Parks & Recreation & Police & Fire 560.0
Haltom City Tarrant City Hall 25.0
47
($ in millions)
Amount
Cities, Towns, Villages Cont'd
Kerrville Kerr Public Safety Facilities $45.0
Live Oak Bexar Street & Bridge 18.0
Longview Gregg, Harrison PensionObligation 45.6
Mansfield Tarrant Parks & Recreation 10.5
San Antonio Bexar Parks & Recreation & Public Safety Facilities 1200.0
Shavano Park Bexar Road 10.0
Winnsboro Wood Animal Care & Control & Street & Bridge 6.6
Cities, Towns, Villages Total $2,167.2
Bissonnet MUD Harris Water, Sewer & Drainage $35.0
Canyon Ranch MUD Comal Water, Sewer, Drainage, & Refunding 2863.8
Decker Prairie MUD Montgomery Water, Sewer, Drainage, & Refunding 446.3
Harris County MUD 064 Harris Water, Sewer & Drainage 43.0
Harris County MUD 205 Harris Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 20.0
Harris County MUD 390 Harris Roads and Refunding 114.0
Harris County WCID 092 Harris Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 37.5
Harris County WCID 119 Harris Water, Sewer & Drainage 72.5
Laguna Madre WD Cameron Water & Sewer 20.8
Montgomery County MUD 162 Montgomery Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 550.7
Montgomery County MUD 191 Montgomery Parks & Recreation Refunding 29.9
48
($ in millions)
Amount
Water Districts and Authorities Cont'd
Montgomery County MUD 209 Montgomery Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding $32.4
Mustang Ridge MUD Travis Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 525.4
Round Rock MUD 1 Williamson Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 180.0
San Gabriel MUD 1 Williamson Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 229.5
Travis-Creedmoor MUD Travis Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 380.7
Williamson County MUD 19G Williamson Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 550.0
Williamson County MUD 19H Williamson Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 565.0
Williamson County MUD 21 Williamson Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 2977.5
Water Districts and Authorities Total $11,249.5
Total Carried $23,861.2
49
Table A.4
Defeated Propositions
($ in millions)
Amount
Issuer County Purpose Defeated
Alba-Golden ISD Wood School Building/Gym $16.0
Amarillo ISD Potter-Randall Athletic Facilities Improvements 285.9
Aquilla ISD Hill SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 9.3
Bonham ISD Fannin School Building 53.6
Brenham ISD Washington School Building & Security 153.9
Brookesmith ISD Brown School Building, Atheltics, Renovations 10.0
Brownsboro ISD Henderson School Building & Technology 20.5
Athletic Facilities Improvements & School
Callisburg ISD Cooke Building & Gymnasium 28.5
Carrizo Springs CISD Dimmit Athletic Facilities Improvements 112.5
Chapel Hill ISDa Smith School Building, Atheltics, Renovations 125.2
Chilton ISD Falls School Building, Atheltics, Renovations 28.9
Columbus ISD Colorado School Building 90.0
Community ISD Collin Multi-Pupose Center 54.4
Connally ISD McLennan School Building 39.0
Corsicana ISD Navarro Multi-Pupose Center 80.0
Williamson-
Coupland ISD Travis SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 91.6
Crandall ISD Kaufman Stadium 35.0
Cross Roads ISD Henderson Athletic Facilities Improvements 2.0
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD Tarrant School Building 275.0
Ector County ISD Ector School Building & Technology 398.3
Edcouch-Elsa ISD Hidalgo School Building 26.0
Era ISD Cooke School Building 12.7
50
($ in millions)
Amount
Ferris ISD Ellis Athletic Facilities Improvements $79.0
Fort Stockton ISD Pecos School Building & Buses 107.0
Goliad ISD Goliad School Building Improvements 65.0
Granbury ISD Hood School Building 394.0
Greenville ISD Hunt School Building 169.4
Hallettsville ISD Lavaca School Building 13.8
Huffman ISD Harris Athletic Facilities Improvements 101.8
Idalou ISD Lubbock Athletic Facilities Improvements 16.1
Iola ISD Grimes School Building 24.0
Itasca ISD Hill School Building 20.0
Joshua ISD Johnson School Building & Technology 97.5
Kaufman ISD Kaufman SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 79.6
Klein ISD Harris Event Center 206.5
Krum ISD Denton Stadium 30.3
Little Elm ISD Denton School Building, Buses & Technology 398.5
Longview ISD Gregg Athletic Facilities Improvements 230.0
Louise ISD Wharton School Building 17.0
Mabank ISD Kaufman School Building 94.0
Marion ISD Guadalupe School Building 39.3
Medina Valley ISD Medina School Building 397.2
Meyersville ISD DeWitt School Building 5.0
Mount Vernon ISD Franklin Athletic Facilities Improvements 52.3
51
($ in millions)
Amount
New Diana ISD Upshur Athletic Facilities Improvements $23.8
Olney ISD Young Athletic Facilities Improvements 6.0
Paint Rock ISD Concho School Building 11.8
Poolville ISD Parker School Building & Buses 32.6
Ranger ISD Eastland Athletic Facilities Improvements 5.0
Red Oak ISD Ellis Multi-Pupose Center 230.1
Sabinal ISD Uvalde School Building 4.5
San Saba ISD San Saba School Building 18.0
Santa Fe ISD Galveston School Building 39.0
Santa Rosa ISD Cameron School Building 7.5
Seymour ISD Baylor School Building 29.5
Sheldon ISD Harris School Building & Technology 736.6
Stephenville ISD Erath Athletic Facilities Improvements 75.0
Sulphur Springs ISD Hopkins School Building & Buses 93.0
Terrell ISD Kaufman Performing Arts 95.0
Thrall ISD Williamson Stadium 3.7
Trenton ISD Fannin School Building 44.7
Waelder ISD Gonzales School Building 12.0
Willis ISD Montgomery Aquatic Center 82.0
Wills Point ISD Van Zandt School Building 72.0
52
($ in millions)
Amount
Burkburnett Wichita Street and Drainage $10.7
Mansfield Tarrant Baseball Park 145.0
Windcrest Bexar Aquatic Center 5.0
Winnsboro Wood City Building 4.4
Cities, Towns, Villages Total $165.1
Fort Bend County MUD 175 Fort Bend Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding $797.2
Fort Bend County MUD 183 Fort Bend Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 1074.4
Montgomery County MUD 140 Montgomery Parks & Recreation Refunding 29.3
Montgomery County MUD 203 Montgomery Water, Sewer & Drainage 73.8
New Caney MUD Montgomery Water & Sewer 220.6
New Sweden MUD 1 Travis Water, Sewer, Drainage & Refunding 1057.5
Northwest Harris County MUD 05 Harris Water, Sewer & Drainage 118.0
Rancho del Cielo MUD Williamson Water, Sewer & Drainage 243.8
Sun Lake Improvement District Harris Water, Sewer & Drainage 197.5
Total Defeated $10,184.2
53
Table A.5
Bond Elections November 02, 2021
($ in millions)
Amount
Alief ISD Harris Athletic Facilities Improvements $522.3
Azle ISD Tarrant School Building 24.1
Burton ISD Washington SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 43.9
Clarksville ISD Red River SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 16.8
College Station ISD Brazos School Building 78.1
Comal ISD Bexar, Athletic Facilities Improvements 472.8
Commerce ISD Hunt SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 68.0
Douglass ISD Nacogdoches School Building 10.0
Elgin ISD Bastrop School Building 178.9
Fort Worth ISD Tarrant School Building 1211.0
Georgetown ISD Williamson School Building & Buses 349.9
Gordon ISD Palo Pinto School Building 12.0
Hamshire-Fannett ISD Jefferson Stadium 1.5
High Island ISD Galveston School Building & Buses 8.6
Hooks ISD Bowie Athletic Facilities Improvements 12.5
Kilgore ISD Gregg School Building 113.0
Leander ISD Williamson Technology 33.3
Leon ISD Leon Athletic Facilities Improvements 10.0
Lone Oak ISD Hunt School Building 44.9
Mount Calm ISD Hill School Building 8.7
Mount Enterprise ISD Rusk School Building 10.0
Navarro ISD Guadalupe School Building 130.0
54
($ in millions)
Amount
New Braunfels ISD Comal School Building & Buses $327.9
New Deal ISD Lubbock 48.5
New Waverly ISD Walker 24.5
Paint Creek ISD Haskell 6.4
Pilot Point ISD Denton 38.4
Point Isabel ISD Cameron 27.0
Priddy ISD Mills 1.4
Rockwall ISD Rockwall 475.8
Skidmore-Tynan ISD Bee 14.6
Tomball ISD Harris 494.5
Vernon ISD Wilbarger 40.0
Victoria ISD Victoria 25.8
Waco ISD McLennan 355.0
Westwood ISD Anderson 38.3
Athens Henderson Police Station $5.5
Buda Hays Parks & Recreation 89.7
Copperas Cove Coryell Animal Care & Control 4.1
Lewisville Denton Public Safety 95.0
Marlin Falls Streets & Roads 2.4
Missouri City Fort Bend Parks & Recreation 85.9
55
($ in millions)
Amount
Cities, Towns, Villages Cont'd
Richardson Dallas-Collin Public Safety $190.0
Sachse Dallas-Collin Streets & Sidewalks 54.0
Schertz Guadalupe Public Safety 15.5
West Lake Hills Travis Municipal Building 25.0
Wylie Collin District-wide Capital Improvements 50.1
Alpha Ranch WCID Wise Water, Sewer & Drainage $979.7
Fort Bend County MUD 041 Fort Bend Water, Sewer & Drainage 20.2
Fort Bend County MUD 122 Fort Bend Parks & Recreation 6.0
Fort Bend County MUD 195 Fort Bend Water, Sewer & Drainage 299.1
Fort Bend County WCID 3 Fort Bend Water, Sewer & Drainage 18.8
Lumberton MUD Hardin Water Related 74.3
Morningstar Ranch MUD 1 Parker Road Utilities 105.0
Northwest Williamson County MUD 2 Williamson Refunding 100.0
56
($ in millions)
Amount
Counties
Rockwall County Rockwall Road $150.0
Smith County Smith Road 45.0
Tarrant County Tarrant Street & Bridge 400.0
Counties Total $595.0
Total Carried $8,306.4
57
Table A.6
($ in millions)
Amount
Alice ISD Jim Wells Athletic Facility & School Building Improv $5.9
Alief ISD Harris Stadium 19.4
Allen ISD Collin School Building & Sports Complex & Stad 23.6
Azle ISD Tarrant SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 25.8
Bartlett ISD Bell SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 20.0
Bellville ISD Austin Athletic Facilities Improvements 112.4
Bloomington ISD Victoria School Building 1.1
Cameron ISD Milam School Building 14.5
Canutillo ISD El Paso School Building & Security 187.5
Cleveland ISD Liberty School Building 150.0
College Station ISD Brazos School Building/Stadium 5.0
Comal ISD Guadalupe, Hays Stadium 54.9
Connally ISD McLennan School Building 39.0
Cross Roads ISD Henderson SchoolBuildingAthleticImprovements 7.0
Crystal City ISD Zavala Athletic Facilities Improvements 9.8
East Central ISD Bexar School Building 172.5
Elgin ISD Bastrop Athletic Facilities Improvements 11.0
Fort Worth ISD Tarrant Athletic Facilities Improvements & School 279.4
Gainesville ISD Cooke School Building 70.0
Garner ISD Parker School Building & Buses 20.0
Georgetown ISD Williamson Athletic Facilities Improvements & School 31.8
Greenwood ISD Midland School Building, Athletic Facility, Transpor 140.0
Judson ISD Bexar School Building 302.5
Leander ISD Williamson School Building & Buses 738.9
58
($ in millions)
Amount
Navarro ISD Guadalupe Athletic Facilities Improvements $30.0
New Braunfels ISD Comal Stadium 20.1
Normangee ISD Leon School Building & Buses 20.0
Point Isabel ISD Cameron Athletic Facilities Improvements 15.5
Royal ISD Waller School Building 99.5
Sanford-Fritch ISD Hutchinson School Building & Buses 5.0
Santa Fe ISD Galveston School Building & Technology 110.0
Scurry-Rosser ISD Kaufman School Building 20.0
Southside ISD Bexar School Building 52.0
Springtown ISD Parker School Building 41.0
Taft ISD San Patricio Refunding 5.4
Temple ISD Bell School Building 184.9
Tomball ISD Harris Athletic Facilities Improvements 73.1
Victoria ISD Victoria School Building Improvements 174.9
White Settlement ISD Tarrant School Building 115.0
Lubbock Lubbock Road $174.5
Rhome Wise Parks & Recreation 9.9
Windcrest Bexar Aquatic Center 4.9
59
($ in millions)
Amount
Counties
Hunt County Hunt Jail $75.0
Newton County Newton Jail 12.0
Tarrant County Tarrant County Building 116.0
Counties Total $203.0
Total Defeated $3,795.9
60
Appendix B
Texas Local Government Conduit Debt
Conduit, component, and related organization debt has been excluded from this report, except for
data presented in this appendix and certain data presented in Appendix F, Commercial Paper. A conduit
issuer is usually a government agency or a creation of the agency (such as a nonprofit corporation
sponsored by a local government) that issues municipal securities to finance revenue-generating
projects. The funds generated are generally used by a third party (known as the "conduit borrower"
or "obligor"), and it is generally the responsibility of the obligor to make debt-service payments.
Most conduit debt is issued for projects that benefit the public or segments of the public within the
geographical area of the sponsoring agency. Some conduit issuers can issue debt for projects that
benefit the Texas public at large. The purposes and locations of projects funded by conduit debt are
governed by the Texas law used to establish the conduit issuer. The projects include transportation,
airports, ports, housing, utilities, culture, higher education, recreation, and health, as well as
industrial and economic development.
Not all Texas local government conduit issuers are required to provide issuance information to the
Texas Bond Review Board (BRB) pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 1202.008.
However, basic information on all conduit issuances that require approval by the Office of the
Attorney General (OAG) is forwarded by the OAG to the BRB. In prior years, this data was
retained but not included in the BRB Debt Database. Beginning in fiscal year 2017, the BRB has
added current conduit issuances into the database. There is an ongoing BRB project to enter conduit
issuance data from prior years into the database as well. At the end of this project, all conduit debt
outstanding and debt service outstanding information from 2003 onwards will be included, based on
data provided to the BRB in those years.
Conduit Debt Issuance

In fiscal year 2022, 74 local government conduits issued 179 new debt instruments for a total of
$6.95 billion, a decrease of 2.2 percent from the $7.11 billion issued in fiscal year 2021. New money
debt issuance increased 5.2 percent (from $4.95 billion in 2021 to $5.21 billion in 2022) and
refunding debt issuance decreased 19.2 percent (from $2.16 billion in 2021 to $1.74 billion in 2022).
Since fiscal year 2018, total conduit issuance increased $4.18 billion (151.2 percent) from $2.77
billion, new money debt issuance increased $3.56 billion (216.1 percent) from $1.65 billion, and
refunding debt issuance increased $623.2 million (55.7 percent), from $1.12 billion.
In almost all cases, conduit debt is backed by a revenue stream. All conduit debt issued in the past
five years was revenue debt, except for $25.0 million of toll road combination tax/revenue refunding
bonds issued in 2020, $34.4 million of toll road combination tax/revenue new money bonds issued
in 2021, and $138.8 million of toll road combination tax/revenue refunding bonds issued in 2022.
Conduit entities also issue commercial paper. Commercial paper outstanding balances reported by
conduits over the past 10 years are presented at the end of Appendix F, Commercial Paper.
61
Table B.1 shows conduit debt issuance by local government conduit types with a new
money/refunding breakdown.
Table B.1
Conduit Debt Issuance by Fiscal Year*
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 TOTAL
Issuers 50 41 67 71 74 303
Issuances 100 94 172 173 179 718
New Money $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Refunding 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0.0 0.0
Total Par Issued $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
New Money $955.4 $1,416.5 $1,966.9 $2,435.5 $2,360.4 $9,134.7
Refunding 573.7 475.8 853.1 1,427.3 996.3 4,326.2
Total Par Issued $1,529.1 $1,892.3 $2,820.0 $3,862.8 $3,356.7 $13,461.0
New Money $0.0 $315.0 $6.5 $459.6 $0.0 $781.1
Refunding 0.0 315.0 4.1 93.6 0.0 412.8
Total Par Issued $0.0 $630.0 $10.6 $553.3 $0.0 $1,193.9
New Money $375.0 $345.9 $841.1 $847.8 $1,470.4 $3,880.3
Refunding 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 54.8 59.0
Total Par Issued $375.0 $345.9 $841.1 $852.0 $1,525.2 $3,939.3
Counties
New Money $209.9 $530.3 $1,154.2 $1,206.4 $1,374.7 $4,475.5
Refunding 546.0 591.4 1,379.8 584.1 691.8 3,793.0
Total Par Issued $755.9 $1,121.7 $2,533.9 $1,790.5 $2,066.5 $8,268.6
New Money $106.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $106.4
Refunding 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6
Total Par Issued $106.4 $0.0 $0.0 $47.6 $0.0 $154.0
New Money $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Refunding 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Par Issued $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Total New Money $1,646.8 $2,607.8 $3,968.6 $4,949.3 $5,205.5 $18,378.1
Total Refunding $1,119.7 $1,382.2 $2,237.0 $2,156.8 $1,742.9 $8,638.6
Total Par $2,766.4 $3,989.9 $6,205.7 $7,106.2 $6,948.5 $27,016.7
*Excludes commercial paper.
62
Cities conduit entities issued $3.36 billion in debt in fiscal year 2022, 48.3 percent of the total 2022
conduit debt issued; $2.36 billion was new money debt, and $996.3 million was refunding debt. Such
revenue debt is often issued as a loan to third parties to finance the acquisition of land, and to
construct or expand, furnish, and equip certain cultural, educational, housing, health-related, or
correctional facilities.
Counties conduit entities can issue revenue and lease-revenue debt. Some can issue tax-supported
debt. Historically, Counties conduit revenue debt has been issued for pollution control and
residential rental projects. Many Counties conduit lease-revenue obligations are issued by nonprofit
corporations formed by Counties to finance the acquisition of land and to construct or expand,
furnish, and equip county projects, including adult or juvenile correctional facilities that may house
county, state, or federal prisoners. In fiscal year 2022, Counties issued $2.07 billion in conduit debt,
29.7 percent of the total issued in 2022; $1.37 billion was new money debt, and $691.8 million was
refunding debt. Included in the new money debt amount is $138.8 million issued by Fort Bend
Grand Parkway Toll Road Authority, supported by a combination of tax and revenue.
Other Special Districts and Authorities issued $1.53 billion in conduit debt in fiscal year 2022, 22.0
percent of the total fiscal year 2022 conduit debt issuance; $1.47 billion was new money debt, and
$54.8 million was refunding debt.
Many Water Districts and Authorities (WDs) create conduit issuers to raise funds for pollution and
solid waste disposal facilities. No conduit debt was issued in fiscal year 2022 by WDs.
Community and Junior College Districts (CCDs) can execute lease-purchase agreements that
provide security for lease-revenue obligations issued by nonprofit corporations formed by CCDs.
No conduit debt was issued in fiscal year 2022 by CCDs.
No conduit debt was issued in fiscal year 2022 by Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities
(HHDs). HHD conduit debt was last issued in 1985 and matured in 2011.
The conduit debt issued by Public School Districts (School Districts) is not included in this
appendix. School Districts create Public Facility Corporations (PFCs) to issue debt on behalf of the
school districts. The BRB has historically included this PFC debt as lease-purchase revenue debt of
the school district, and this revenue debt is included in the total debt outstanding of School Districts
in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 of this report.
On December 5, 2022, the Bond Buyer published an article titled "Lingering pain for senior living
bonds spurs bankruptcy cases in Texas”, where they spoke of nursing homes/senior living centers
that were defaulting due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a depressed housing market.
The article stated, “Back in May, Christian Care said it owed $50.8 million in outstanding principal
and $3.256 million in unpaid interest on bonds it sold in 2014 and 2016 through the Mesquite
Health Facilities Development Corporation, while its assets totaled about $52.4 million. The debtor
turned to bankruptcy because an asset sale was not likely to pay bondholders in full, its
representative said at that time”.
The article also mentions, “In the Western District of Texas Bankruptcy Court, Glen Hope Harbor,
Inc. filed a Chapter 7 liquidation case in March after closing its properties in February. The
63
nonprofit, which sold $38.12 million of mostly tax-exempt revenue bonds in 2015 through New
Hope Cultural Education Facilities Corporation to acquire 144 assisted living and memory care units
in the Houston and San Antonio areas, began drawing on the debt service reserve fund in 2019 and
defaulting in 2020. Following the sale of the properties by the Chapter 7 trustee, Wilmington Trust,
the bond trustee, announced last week $11.8 million of the sale proceeds will be distributed to
bondholders this week. The New Hope corporation, a nonprofit entity created by the New Hope,
Texas, town council, was the conduit issuer for other defaulted senior living bonds, including $230.7
million issued in 2016 and $52.6 million sold in 2017”.
64
Appendix C
Texas Charter Schools
History
Local government education finance corporations (EFCs) issue the majority of charter school debt
in Texas. These conduit corporations are created by Texas municipalities to issue debt on behalf of
charter school borrowers. Debt issued by EFCs is secured by the revenues of the borrower and is
not an obligation of the municipality. (Because debt issued by local government EFCs is not
reported to the Texas Bond Review Board (BRB), staff relied on multiple sources to compile the
data used in this Appendix.)
Public charter schools were authorized by the legislature in 1995 to offer publicly funded alternate
education options to parents within the public school system. The Texas Education Code, Chapter
12, provides for four types of charter schools: home-rule charters, campus or district charters, open-
enrollment charters, and university charters. Most charters in Texas are open enrollment.
Open-enrollment charter schools function like public school districts in that they provide tuition-
free instruction and must accept any student that applies, subject to enrollment constraints. Charter
schools have no taxing authority and receive most of their funding from the state based on their
enrollment. Charter schools are subject to fewer restrictions than public schools, but they must meet
certain requirements for financial, governing, and operating standards adopted by the Texas
Commissioner of Education (Commissioner). State law requires fiscal and academic accountability
for charter schools, and the state monitors and accredits charter schools in the same manner as
public school districts.
Pursuant to Texas Education Code, Section 53.351, the Texas Public Finance Authority (TPFA)
established the Texas Public Finance Authority Charter School Finance Corporation (Corporation)
to act as a conduit to facilitate the issuance of revenue bonds for the acquisition, construction,
repair, or renovation of educational facilities for authorized open-enrollment charter schools. All
issuances of charter school debt issued by the Corporation must be approved by the BRB.
Permanent School Fund Bond Guarantee Program

In 1854, the 5th Legislature created the Texas Permanent School Fund (PSF) expressly for the
benefit of public schools. In addition, the Constitution of 1876 stipulated that certain lands and
proceeds from the sale of those lands would also be dedicated to the PSF. The Constitution requires
that distributions from the returns on the PSF be made to the Available School Fund to be used for
the benefit of public schools, and it allows the PSF to be used to guarantee bonds issued by public
schools.
The PSF Bond Guarantee Program (BGP) was created in 1983 as an alternative for school districts
to avoid the cost of private bond insurance by obtaining a PSF guarantee for voter-approved public
school bond issuances.
65
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) reviews each BGP applicant for financial soundness,
accreditation status, and complaints from the public regarding misconduct and rules violations.
Applicants for the BGP must have an investment grade rating below triple-A from at least one of
the top credit rating agencies. Bonds guaranteed by the BGP are rated AAA from all three major
credit rating agencies.
Texas Education Code, Section 12.135, passed by the 82nd Legislature (2011), permits charter
schools to participate in the BGP, but they must apply and be approved by the Commissioner to
participate in the program. In January 2014, the State Board of Education adopted rules for charter
school participation in the BGP, and the program was opened to charter schools in March 2014.
The BGP capacity for all schools is currently set at the lower of a multiple of 3.50 times the PSF
book value or the Internal Revenue Service-set limitation of $117.32 billion, minus a 5 percent
reserve. The State Board of Education has also required an additional 5 percent of charter capacity
to be set aside as a reserve. Prior to fiscal year 2018, the capacity for charter schools was calculated
using the available PSF capacity multiplied by the ratio of the number of charter school students to
public school students determined annually by the Commissioner (currently set at 6.98 percent),
applied against the available capacity of the BGP. The available capacity is defined as maximum
allowable for guarantee, less total amount of outstanding guaranteed bonds, and less the State Board
of Education-established reserve on the total program. Effective September 1, 2017, the 85th
Legislature (2015) amended the Educational Code, Section 45.0532, related to the calculation of the
capacity of the bond guarantee program, through Senate Bill 1480 (SB 1480). SB 1480 changes the
charter capacity calculation formula to apply the ratio of charter students described above directly
against the maximum allowable overall program guarantee net of the 5 percent reserve on the total
program. This methodology was designed to be fully phased in over five years.
Charter School Closures

Senate Bill 2 passed in the 83rd Legislature (2013) requires the mandatory revocation of a charter by
the Commissioner if a charter school fails to meet academic or financial accountability performance
ratings for the preceding three school years. As a result of this legislation, 22 charter school
revocations have occurred between 2014 and 2022.
66
As of October 31, 2022, a total of $7.21 billion of debt had been issued for charter schools by EFCs
and other higher education authorities, of which an estimated $5.64 billion is currently outstanding.
Table C.1 shows total higher education authority and EFC issuances since the inception of the BGP.
Table C.1
Total Charter School Debt by Issuer (Estimated)
as of October 31, 2022
Issuer Par Issued Par Outstanding % Outstanding
Arlington Higher Education Finance Corporation $ 2,720,449,000 $ 2,486,410,000 91.4%
Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation 2,275,590,213 2,038,923,015 89.6%
New Hope Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corporation 407,745,000 264,395,000 64.8%
Houston Higher Education Finance Corporation, City of 407,366,600 271,361,600 66.6%
Texas Public Finance Auth Charter School Finance Corporation 353,320,000 113,995,000 32.3%
Newark Higher Education Finance Corporation 233,615,000 182,770,000 78.2%
La Vernia Higher Education Finance Corporation 202,390,000 - 0.0%
Danbury Higher Education Authority, Inc. 118,597,000 66,268,000 55.9%
North Texas Education Finance Corporation 80,780,000 8,075,000 10.0%
Pottsboro Higher Education Finance Corporation 66,930,000 60,630,000 0.0%
San Juan Higher Education Finance Authority 43,955,000 8,275,000 18.8%
Austin Achieve Public Schools Inc 34,916,423 29,644,044 84.9%
Pharr Higher Education Finance Authority, City of 29,625,000 - 0.0%
Beasley Higher Education Finance Corporation 25,405,000 - 0.0%
Greater Texas Cultural Education Finance Corporation 25,090,000 25,090,000 100.0%
Travis Co Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp 20,865,000 6,200,000 29.7%
New Hope Higher Education Finance Corporation 20,400,000 20,400,000 100.0%
Tom Green Co Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corporation 17,170,000 14,745,000 85.9%
Cameron, City of Education Corporation 16,640,000 - 0.0%
Newark Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corporation 15,515,000 - 0.0%
Heart of Texas Education Finance Corporation 14,835,000 7,260,000 48.9%
Anson Education Facilities Corporation 14,465,000 8,105,000 56.0%
Orchard Higher Education Finance Corporation 11,330,000 - 0.0%
Tarrant Co Cultural Education Fac Finance Corp 9,390,000 - 0.0%
Waxahachie Education Finance Corporation 6,515,000 6,515,000 100.0%
Northeast Higher Education Facilities Corporation 6,330,000 5,210,000 82.3%
Clyde Education Facilities Corporation 6,240,000 4,340,000 69.6%
Imagine International Academy of North Texas, LLC 4,500,000 4,475,140 99.4%
Hilshire Village Higher Education Finance Corporation 4,123,000 2,803,000 68.0%
Trinity Higher Education Facilities Corporation 3,993,005 - 0.0%
Milford Higher Education Facilities Corporation 3,275,000 - 0.0%
Ames Higher Education Facilities Corporation 2,600,000 1,992,038 76.6%
Bryan, City of Higher Education Authority, Inc. 2,500,000 - 0.0%
Total $ 7,206,460,241 $ 5,637,881,837 78.2%
Source: Municipal Advisory Council of Texas; Texas Education Agency.
67
Of the $5.64 billion of charter school debt outstanding as of October 31, 2022, an estimated $3.84
billion was guaranteed by the PSF. Table C.2 shows charter school debt guaranteed by the PSF.
Table C.2
Charter School Debt Outstanding Guaranteed by the Permanent School Fund as of October 31, 2022 (Estimated)
Total Par PSF Guaranteed % PSF
Charter School Outstanding Debt Outstanding Guaranteed
IDEA Academy, Inc. $ 1,145,875,000 $ 928,605,000 81.0%
International Leadership of Texas 657,108,015 158,495,000 24.1%
KIPP Texas, Inc. 574,788,000 574,788,000 100.0%
Harmony Public Schools 497,590,000 452,595,000 91.0%
Uplift Education 411,435,000 250,325,000 60.8%
Riverwalk Education Foundation, Inc. 318,898,000 318,898,000 100.0%
Responsive Education Solutions 259,915,000 259,915,000 100.0%
Great Hearts America - Texas 225,235,000 225,235,000 100.0%
YES Prep Public Schools 151,046,600 71,585,000 47.4%
Jubilee Academic Center 123,725,000 - 0.0%
BASIS Texas Charter Schools, Inc. 121,100,000 - 0.0%
LIFESCHOOL of Dallas 98,365,000 98,365,000 100.0%
Cumberland Academy 75,680,000 - 0.0%
LTTS Charter School, Inc. d/b/a Universal Academy 70,255,000 - 0.0%
Trinity Basin Preparatory 60,295,000 60,295,000 100.0%
Austin Achieve Public Schools, Inc. 56,590,000 56,590,000 100.0%
Golden Rule Schools, Inc. 53,355,000 25,205,000 47.2%
Vanguard Academy, Inc. 44,030,000 44,030,000 100.0%
Orenda Education 41,145,000 35,895,000 87.2%
SER-Ninos, Inc. 39,075,000 36,555,000 93.6%
TLC Academy 38,607,038 - 0.0%
Wayside Schools 33,585,000 - 0.0%
Newman International Academy 33,510,000 - 0.0%
Cityscape Schools Inc. 31,515,000 20,820,000 66.1%
Charter School Revenue 30,364,044 - 0.0%
Compass Academy Charter School, Inc. 29,440,000 29,440,000 100.0%
A+ Charter Schools, Inc. 29,200,000 12,450,000 42.6%
Village Tech Schools 27,055,000 - 0.0%
New Frontiers Public Schools 25,000,000 - 0.0%
Imagine International Academy of North Texas, LLC 24,775,140 - 0.0%
Beta Academy 23,380,000 - 0.0%
A.W. Brown Leadership Academy 22,580,000 22,580,000 100.0%
UMEP Inc 21,650,000 - 0.0%
Eagle Advantage Schools, Inc. 21,485,000 17,655,000 82.2%
El Paso Education Initiative, Inc. 19,425,000 19,425,000 100.0%
Faith Family Academy Charter School 18,910,000 18,910,000 100.0%
The Hughen Center, Inc. 16,310,000 16,310,000 100.0%
Leadership Prep School 16,295,000 16,295,000 100.0%
Pineywoods Community Academy 15,800,000 15,800,000 100.0%
South Texas Educational Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Horizon Montessori Public Schools 15,615,000 15,615,000 100.0%
Odyssey Academy 11,425,000 11,425,000 100.0%
Ben Yehuda Academy d/b/a Eleanor Kolitz Hebrew Language Academy 11,105,000 11,105,000 100.0%
Aristoi Classical Academy 10,725,000 - 0.0%
BRAINATION, INC 10,145,000 10,145,000 100.0%
Southwest Winners Foundation, Inc. 10,095,000 - 0.0%
Prelude Preparatory, Inc 9,295,000 - 0.0%
Winfree Academy Charter School 8,720,000 - 0.0%
Shekinah Learning Institute Project 8,250,000 - 0.0%
Arlington Classics Academy 8,105,000 - 0.0%
Austin Discovery School, Inc. 7,760,000 - 0.0%
Gateway Charter Academy 7,260,000 - 0.0%
Evolution Academy Charter School 5,595,000 - 0.0%
Coram Deo Academy 5,055,000 - 0.0%
Nova Academy 4,340,000 4,340,000 100.0%
Total $ 5,637,881,837 $ 3,839,691,000 68.1%
Source: Municipal Advisory Council of Texas; Texas Education Agency.
68
Appendix D
Cost of Issuance
For fiscal year 2022, the total aggregated cost of issuance (COI), including underwriter’s spread for
both competitive and negotiated bond sales among Texas local government debt issuers, was $680.5
million. It was comprised of total direct bond costs of $427.2 million and total underwriter’s spread
of $253.4 million (Table D.1).
The largest components of total direct bond costs are fees for financial advisor, bond counsel, and
rating agencies, which totaled $138.0 million, $134.5 million, and $38.6 million, respectively. Other
direct bond related costs were $116.1 million and include fees for bond insurance, disclosure counsel,
paying agent, trustee and escrow verification, miscellaneous bond program fees, attorney general fees,
and various smaller fees.
Total underwriter’s spread is comprised of the takedown fee, management fee, underwriter’s counsel
fee, and spread expenses fee, which totaled $194.0 million, $24.8 million, $20.1 million, and $14.5
million, respectively.
Table D.1
Total COI for Fiscal Year 2022
Financial Advisor Fees $ 137,976,794

Bond Counsel Fees 134,518,997
Ratings Fees 38,568,414
Other Direct Bond Related Costs 116,089,594
Total Direct Bond Related Costs $ 427,153,799
Takedown Fee $ 194,019,756

Management Fee 24,759,218
Underwriter's Counsel Fee 20,098,274
Spread Expenses Fee 14,495,316
Total Underwriter's Spread $ 253,372,563
Total COI including UW Spread $ 680,526,362

Note: Excludes conduits, private placements, and short-term notes.
Trends in Issuance Costs for Texas Local Government Bonds in 2022

Total direct bond costs include all cost of issuance fees except the underwriter’s spread. To analyze
these fees on a cost per $1,000 basis for fiscal year 2022, each major cost of issuance component has
been compared by bond type (general obligation (GO) vs. revenue) and by method of sale (negotiated
vs. competitive). See last page of this chapter for an explanation of Box Plot Statistical Analysis charts
used for Figures D.2, D.3, D.4, and D.5.
69
Excluding issuances of conduit debt, private placement debt, and short-term notes, data was collected
from 1,315 transactions for fiscal year 2022 of which 671 were competitive and 644 were negotiated.
Of the competitive transactions, 635 were general obligation and 36 were revenue issuances. Of the
negotiated transactions, 489 were general obligation and 155 were revenue transactions. The data
indicates that cost per $1,000 for all transactions declined as transaction size increased. General
obligation (GO) competitive transactions had the highest cost per $1,000 for transactions less than
$50.0 million — 617 of the 635 GO competitive transactions were issued for less than $50.0 million
in fiscal year 2022. Cost per $1,000 decreased as transaction size increased. GO negotiated and GO
competitive transactions mostly had lower cost per $1,000 for transaction sizes over $20.0 million
(Figure D.1). The total average cost for fiscal year 2022 was $37.49 per $1,000, an increase of $4.57 per
$1,000 compared to $32.92 per $1,000 for fiscal year 2021.
Figure D.1
Texas Local Governement
Total Direct Bond Costs for Fiscal Year 2022
$120
$100
Cost per $1,000
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100
Par Amount (Millions)
GO Negotiated GO Competitive REV Negotiated REV Competitive
Note: Data excludes conduits, private placements, short-term notes and bonds with a par greater than $100 million or a
cost per $1,000 greater than $120.
Data for bond counsel cost per $1,000 for fiscal year 2022 indicates that GO competitive transactions
had the highest cost per $1,000 for smaller transaction sizes. GO negotiated transactions generally had
the lowest cost per $1,000 for transaction sizes larger than $50.0 million. The total average cost,
including all GO and revenue debt, for fiscal year 2022 was $11.58 per $1,000, an increase of $1.82
per $1,000 compared to $9.76 per $1,000 for fiscal year 2021. Fiscal year 2022 had 450 different
transactions that were equal to or greater than $20 per bond for bond counsel fees compared to 362
different transactions in 2021 (Figure D.2).
Data for financial advisor cost per $1,000 indicates that GO competitive transactions had the highest
cost per $1,000 for smaller transaction sizes. GO negotiated transactions generally had the lowest cost
per $1,000 for transaction sizes larger than $50.0 million. The total average cost, including all GO and
revenue debt, for fiscal year 2022 was $11.29 per $1,000, an increase of $1.30 per $1,000 compared to
$9.99 per $1,000 for fiscal year 2021. Fiscal year 2022 had 382 different transactions that were equal
70
Note: Data excludes conduits, private placements, and short-term notes.
Outliers are not shown on the chart. See last page of this chapter for an explanation of Box Plot Statistical Analysis charts.
to or greater than $20 per bond for financial advisor fees compared to 301 different transactions in
2021 (Figure D.3).
Data for total ratings cost per $1,000 indicates that GO negotiated transactions had the lowest cost
per $1,000 for smaller transaction sizes. Revenue negotiated had the lowest cost per $1,000 for larger
transaction sizes. The total average cost, including all GO and revenue debt, for fiscal year 2022 was

71
$2.16 per $1,000, a decrease of $0.22 per $1,000 compared to $2.38 per $1,000 for fiscal year 2021
(Figure D.4).
Data for total underwriter’s spread cost per $1,000 indicates that GO competitive and revenue
negotiated transactions generally had the highest cost per $1,000 for smaller transaction sizes. GO
negotiated transactions had the lowest cost per $1,000 for larger transaction sizes. The total average

72
cost, including all GO and revenue debt, for fiscal year 2022 was $10.94 per $1,000, an increase of
$1.45 per $1,000 compared to $9.49 per $1,000 for fiscal year 2021. Fiscal year 2022 had 177 different
transactions that were equal to or more than $20 per bond for underwriter spread fees compared to
107 different transactions in 2021 (Figure D.5).
2022 Local Texas Governments Cost of Issuance Statistical Information

Table D.2 provides COI statistical information for GO and revenue transactions completed during
fiscal year 2022.
The weighted average for total COI, including underwriter’s spread, increased to $48.40 per $1,000 in
2022 from $42.38 per $1,000 in 2021. The average transaction size increased to $30.7 million in 2022
from $27.0 million in 2021 and the average fee increased to $518,359 from $410,603 in 2021,
respectively.
73
Table D.2
Cost of Issuance Statistics Summary for Fiscal Year 2022
Total COI
Total Direct Bond Counsel Financial Total Ratings Total UW Including UW
Bond Costs Fees Advisor Fees Fees Spread Fees Spread
GO Negotiated
Count 489 488 483 467 488 489
Average Par $ 42,731,790 $ 42,707,972 $ 42,060,197 $ 44,423,360 $ 42,707,972 $ 42,731,790
Average Fee $ 211,617 $ 61,026 $ 85,437 $ 41,260 $ 217,692 $ 428,864
Minimum ($ per 1,000) 0.17 0.15 0.54 0.26 1.14 0.17
Maximum ($ per 1,000) 96.09 57.89 65.93 10.62 72.16 168.25
Median ($ per 1,000) 8.20 1.80 3.47 1.28 5.90 14.00
Average ($ per 1,000) 14.48 3.98 6.12 1.74 6.76 21.22
GO Competitive
Count 635 635 634 527 633 635
Average Par $ 10,795,480 $ 10,795,480 $ 10,790,481 $ 12,048,159 $ 10,800,695 $ 10,795,480
Average Fee $ 354,332 $ 113,471 $ 103,840 $ 18,870 $ 109,210 $ 463,198
Minimum ($ per 1,000) 2.90 0.41 0.70 0.24 0.56 4.43
Maximum ($ per 1,000) 256.34 38.26 200.00 15.62 95.20 274.64
Median ($ per 1,000) 65.07 22.45 19.36 2.12 11.31 79.66
Average ($ per 1,000) 57.64 17.81 15.61 2.59 13.09 70.69
Rev Negotiated
Count 155 154 152 89 155 155
Average Par $ 74,621,304 $ 74,019,754 $ 73,665,935 $ 113,078,046 $ 74,621,304 $ 74,621,304
Average Fee $ 543,601 $ 183,934 $ 173,912 $ 89,287 $ 448,317 $ 991,918
Minimum ($ per 1,000) 1.75 0.36 0.15 0.29 2.40 5.02
Maximum ($ per 1,000) 109.98 30.31 28.63 8.75 38.39 146.49
Median ($ per 1,000) 20.70 4.98 6.06 1.29 7.17 31.29
Average ($ per 1,000) 28.38 10.29 10.04 1.67 15.14 43.52
Rev Competitive
Count 36 36 36 29 35 36
Average Par $ 30,392,917 $ 30,392,917 $ 30,392,917 $ 35,205,172 $ 31,043,571 $ 30,392,917
Average Fee $ 414,275 $ 121,065 $ 123,380 $ 48,589 $ 261,021 $ 668,046
Minimum ($ per 1,000) 3.28 1.01 0.85 0.56 1.93 5.50
Maximum ($ per 1,000) 90.84 29.15 20.85 8.05 29.08 105.19
Median ($ per 1,000) 18.86 5.74 7.11 2.02 11.16 29.68
Average ($ per 1,000) 33.77 10.39 9.66 2.56 11.86 45.31
Total
Count 1315 1313 1305 1112 1311 1315
Average Par $ 30,731,120 $ 30,609,145 $ 30,228,052 $ 34,334,519 $ 30,763,659 $ 30,731,120
Average Fee $ 325,212 $ 102,452 $ 105,729 $ 34,684 $ 193,736 $ 518,359
Minimum ($ per 1,000) 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.56 0.17
Maximum ($ per 1,000) 256.34 57.89 200.00 15.62 95.20 274.64
Median ($ per 1,000) 23.35 5.29 10.00 1.68 8.03 32.58
Average ($ per 1,000) 37.49 11.58 11.29 2.16 10.94 48.40
Note: Data excludes conduits, private placements and short-term notes.
74
Why Do We Use Box and Whisker Plot?
Box and Whisker diagrams allow us to read the data very effectively and easily. It summarizes the
data from multiple sources and displays it in a single graph. It helps us to make an effective decision
as it compares the data from different categories.
Average
X
Elements of a Box and Whisker Plot

The elements required to construct a box and whisker plot outliers are given below.
Minimum value (Q0 or 0th percentile)
First quartile (Q1 or 25th percentile)
Median (Q2 or 50th percentile)
Third quartile (Q3 or 75th percentile)
Maximum value (Q4 or 100th percentile)
Interquartile range
Average or Mean
Outliers or outlying values
The meaning of each of these elements is listed below.
• The minimum value in the dataset, which is displayed at the far left end of the diagram.
• The first quartile (Q1) at the left side, which is in between the minimum value and median.
• The median value, represented by the line in the center of the box.
• The third quartile (Q3) at the right side, which is in between the median and the maximum
value.
• The maximum value in the dataset, which is displayed at the far right end of the diagram.
• Interquartile range (IQR) is the difference between upper and lower quartiles, i.e. Q3 and Q1.
• The average or mean value in the dataset is computed by dividing the sum of a set of values
by the number of values in the set, which is indicated with an X
Outlying values (or “outliers”) are any value in the dataset which are either below the Q1-1.5*IQR
threshold or above the Q3+1.5*IQR threshold.
Source: https://byjus.com/maths/box-and-whisker-plot/
75
76
Appendix E
Build America Bonds
Build America Bonds (BAB) were created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2010
and issued as Tax Credit BABs or Direct-Payment BABs. Tax Credit BABs provide a tax credit subsidy
to investors equal to 35 percent of the interest payable by the issuer. Direct-Payment BABs provide a
direct federal subsidy payment to state and local governmental issuers equal to 35 percent of the
interest payable. Authority to issue BABs expired in December 2010.
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, across-the-board sequestration took effect on March 1, 2013,
and direct-pay bonds such as BABs experienced an 8.7 percent reduction of the original 35 percent
federal subsidy on BABs interest payments. The Internal Revenue Service reported that, effective
October 1, 2014, issuers of BABs and other direct-pay bonds would have their subsidy payments
processed in federal fiscal year 2014 reduced by 7.2 percent, and in federal fiscal year 2015 reduced by
7.3 percent. In federal fiscal years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 the subsidy payments were further
reduced by 6.8 percent, 6.9 percent, 6.6 percent, 6.2 percent, and 5.9 percent, respectively. In federal
fiscal years 2021 through 2030, the subsidy payments are reduced by 5.7 percent.
Based on data reported to the BRB at the time of issuance, during fiscal years 2009–2011, 62 local
government issuers issued $10.92 billion in Direct-Payment BABs. Of that amount, $10.19 billion was
issued for new-money purposes, and $728.5 million was issued for refunding purposes. Local
governments in Texas accounted for approximately 5.8 percent of the total national BAB issuance of
$181.26 billion. As of August 31, 2022, BAB debt outstanding was $5.62 billion or 2.0 percent of total
local debt outstanding (Table E.1).
Table E.1
Build America Bond Debt Outstanding
($ in millions)
Government Type Amount
Other Special Districts and Authorities $ 2,071.4
Public School Districts 1,629.9
Cities, Towns, Villages 1,381.4
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities 492.2
Counties 45.3
Water Districts and Authorities -
Community and Junior College Districts -
Total $ 5,620.2
77
The top five local governments with outstanding BABs account for over 78.0 percent of the total
BAB debt outstanding (Table E.2).
Table E.2
Top Five Issuers With Build America Bond Debt Outstanding
($ in millions)
Issuer Principal
Dallas Area Rapid Transit $ 1,196.4
San Antonio 1,056.8
North Texas Tollway Authority 875.0
Dallas ISD 845.1
Dallas County Hospital District 409.2
Top Five Total $ 4,382.5
Total BAB Debt Outstanding $ 5,620.2

Top Five Issuers % of Total BAB Debt Outstanding 78.0%
78
Appendix F
Commercial Paper
Commercial paper (CP) is an unsecured debt instrument that matures within 270 days and is backed
by a liquidity provider, usually a bank, that stands by to provide liquidity in the event CP notes are
not remarketed or redeemed at maturity. Debt that matures in less than 270 days does not require
registration with the SEC, so it is less costly to the issuer. Since CP is not backed by collateral, only
issuers with solid ratings from the major credit rating agencies are able to offer their CP at reasonable
prices. CP generally carries lower interest repayment rates than bonds due to the shorter maturities of
CP.
Local governments and their conduit corporations issue CP to provide interim financing for projects
for which revenues are not yet available. Texas local governments are not required to provide the
Texas Bond Review Board (BRB) with CP issuance information but are required to report new CP
programs to the Office of the Attorney General, which forwards such information to the BRB.
Current CP balances are obtained by contacting local governments who have had CP programs in
prior years or who have opened new CP programs in 2022. Because some local governments
reported in the past that they terminated or inactivated their CP programs in favor of various
revolving credit, direct purchase agreements, or lines of credit with banking institutions, the BRB has
asked all CP contacts to report such non-public debt outstanding along with their CP outstanding
balances, starting in 2017. CP data provided in this Appendix includes any reported non-public debt
outstanding.
Non-conduit CP can be supported by pledges of tax or revenue. The 2022 reported non-conduit CP
total of $1.88 billion showed a 10-year increase of 28.0 percent from $1.47 billion in 2013, a five-year
increase of 35.9 percent from $1.39 billion in 2018, and a 28.4 percent decrease from the 2021 total
of $2.63 billion (Figure F.1).
Figure F.1
Non-Conduit Commercial Paper Outstanding*
($ in billions)
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Tax-Supported Revenue
* Includes issuer-reported non-public debt; excludes conduit-issued commercial paper.
79
Local government CP outstanding is shown by pledge type for each of the last five fiscal years in
Table F.1.
Table F.1
Commercial Paper Outstanding by Fiscal Year*
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Tax-Supported GO $72.1 $87.1 $324.7 $879.0 $50.0
M&O (Tax-Supported) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Commercial Paper Balance $72.1 $87.1 $324.7 $879.0 $50.0
Tax-Supported GO $109.5 $226.4 $284.5 $279.3 $337.9
Revenue 540.9 716.9 768.6 769.2 883.8
Sales Tax Revenue 6.6 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Commercial Paper Balance $657.0 $946.7 $1,053.0 $1,048.5 $1,221.7
Tax-Supported GO $0.0 $52.9 $202.0 $0.0 $20.2
Revenue 246.7 184.7 162.2 247.6 403.5
Tax-Supported GO $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Revenue 19.5 23.4 231.1 9.4 26.6
Sales Tax Revenue 241.1 201.2 229.9 228.6 83.7
Counties
Tax-Supported GO $83.2 $150.9 $236.9 $218.0 $48.1
Revenue 66.5 141.4 227.7 0.0 29.3
Tax-Supported GO $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Revenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tax-Supported GO $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Revenue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Tax-Supported GO $264.8 $517.2 $1,048.0 $1,376.3 $456.2
Total Tax-Supported M&O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Revenue 873.7 1,066.4 1,389.6 1,026.2 1,343.3
Total Sales Tax Revenue 247.7 204.5 229.9 228.6 83.7
Total Commercial Paper Balance $1,386.1 $1,788.2 $2,667.6 $2,631.1 $1,883.1
*Includes issuer-reported non-public debt; excludes conduit debt.
80
As of 2022 fiscal year-end, eight Cities reported CP and/or non-public debt authorized, with six
reporting CP outstanding. Of the Counties, only one reported both authorized and outstanding CP.
Of the five Public School Districts (School Districts) reporting CP authorized, one reported CP
outstanding. Eight Water Districts and Authorities (WDs) reported CP authorized; five of those
districts reported CP outstanding. Four Other Special Districts and Authorities (OSDs) reported CP
authorized; three of those districts reported CP outstanding. No Community/Junior College Districts
(CCDs) or Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities (HHDs) reported authorized or outstanding
balances as of year-end.
Additionally, of the six Cities Conduit issuers reporting CP authorized, five reported CP outstanding,
and one WD Conduit issuer reported both authorized and outstanding CP.
Figure F.2 shows the difference between the total amount of non-conduit authorized CP and the
reported outstanding balances for each government type as of 2022 fiscal year-end.
81
Of the Big 6 Cities (Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio), five had
outstanding non-conduit CP balances as of August 31, 2022. The Big 6 Cities CP outstanding
accounted for 94.9 percent of the total Cities CP outstanding in 2018, 86.3 percent in 2019, 92.9
percent in 2020, 69.9 percent in 2021, and 88.9 percent in 2022.
Table F.2 shows outstanding CP balances for the Big 6 Cities over the past five years.
Table F.2
Texas BIG 6 Cities
Commercial Paper Outstanding*
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Austin Tax Supported $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Revenue 243.2 82.3 317.0 142.8 236.1
Dallas Tax Supported - 3.5 133.5 159.7 -
Revenue 163.7 242.8 139.2 253.1 280.4
El Paso Tax Supported 23.5 16.9 12.6 - -
Revenue - - - - -
Fort Worth Tax Supported - - - - -
Revenue - - - - -
Houston Tax Supported 80.0 190.0 131.9 42.6 233.0
Revenue 100.5 272.5 232.0 67.0 247.0
San Antonio Tax Supported - - - 62.0 84.9
Revenue 12.7 9.4 11.9 5.4 5.1
Total Tax Supported $ 103.5 $ 210.4 $ 278.0 $ 264.3 $ 317.9
Total Revenue $ 520.1 $ 607.0 $ 700.1 $ 468.3 $ 768.6
Total Outstanding $ 623.6 $ 817.4 $ 978.1 $ 732.6 $ 1,086.4
*Does not reflect total authorization amount; includes issuer-reported non-public debt; excludes conduit CP.
82
As conduit issuers generally have no taxing authority, all conduit issued CP is revenue supported.
The fiscal year 2022 reported conduit CP total of $680.3 million showed a 10-year decrease of 11.1
percent from $765.0 million in 2013, a five-year decrease of 5.2 percent from $718.0 million in 2018,
and an decrease of 34.6 percent from the 2021 total of $1.04 billion (Figure F.3).
Figure F.3
Conduit Commercial Paper Outstanding
($ in millions)
$1,100
$1,000
$900
$800
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Revenue Supported
Table F.3 shows the issuers of conduit CP outstanding over the past five years.
Table F.3
Conduit Commercial Paper Outstanding*
($ in millions)
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Brownsville Public Utilities Board Revenue $ 14.0 $ 30.0 $ - $ 46.0 $ -
El Paso Water Utilities Revenue 30.0 50.0 50.0 35.0 80.0
San Antonio CPS Energy Revenue 320.2 375.0 240.0 495.0 135.0
San Antonio Water System (SAWS) Revenue 168.7 271.8 218.3 234.0 229.6
Uptown Development Authority Revenue - - - - 6.4
Love Field Airport Modernization Corporation Revenue - - - - 26.2
Lower Colorado River Authority Revenue $ 185.1 $ 216.2 $ 219.5 $ 230.2 $ 203.2
Total Conduit CP Outstanding $ 718.0 $ 943.0 $ 727.8 $ 1,040.2 $ 680.3
*Does not reflect total authorization amount.
83
84
Appendix G
Overview of Texas Local Governments with Debt Outstanding
Debt outstanding totals shown in this Appendix and in the annual report include commercial paper
issued by local governments but do not include debt issued by conduit entities created by local
governments. See Appendix B, Texas Local Government Conduit Debt, for conduit debt information.
Texas Community and Junior College Districts

Community and Junior College Districts (CCDs) are two-year institutions that primarily serve local
taxing jurisdictions and offer vocational, technical, and academic courses for certifications or
associates degrees. CCDs are governed under the Texas Education Code, Chapter 130. As of August
31, 2022, total CCD debt outstanding was 2.2 percent ($6.20 billion) of total local debt outstanding.
CCDs issue both tax-supported and revenue debt. Proceeds from CCD debt issuances are used to
construct, equip, renovate, expand, and improve facilities, acquire information technology equipment,
and refund outstanding debt. Debt service is paid from either an ad valorem tax or various revenue
streams such as tuition, technology, and miscellaneous fees or lease revenue. Additionally, CCDs
create nonprofit conduit entities to issue debt on behalf of, and for projects to benefit, the CCDs.
Most of CCD new obligations are authorized under Chapters 45 and 130 of the Texas Education
Code.
Texas Cities, Towns, Villages

Texas Cities, Towns, Villages (Cities) issue both tax-supported and revenue debt. Revenue debt also
includes sales tax and lease-revenue obligations. As of August 31, 2022, total cities debt outstanding
was 31.9 percent ($90.70 billion) of total local debt outstanding.
Tax-supported debt financing is used for authorized municipal purposes, such as the acquisition of
vehicles, road maintenance equipment, road construction, and maintenance materials; construction of
road and bridge improvements; maintaining public safety (police, fire, and EMS); renovation,
equipping, and construction of municipal buildings and utility systems; acquisition of real property;
and acquisition of computer equipment and software. Most of Cities new ad valorem tax debt is
authorized under Chapters 1331 and 1502 of the Government Code and Chapter 271 of the Local
Government Code.
Revenue debt financing is used for such purposes as acquiring, constructing, enlarging, remodeling,
and renovating authorized municipal systems and infrastructure, such as wastewater and sewer
systems, toll roads, and airports.
Cities also issue debt that is supported by a combination of tax and revenue for similar purposes listed
above. Such debt is categorized as tax-supported.
Sales tax revenue debt is issued by certain Cities for such purposes as constructing and improving
municipal parks and recreation facilities/entertainment centers as well as hike and bike trails.
Cities can form nonprofit conduit entities to issue debt for the benefit of the Cities and to finance the
acquisition of land and construction of certain prisons. Pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter
85
1202.008, the BRB does not receive issuance information for all lease-revenue obligations or conduit
issuances. Reported data only reflects the amount of debt issued for certain municipalities.
Texas Counties
Counties issue two types of debt, tax-supported and revenue, which also includes lease-revenue. As
of August 31, 2022, county debt was 5.5 percent ($15.76 billion) of total local debt outstanding.
Tax-supported debt is used for authorized county purposes such as the acquisition of vehicles, road
maintenance equipment, road construction, and maintenance materials; construction of road and
bridge improvements; renovation, equipping, and construction of county buildings and jails;
acquisition of real property; and acquisition of computer equipment and software. Most of Counties
new ad valorem tax debt is authorized under Chapters 1301 and 1473 of the Government Code and
Chapter 271 of the Local Government Code.
Revenue debt is used for authorized county purposes such as acquiring, constructing, enlarging,
remodeling, and renovating wastewater and sewer systems, toll roads, and hospitals.
Counties create nonprofit conduit entities to issue debt for projects that benefit Counties.
Texas Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities

Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities (HHDs) provide a legal framework to create hospital
systems to provide hospital and medical care facilities, emergency services, and mental health services
to district residents. As of August 31, 2022, HHD debt outstanding was 1.2 percent ($3.53 billion) of
total local debt outstanding.
HHD tax-supported and revenue debt is used to construct, acquire, and/or improve buildings for
hospital, fire, emergency, and mental health facilities. HHDs can create conduit entities to issue debt
on their behalf.
The BRB collects debt information on four types of hospital, health, and public safety districts:
hospital districts (HD), hospital authorities (HA), emergency services districts (ESD), and mental
health mental retardation centers (MHMR). They are described as follows:
Voter
Approved Authorizing Texas
/Taxing Health and Safety
District Purpose Authority Code Chapter
Hospital Creates hospital systems to provide hospital and Yes/Yes Chapters 281, 282,
Districts medical care facilities. HDs must be voter or 283
approved and have taxing authority.
Hospital Creates hospital systems to provide hospital and No/No Chapter 262
Authorities medical care facilities. HAs are created by a
municipality’s governing board, do not require
voter approval and do not have taxing authority.
Emergency Provides rural fire prevention and emergency Yes/Yes Chapter 775
Service medical services. ESDs must be voter approved
Districts and have taxing authority.
86
Mental Provides child, adolescent, and adult mental No/No Chapter 534
Health & health services; substance abuse recovery
Mental services; and skills training. MHMRs do not
Retardation require voter approval and do not have taxing
Centers authority.
Texas Public School District Debt

Much of Public School District (School District) debt is authorized under Chapter 45 of the Texas
Education Code. School Districts issue four types of debt: voter approved, maintenance and
operations (M&O), lease-revenue, and revenue. Charter school debt issued by nonprofit corporations
is not included in School District debt. As of August 31, 2022, total School District debt outstanding
was 36.7 percent ($104.21 billion) of total local debt outstanding.
Over 98.0 percent of School District debt outstanding is voter approved. The proceeds from voter-
approved debt can be used for school capital projects, such as buildings, renovations, technology,
athletic facilities, school transportation, and performing arts, and to refund M&O debt. Voter-
approved debt is subject to the 50-cent test that limits debt service (interest and sinking fund
payments) to a maximum of $0.50 per $100 of valuation as described in the Texas Education Code,
Section 45.0031. This debt must be approved by the voters prior to a school district issuing new debt.
M&O debt proceeds can be used for administration and operational costs of schools (teachers, buses,
classrooms, etc.) but cannot be used for the new construction of school facilities. For M&O debt,
only the maintenance tax is approved by the voters; once the voters approve the maintenance tax and
the maximum rate, the maintenance tax debt may be issued without an election.
Lease-revenue obligations are issued by a public facility corporation created by a school district and
used for acquiring, constructing, and equipping school facilities.
Proceeds from revenue debt issuances are mainly used to build and maintain sports facilities. Revenue
and lease-revenue debt do not require voter approval.
Texas Other Special Districts and Authorities

Other Special Districts and Authorities (OSD) include tollway authorities, transit authorities, housing
authorities, regional mobility authorities, power agencies, public utility agencies, road districts, events
venue districts, education districts, and various economic and community development districts. As
of August 31, 2022, total OSD debt outstanding was 7.0 percent ($20.03 billion) of total local debt
outstanding.
OSDs issue both tax-supported and revenue debt, including sales tax revenue and lease-revenue debt.
OSD tax-supported and revenue debt are both used primarily for road improvements, economic and
community development, water and sewer improvements, and developing and maintaining mass
transportation systems. OSDs create conduit entities to issue debt on their behalf and for their benefit.
87
The table below shows the various types of OSDs in the state.
District Purpose
Economic and Community Community development, redevelopment, and strategic
Development Districts planning; public improvements necessary to serve the district.
Education Districts Provide services to the school districts and are funded by
education taxes at the county and the school district levels.
Events Venue Districts Items related to creating and maintaining venues.
Housing Authorities Programs to provide affordable housing.
Power Agencies Improvements to the electric transmission service.
Public Utility Agencies An agency created by two or more public entities to plan,
finance, construct, own, operate, or maintain facilities.
Regional Mobility Authorities Constructing and maintaining highways, tollways, ferries,
airports, bikeways, and all-purpose transportation centers.
Road Districts Constructing and maintaining roads.
Tollway Authorities Develop, construct, and maintain toll roads.
Transit Authorities Public transportation.
Texas Water Districts and Authorities

Texas Water Districts and Authorities (WDs) are local governmental entities that provide limited
water-related services to customers and residents. WDs can be created by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, a county commissioner’s court, or the legislature. WDs issue both tax-
supported and revenue debt. (See generally, Texas Water Code, Chapters 49, 51, 54, 65, and Subtitle
G of the Special District Local Laws Code). As of August 31, 2022, total WD debt outstanding was
15.4 percent ($43.72 billion) of total local debt outstanding.
Texas has many types of WDs. The five most common types that provide services to residential
customers are municipal utility districts (MUD), water control and improvement districts (WCID),
special utility districts (SUD), river authorities (RA), and utility & reclamation districts (U&RD). The
function of each is described below.
District Purpose Authorizing Water Code Chapter

Municipal Utility Provides waterworks systems, sanitary Chapters 49 and 54
Districts sewer systems, and drainage systems.
Water Control Supplies and stores water for domestic, Chapters 49 and 51
and commercial, and industrial use; operates
Improvement wastewater systems; and provides
Districts irrigation, drainage, and water quality
controls.
Special Utility Provides water, wastewater, and fire- Chapters 49 and 65
Districts fighting services.
River Authorities Operates major reservoirs and sells Chapter 30
untreated water on a wholesale basis.
Provides for flood control, soil
conservation, and water quality
protection.
88
Utility & Provides conservation and development
Reclamation of all the natural resources within the
Districts district.
Tax-supported and revenue debt issued by WDs is used to pay capital costs to engineer, construct,
acquire, and/or improve water plants, wastewater treatment facilities, and sewer system drainage.
Certain WDs can also issue tax debt for road and park construction and create conduit entities to issue
conduit revenue debt for pollution control facilities for private entities.
89
90
Appendix H
Overview of Texas Local Government Rating Changes
Local Government Rating Changes

Approximately 79 issuers that issued debt in fiscal year 2022 received a tax-supported general
obligation (GO) rating upgrade, and 15 issuers received a GO rating downgrade from at least one of
the three major credit rating agencies, Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service, and Standard &
Poor’s. Texas Bond Review Board (BRB) staff compared the GO rating assigned to issuers in fiscal
year 2022 with their GO rating at the time of their last bond issuance. Rating changes that occur
aside from the issuance of new debt in fiscal year 2022 are not considered in Table H.1 and Table
H.2.
Water Districts and Authorities (WDs) account for almost half of the upgrades with 36, followed by
Cities, Towns, Villages (Cities) and Public School Districts (School Districts) with 22 and 18
upgrades, respectively (Table H.1). School Districts and Cities accounted for most downgrades with
six and seven, respectively (Table H.2). WDs and Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities each had
one downgrade.
91
Table H.1
2022 Issuers with GO Rating Upgrade Since Previous Issuance
Fitch Moody's S&P
Public Schools (18)
Bartlett ISD Baa3 to A3, 1998-2022
Blanco ISD A3 to Aa3, 2007-2022
Bullard ISD A1 to Aa3, 2016-2022
Comfort ISD A1 to Aa3, 2020-2022
Crosby ISD A1 to Aa3, 2021-2022
Culberson County-Allamoore ISD A2 to Aaa, 2020-2022
Fredericksburg ISD A2 to Aa2, 1999-2022
Gatesville ISD A1 to Aa3, 2020-2022
Hays CISD AA- to AA, 2016-2022
Hitchcock ISD A to A+, 2021-2022
Humble ISD AA- to AA, 2022-2022
Hutto ISD A+ to AA-, 2022-2022
Lake Worth ISD A3 to A1, 2015-2022
Poteet ISD A2 to A1, 2016-2022
Scurry-Rosser ISD A2 to Aa3, 2018-2022
Shallowater ISD A2 to A1, 2021-2022
Thrall ISD A2 to Aa3, 2017-2022
Waelder ISD A2 to A1, 2015-2022
Cities (22)
Andrews AA- to AA, 2015-2022
Benbrook A2 to Aa2, 2004-2022 A to AA+, 2004-2022
Cedar Park AA+ to AAA, 2022-2022
Cleburne Aa3 to Aa2, 2014-2022
Cockrell Hill A- to A, 2015-2022
Decatur A2 to A1, 2018-2022
Farmers Branch AA+ to AAA, 2020-2022
Kennedale A+ to AA-, 2011-2022
Leander Aa2 to Aa1, 2021-2022
Little Elm AA to AA+, 2021-2022
Midlothian AA to AA+, 2020-2022
Mont Belvieu Aa2 to Aa1, 2020-2022
Northlake AA- to AA, 2019-2022
Ponder A+ to AA-, 2018-2022
Rockport A+ to AA-, 2021-2022
Sachse AA to AA+, 2018-2022
Sansom Park A- to A, 2016-2022
Sulphur Springs A+ to AA-, 2020-2022
Waller A2 to A1, 2018-2022
Waxahachie AA- to AA, 2021-2022
Whitehouse A+ to AA-, 2018-2022
Wylie Aa2 to Aa1, 2021-2022
92
Table H.1 (continued)
2022 Issuers with GO Rating Upgrade Since Previous Issuance
Fitch Moody's S&P
Water Districts and Authorities (36)
Bauer Landing WCID BBB- to BBB, 2021-2022
Belmont FWSD 1 Baa1 to A3, 2021-2022
Brazoria County MUD 22 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Cottonwood Creek MUD 1 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Fort Bend County Management District 1 Baa2 to Baa1, 2021-2022
Fort Bend County MUD 161 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Fort Bend County MUD 182 Baa2 to A3, 2021-2022
Galveston County MUD 56 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Harris County MUD 188 A- to A, 2016-2022
Harris County MUD 287 Baa1 to A3, 2021-2022
Harris County MUD 368 A3 to A2, 2021-2022
Harris County MUD 390 BBB- to BBB, 2021-2022
Harris County MUD 393 BBB to BBB+, 2017-2022
Harris County MUD 434 Baa3 to Baa2, 2022-2022
Harris County MUD 489 Baa1 to A3, 2021-2022
Harris-Brazoria County MUD 509 Baa3 to Baa2, 2020-2022
Highway 380 MMD 01 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Kaufman County MUD 05 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Laguna Madre WD A+ to AA-, 2012-2022
Montgomery County MUD 105 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Morningstar Ranch MUD 1 Baa3 to Baa2, 2020-2022
Northampton MUD Baa3 to A2, 2021-2022
Northwest Harris County MUD 30 BBB+ to A-, 2020-2022
Oak Point WCID 4 Baa3 to Baa2, 2020-2022
Palmera Ridge MUD Baa3 to Baa2, 2020-2022
Pilot Knob MUD 03 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
The Lakes FWSD Baa3 to Baa2, 2022-2022
Travis County MUD 13 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
West Park MUD BBB+ to A-, 2017-2022
Williamson County MUD 12 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Williamson County MUD 19 Baa3 to Baa2, 2021-2022
Counties (2)
Blanco County A+ to AA, 2013-2022
Polk County A+ to AA-, 2020-2022
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities (1)
Midland County Hospital District (Midland Memorial) A1 to Aa3, 2010-2022
This table is for informational purposes only and has not been independently verified. Rating changes that occur
between bond issuances are not collected by the Bond Review Board and are therefore not reflected in the table.
93
Table H.2
2022 Issuers with GO Rating Downgrade Since Previous Issuance
Fitch Moody's S&P
Public School Districts (6)
Aubrey ISD A1 to A2, 2021-2022
Beckville ISD AA- to A, 2014-2022
Gary ISD A+ to A, 2016-2022
Godley ISD A2 to A3, 2021-2022
Lamar CISD AAA to AA, 2021-2022
San Augustine ISD A+ to A, 2017-2022
Cities (7)
Austin AAA to AA+, 2021-2022
Big Spring AA to A+, 2020-2022
Castroville A- to AA+, 2013-2022
Clyde A to A-, 2014-2022
Graham A- to BBB-, 2014-2022
Pilot Point AA- to A+, 2019-2022
Sealy A+ to A, 2019-2022
Water Districts and Authorities (1)
Greenwood UD Baa2 to Baa3, 2021-2022
Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities (1)
Andrews County Hospital District A1 to A3, 2014-2022
This table is for informational purposes only and has not been independently verified. Rating changes that occur
between bond issuances are not collected by the Bond Review Board and are therefore not reflected in the table.
94
Appendix I
Glossary
Ad Valorem Tax – A tax based on the assessed value of real estate or personal property. Property ad
valorem taxes are a major source of revenue for local governments.
Advance Refunding – A refunding in which the refunded obligation remains outstanding for a
period of more than 90 days after the issuance of the refunding issue. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of
2017 eliminated the option of issuing a tax-exempt advanced refunding of a tax-exempt municipal
debt after December 31, 2017.
Allotment – Amount of securities distributed to each member of the underwriting syndicate to fill
orders.
Assessed Valuation – A municipality’s worth in dollars based on real estate and/or other property
for the purpose of taxation, sometimes expressed as a percent of the full market value of the
community.
Authorized but Unissued – Debt that has been authorized for a specific purpose by the voters
and/or the legislature but has not yet been issued. Authorized but unissued debt can be issued
without the need for further legislative action.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) – The number of students in ADA can be found by adding the
number of students who are in attendance each day of the school year for the entire school year and
then dividing that number by the number of instructional days in the school year.
Bond – A debt instrument in which an investor loans money to the issuer that specifies when the
loan is due (“term” or “maturity” such as 20 years), the interest rate the borrower will pay (such as 5
percent), when the debt-service payments will be made (such as monthly, semi–annually, or annually),
and the revenue source pledged to make the payments.
Bond Counsel – Attorney retained by the issuer to give a legal opinion that the issuer is authorized
to issue the proposed securities, the legal requirements necessary for issuance have been met, and
the proposed securities will be exempt from federal income taxation and state and local taxation
where applicable.
Bond Insurance – A legal commitment by an insurance company to make timely payments of

principal and interest in the event that the issuer of the debt is unable to make the payments.
Bond Proceeds – The money paid to the issuer by the purchaser or underwriter of a new issue of
municipal securities. These funds are used to finance the project or other purpose for which the
securities were issued and to pay certain costs of issuance as may be provided in the bond contract or
bond purchase agreement. An issuer’s net proceeds equal the issue price less the issuance fees. An
investor’s proceeds equal the maturity or sale value plus interest earned up to the maturity date or
point of sale.
95
Build America Bonds (BABs) – A debt instrument created by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) that was issued as Tax Credit BABs or Direct-Payment BABs.
Tax Credit BABs provide a tax credit to investors equal to 35 percent of the interest payable by the
issuer. Direct-Payment BABs provide a direct federal subsidy payment to state and local
governmental issuers equal to 35 percent of the interest payable. With the implementation of the
Budget Control Act of 2011, the BAB subsidies have been reduced annually (see chart below).
Authority to issue BABs expired in December 2010. See Appendix E for a discussion on BABs.
Federal Fiscal Year Sequestration Rate Effective BAB Federal

(October 1 thru September 30) Reduction Subsidy Payment Percentage
2021-2030 5.7% 33.01%
2020 5.9% 32.94%
2019 6.2% 32.83%
2018 6.6% 32.69%
2017 6.9% 32.59%
2016 6.8% 32.62%
2015 7.3% 32.45%
2014 7.2% 32.48%
2013 8.7% 31.96%
Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) – A municipal security in which the investment return
(interest) on an initial principal amount is reinvested at a stated compounded rate until maturity. At
maturity, the investor receives a single payment (the “maturity value”) representing both the initial
principal amount and the total investment return. CABs are distinct from traditional zero coupon
bonds because the investment return is considered to be in the form of compounded interest rather
than accreted original issue discount. For this reason, only the initial principal amount of a CAB is
counted against a municipal issuer’s statutory debt limit, rather than the total par value, as in the case
of a traditional zero coupon bond. See Chapter 4 for a discussion on CABs.
CAB Maturity Amount – The single payment for a capital appreciation bond that an investor
receives at maturity, representing both the initial principal amount and interest. For capital
appreciation bonds, compound accreted values are calculated as interest in the year of maturity.
CAB Par Amount – The face amount assigned to a capital appreciation bond at issuance and paid
to the investor at maturity.
CAB Premium – The amount by which the price paid for a CAB security exceeds par value.
Certificate of Obligation (CO) – An obligation issued by a city, county, or certain hospital districts
without the approval of voters to finance public projects. Although voter approval is not required,
the sale can be stopped if 5 percent of the total voters in the taxing area sign a petition and submit it
prior to approval of the ordinance to sell such certificates. See Chapter 5 for a discussion on COs.
Certificate of Participation (COP) – A tax-exempt lease-financing agreement used by a

municipality or local government in which an investor buys a share or participation in the revenue
generated from the lease-purchase of the property or equipment to which the COP is tied. COPs do
not require voter approval.
96
Charter School – Charter schools were created by the Texas Legislature in 1995 as part of the public
school system. Under Texas Education Code, Chapter 12, the purpose of charter schools is to
improve student learning, increase the choice of learning opportunities within the public school
system, create professional opportunities that will attract new teachers to the public school system,
establish a new form of accountability for public schools, and encourage different and innovative
learning methods. See Appendix C for a discussion on charter schools.
Commercial Paper (CP) – Short-term, unsecured promissory notes that mature within 270 days
and are backed by a liquidity provider (usually a bank) that stands by to provide liquidity in the event
the notes are not remarketed or redeemed at maturity. See Appendix F for a discussion on CP.
Competitive Sale – A sale in which the issuer solicits bids from underwriting firms and sells the
securities to the underwriter or syndicate offering the most favorable bid that meets the
specifications of the notice of sale.
Component Unit (CU) – A legally separate entity for which the elected officials of the primary
government (PG) are financially accountable. The nature and significance of the CU’s relationship
with the PG is such that exclusion from the PG’s financial reports would be misleading or create
incomplete financial statements.
Conduit Debt – Per the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), conduit debt
obligations are issued by a state or local governmental entity for the express purpose of providing
financing for a specific third party that is usually not a part of the issuer’s financial reporting entity.
GASB’s most recent development of its definition of a conduit debt obligation states that the key
characteristic should be that there are at least three participants: the government issuer, the third-
party borrower, and the bondholder. Although conduit debt obligations bear the name of the
governmental issuer, the issuer has no obligation for such debt beyond the resources provided by a
lease or loan with the third party on whose behalf they are issued. See Appendix B for a discussion on
conduit debt.
Conduit Issuer – An issuer, usually a government agency, that issues municipal securities to finance
revenue-generating projects in which the funds generated are usually used by a third party (known as
the conduit borrower or obligor) for debt-service payments.
Costs of Issuance – The expenses associated with the sale of a new issue of municipal securities,
including underwriting costs, legal fees, rating agency fees, and other fees associated with the
transaction.
Coupon – The interest rate paid on a security.
Counterparty Risk – The risk to each party in a swap contract that the counterparty will not fulfill
its contractual obligations.
Current Interest Bond (CIB) – A bond in which interest payments are made on a periodic basis
throughout the life of the bond as opposed to a bond (such as a capital appreciation bond) that pays
interest only at maturity. This term is most often used in the context of a combination issuance of
bonds that includes both capital appreciation bonds and current interest bonds.
Current Refunding – A refunding transaction in which the municipal securities being refunded will
mature or be redeemed within 90 days or less from the date of issuance of the refunding issue.
97
CUSIP (Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures) – A unique nine-
character identification for each class of security approved for trading in the United States. CUSIPs
are used to facilitate clearing and settlement for market trades.
Dealer Fee – The cost of underwriting, trading, or selling securities.
Debt Outstanding – The amount of unpaid principal on a debt that will continue to generate
interest until paid off.
Debt per Capita – A measurement of the value of a government’s debt expressed in terms of the
amount attributable to each citizen under the government’s jurisdiction. The formula is the debt
outstanding as of August 31 divided by the estimated residential population of the issuer.
Debt Service – The amount that is required to cover the repayment of principal and interest on a
debt for a particular period.
Defeasance – A provision that voids a debt when the borrower sets aside cash, securities, or
investments sufficient to service the borrower’s debt.
Derivative – A financial instrument whose value is based on one or more underlying assets. An
example is a swap contract between two counterparties that specifies conditions (especially the dates,
underlying variables, and notional amounts) under which payments are to be made between the
parties.
Disclosure – The act of releasing, accurately and completely, all material information to investors
and the securities markets for outstanding or to be issued securities.
Disclosure Counsel – An attorney or law firm retained by the issuer to provide advice on issuer
disclosure obligations and prepare the official statement and/or continuing disclosure agreement.
Discount – The amount by which the price paid for a security is less than its par value.
Escrow – Fund established to hold monies or securities pledged to pay debt service.
Escrow Agent – Commercial bank or trust company retained to hold the investments purchased
with the proceeds of an advance refunding and use the invested funds to pay debt service on the
refunded debt.
Financial Advisor – A securities firm that assists an issuer on matters pertaining to a proposed
issue such as structuring, timing, marketing, fairness of pricing, terms, and debt ratings.
Fiscal Year – Information is sorted on the fiscal year of the state, September 1 through August 31.
Debt-service adjustments have been made for local governments with different fiscal years.
Information is provided on cash, not accrual, basis.
Fixed Rate – An interest rate that does not change during the entire term of the obligation.
Forward or Forward Contract – A contract (variously known as a forward contract, forward

delivery agreement, or forward purchase contract) wherein the buyer and seller agree to settle their
98
respective obligations at some specified future date based upon the current market price at the time
the contract is executed. A forward may be used for any number of purposes. For example, a
forward may provide for the delivery of specific types of securities on specified future dates at fixed
yields for the purpose of optimizing the investment of a debt service reserve fund. A forward may
provide for an issuer to issue and an underwriter to purchase an issue of bonds on a specified date in
the future for the purpose of effecting a refunding of an outstanding issue that cannot be advance
refunded.
General Obligation (GO) Debt – Debt backed by the credit and taxing power of the issuing
jurisdiction.
Home Rule City – Cities are classified as either general law or home rule. A city may elect home
rule status (i.e., draft an independent city charter) once it exceeds a population of $5,000 and the
voters agree to home rule. Otherwise, it is classified as general law and has very limited powers. One
example of the difference in the two structures regards annexation. General law cities cannot annex
adjacent unincorporated areas without the property owner’s consent; home rule cities may annex
without consent but must provide essential services within a specified period (generally within three
years), or the property owner may file suit to be disannexed and reimbursed. Once a city adopts
home rule, it may continue to keep this status even if the population later falls below 5,000.
I&S Debt – Interest & sinking fund debt is the debt-service outstanding on bonds issued by public
schools for school capital projects such as buildings, renovations, technology, athletic facilities,
school transportation, and performing arts, and to refund M&O debt. I&S bonds are backed by
revenue from the I&S tax rate.
I&S Tax Rate – A public school district’s property tax rate consists of an M&O tax rate and an I&S
(interest and sinking fund) tax rate. The I&S tax rate provides funds for debt-service payments on
debt that finances a district’s facilities.
Indenture – Deed or contract, which may be in the form of a resolution, that sets forth the legal
obligations between the issuer and the securities holders. The indenture also names the trustee that
represents the interests of the securities holders.
Issuer – A legal entity that sells securities for the purpose of financing its operations. Issuers are
legally responsible for the obligations of the issue and reporting financial conditions, material
developments, and any other operational activities.
Lease Purchase – Financing the purchase of an asset over time through lease payments that include
principal and interest. Lease purchases can be financed through a private vendor.
Lease-Revenue Bonds – Bonds issued by a nonprofit corporation or government issuer, which are
secured by lease payments made by the local government or third-party borrower for use of specified
property.
Letter of Credit – A credit enhancement used by an issuer to secure a higher rating for its securities.
A letter of credit is usually a contractual agreement between a major financial institution and the
issuer consisting of an unconditional pledge of the institution’s credit to make debt-service payments
in the event of a default.
99
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds – A type of municipal bond that is guaranteed by the
municipal government’s pledge to use all legal resources, including the levying of property taxes, up
to a set statutory limit. If a municipality exhausts the property tax resources for bond repayment
within that limit, other revenue sources must be used for bond repayment.
Liquidity – The relative ability of a security to be readily traded or converted into cash without
substantial transaction costs or loss in value.
Liquidity Provider – A financial institution that facilitates the trading of a security by insuring that
it will be purchased if tendered to the issuer or its agent because it cannot be immediately
remarketed to new investors.
Local Government Names – The names of governments used in this report are taken from the
Texas Property Tax Appraisal District Directory published by the Texas State Comptroller of Public
Accounts.
M&O Debt – Maintenance & operations debt is the debt-service outstanding on bonds issued by
public schools. This debt can be used for administration and operational costs of schools (teachers,
buses, classrooms, etc.) but cannot be used for the new construction of school facilities. M&O bonds
are backed by revenue from the M&O tax rate.
M&O Tax Rate – A public school district’s property tax rate consists of an M&O tax rate and an
I&S tax rate. The M&O tax rate provides funds for the general operating fund, which pays for
salaries, supplies, utilities, insurance, equipment, and other costs of day-to-day operations.
Maintenance Tax – Funds the maintenance and operation costs of a school district but cannot be
used for new construction of school facilities.
Management Fee – A component of the underwriting spread that compensates the underwriters
for assistance in creating and implementing the financing.
Maturity Date – The date principal is due and payable to the security holder.
Mortgage Credit Certificate – A certificate issued by certain state or local governments that allows
a taxpayer to claim a tax credit for some portion of the mortgage interest paid during a given tax year.
Municipal Bond – A debt security issued to finance projects for a state or local government issuer.
Municipal securities are typically exempt from federal taxes and from most state and local taxes.
Negotiated Sale – A sale in which an issuer selects an underwriting firm or syndicate to assist with
the issuance process. At the time of sale, the issuer negotiates a purchase price for its securities with
that underwriting firm or syndicate.
Notice of Sale – Publication by an issuer describing the terms of sale of an anticipated new offering
of municipal securities.
Official Statement – The document published by the issuer that provides complete and accurate
material information to investors on a new issue of municipal securities, including the purposes of the
issue, repayment provisions, and the financial, economic, and social characteristics of the issuing
government.
100
Par – The face value of a security that is due at maturity. A par bond is a bond selling at its face
value.
Paying Agent – The entity responsible for processing debt-service payments from the issuer to the
security holders.
Permanent School Fund – The Texas Permanent School Fund (PSF) was created in 1854 by the
5th Legislature expressly for the benefit of public schools. In addition, the Texas Constitution of
1876 stipulated that certain lands and proceeds from the sale of those lands would also be dedicated
to the PSF. The Texas Constitution requires that distributions from the returns on the PSF be made
to the Available School Fund to be used for the benefit of public and charter schools and allows the
PSF to be used to guarantee bonds issued by public and charter schools.
Permanent School Fund Bond Guarantee Program (BGP) – The BGP was created in 1983 as
an alternative for school districts to avoid the cost of private bond insurance by obtaining a PSF
guarantee for voter-approved public school bond issuances. To qualify for the BGP guarantee,
school districts and charter schools must be accredited by the state, have investment grade bond
ratings (but below AAA), and have their applications approved by the Commissioner of Education.
Bonds guaranteed by the BGP are rated AAA.
Premium – The amount by which the price paid for a security exceeds par value.
Premium Capital Appreciation Bond (PCAB) – A type of CAB that has a stated yield or accretion
rate that is higher than its actual current yield to investors. This difference results in a lower initial
stated par amount, which preserves debt capacity. See Chapter 4 for a discussion on PCABs.
Principal – The face value of a bond, exclusive of interest.
Printer – A business that produces the official statement, notice of sale, and any bonds required to
be transferred between the issuer and purchasers of the bonds. The costs associated with a printer
are typically rolled into the costs of issuance.
Private Placement – A securities sale in which an issuer sells its securities directly to investors
through a placement agent without a public offering.
Put Bond – A bond that allows the holder to force the issuer to repurchase the security at specified
dates before maturity. The repurchase price is set at the time of issue and is usually par value.
Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECB) – A bond that enables qualified state, tribal, and
local government issuers to borrow money at attractive rates to fund energy conservation projects.
While not a grant, a QECB is among the lowest cost public financing tools available because the U.S.
Department of the Treasury subsidizes the issuer's borrowing costs.
Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCB) – QSCBs must meet three requirements: 1) all of
the bond proceeds must be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of a public school
facility, or for the acquisition of land on which such a bond financed facility is to be constructed; 2)
the bond is issued by a state or local government within which such school is located; and 3) the
issuer designates such bonds as a qualified school construction bond. For more information
regarding QSCBs, contact the Texas Education Agency.
101
Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB) – QZABs are tax credit bonds in which the proceeds
are used for renovating school buildings, purchasing equipment, developing curricula, and/or training
school personnel. QZABs may not be issued for new construction. To qualify to issue QZABs,
school districts must create a Zone Academy that is comprised of empowerment zones or enterprise
communities comprised of public schools with 35 percent or more of their student body on the free
and/or reduced lunch programs. For more information regarding QZABs, contact the Texas
Education Agency.
Rating Agency – An entity that provides publicly available ratings of the credit quality of securities
issuers, measuring the probability of the timely repayment of principal and interest on municipal
securities.
Refunding Bond – A bond issued to retire or defease all or a portion of outstanding bonds.
Registrar – An entity responsible for maintaining ownership records on behalf of the issuer.
Remarketing Fee – Compensation to an agent for remarketing a secondary offering of short-term

securities, usually for a mandatory or optional redemption or put (return of the security to the issuer).
Revenue Debt – Debt that is legally secured by a specified revenue source(s). Most revenue debt
does not require voter approval and usually has a maturity based on the life of the project to be
financed.
Sales Tax – A tax imposed by the government at the point of sale on retail goods and services. It is
collected by the retailer and passed on to the state. Statutes, such as the Development Corporation
Act, authorize certain issuers to pledge certain sales taxes to the repayment of debt for certain
projects.
Sales Tax Revenue – Debt that is legally secured by a specified sales tax issued by certain cities for
such purposes as constructing and improving municipal parks and recreation facilities/entertainment
centers as well as hike and bike trails.
Selling Group – A group of municipal securities brokers and dealers who assist in the distribution
of a new issue of securities.
Serial Bond – A bond issue in which a portion of the outstanding bonds matures at regular
intervals until all of the bonds have matured.
Spread Expenses – A component of the underwriting spread representing the costs of operating
the syndicate such as financial advisors, legal counsel, travel, printing, day loans, wire fees, and other
associated fees.
Structuring Fee – A component of the underwriting spread that compensates the underwriters for
assistance with developing a marketable securities offering within the issuer’s legal and financial
constraints.
Swap – A derivative in which counterparties exchange cash flows of one party’s financial instrument
for those of the other party’s financial instrument.
102
Syndicate – A group of underwriters formed to purchase a new issue of securities from the issuer
and offer it for resale to investors.
Takedown – A component of the underwriting spread representing the discount that the members
of the syndicate receive when they purchase the securities from the issuer. Takedown is also known
as the selling concession.
Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRAN) – Short-term loans that the issuer uses to address
cash flow needs created when expenditures must be incurred before tax or other revenues are
received.
Tax-Supported Debt – For local governments, tax-supported debt (sometimes called tax debt) is
generally secured by a pledge of the issuer’s ad valorem taxing power. Tax-supported debt can have
either a limited or an unlimited authority pledge of tax revenues for repayment. For reporting
purposes, when the public security contains both a tax and revenue pledge, the public security is
categorized as tax-supported debt.
Term Bond – A bond issue in which all or a large part of the issue comes due in a single maturity.
Term bond issuers make periodic payments into a sinking fund for mandatory redemption of term
bonds before maturity or for payment at maturity.
Trustee – A bank or trust company designated by the issuer or borrower under the indenture or
resolution as the custodian of funds. The trustee represents the interests of the security holders,
including making debt-service payments.
Underwriter – An investment banking firm that purchases securities directly from the issuer and
resells them to investors.
Underwriting Risk Fee – A portion of the underwriting spread designed to compensate the
underwriter for the risk associated with market shifts and interest rate fluctuations.
Underwriting Spread – The amount representing the difference between the price at which
securities are bought from the issuer by the underwriter and the price at which they are reoffered to
the investor. The underwriting spread generally includes the takedown, management fee, expenses,
and underwriting risk fee.
Underwriter’s Counsel – An attorney who prepares or reviews the issuer’s offering documents on
behalf of the underwriter and prepares documentation for the underwriting agreement and the
agreement among underwriters.
Underwriter’s Risk – The risk of loss that could arise due to overestimated demand for an issuance
or due to sudden fluctuations in market conditions borne by the underwriters until resale.
Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond – A municipal bond that is backed by the pledge of the
issuer to raise taxes, without limit, to service the debt until it is repaid.
Variable Rate – An interest rate that fluctuates based on market conditions or a predetermined
index or formula. (Fixed rates do not change during the life of the obligation.)
103
Years to Maturity – The period of time for which a financial instrument remains outstanding.
Maturity refers to a finite time period at the end of which the financial instrument will cease to exist
and the principal is repaid with interest.
Yield – The investor’s rate of return.
Zero Coupon Bond – A bond that is issued at a deep discount to its face value but pays no interest.
104
The Texas Bond Review Board is an equal opportunity employer and does not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or
disability in employment, or in the provision of services, programs, or activities.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may be
requested in alternative formats by contacting or visiting the agency.
TEXAS BOND REVIEW BOARD

300 West 15th Street – Suite 409
P.O. Box 13292
Austin, TX 78711-3292
512-463-1741
http://www.brb.texas.gov

Texas Bond Review Board 2022 Local Government

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texas Bond Review Board 2022 Local Government

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texas Bond Review Board 2022 Local Government

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texas Bond Review Board

2022 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Fiscal Year Ended August 31, 2022

Greg Abbott, Governor

Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor

Dade Phelan, Speaker of the House of Representatives

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts

Chapter 1: Texas Local Debt in Perspective ....................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Texas Local Government Tax-Supported Debt ............................................. 11

Chapter 3: Texas Local Government Revenue Debt ........................................................ 19

Chapter 4: Capital Appreciation Bonds ............................................................................... 25

Chapter 5: Certificates of Obligation ................................................................................... 33

Appendix A: Bond Election Results ........................................................................................ 43

Appendix B: Texas Local Government Conduit Debt ......................................................... 61

Appendix C: Texas Charter Schools ........................................................................................ 65

Appendix D: Cost of Issuance .................................................................................................. 69

Appendix E: Build America Bonds .......................................................................................... 77

Appendix F: Commercial Paper ............................................................................................... 79

Appendix G: Overview of Texas Local Governments with Debt Outstanding................ 85

Appendix H: Overview of Texas Local Government Rating Changes ............................... 91

Appendix I: Glossary ................................................................................................................ 95

Figure 1.3: Texas Local Government — Total Debt Outstanding as a Percent of

Figure 2.1: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding by

Figure 2.2: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding per

Figure 2.3: Texas Local Government — Per Capita Tax-Supported Debt as a

Figure 2.4: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt-Service

Figure 3.1: Texas Local Government — Revenue Debt Outstanding by

Figure 3.3: Texas Local Government — Revenue Debt-Service Requirements

Figure 4.1: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds

Figure 4.2: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds Maturity

Figure 4.3: Texas Local Government — Total Debt Service Outstanding

Figure 4.4: Texas Local Government — Ratio of Total Debt Service/Total

Figure 5.2: Texas Local Government — Certificates of Obligation Debt Issuance

Figure 5.3: Texas Cities — Total Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding ..............................36

Figure 5.4: Texas Counties — Total Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding ........................40

Figure 5.5: Texas Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities — Total

Figure D.2: Texas Local Government — Bond Counsel Fees for

Figure D.3: Texas Local Government — Financial Advisor Fees for

Figure D.5: Texas Local Government — Total Underwriter’s Spread Fees

Figure F.1: Texas Local Government — Non-Conduit Commercial Paper

Figure F.2: Texas Local Government — Commercial Paper/Non-Public Debt -

Table 1.4: Texas Local Government — Rate of Debt Retirement................................... 7

Table 2.1: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt Outstanding by

Table 2.2: Texas Local Government — Tax-Supported Debt Issuance by

Table 3.1: Texas Local Government — Revenue Debt Outstanding by

Table 4.1: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds Issued in

Table 4.3: Texas Local Government — Top 20 Most Expensive Capital

Table 4.4: Texas Local Government — Capital Appreciation Bonds Outstanding

Table 5.1: Texas Local Government — Top 20 Issuers with Certificates of

Table 5.2: Texas Cities — Top 30 Issuers with Certificates of Obligation

Table 5.4: Texas Counties — Top 20 Issuers of Certificates of Obligation

Table 5.5: Texas Health/Hospital Districts and Authorities with Certificates

Table A.1: Texas Local Government — Number of Bond Election Propositions

Table A.2: Texas Local Government — Estimated Bond Election Results by

Table A.3: Texas Local Government — Carried Propositions - Bond Elections

Table A.4: Texas Local Government — Defeated Propositions - Bond Elections

Table A.5: Texas Local Government — Carried Propositions - Bond Elections

Table A.6: Texas Local Government — Defeated Propositions - Bond Elections

Table C.1: Total Charter School Debt by Issuer (Estimated) as of

Table C.2: Charter School Debt Outstanding Guaranteed by the Permanent