|
Return to News or Views
Return to Main Article
Washoe County Bond Bank
(The County Now Has A New Toy called a "Bond Bank")
Washoe County's Ruling Triumvirate
 
On Dec. 13, 2011 - The Bond Bank issue, item No. 60, opened with Finance Director John Sherman declaring that with the added language this ordinance is specific to TMWA.
The language that John Sherman refers to is here, it modified one of the recitals in their revised ordinance, which if it had the force of law, could later be deleted or otherwise modified. Although, Recitals are intended to show intent and to explain the purpose of the Ordinance, recitals do not contain rights or obligations, to have legal authority they must be referred to in the actual ordnance as true, correct and binding. (clever)
Whereas, the County intents the County Bond Bank use be limited to a specific type of Water Authority who is the primary water purveyor in Washoe County Lending Project; and |
|
See the Videos below, one is only 15 min. long, yet captures and conveys the sprit of what transpired. The next two, capture the full discussion.
The last video is Item #49 which was agendized as a status report regarding the merger of DWR and TMWA. In fact it was an extensive discussion involving the Bond Bank.
Click here to see prvious Bond Bank article
At the conclusion of the Public comment period, County Clerk, Amy Harvey announced she had a written comment from Richard Pugh a former member of Debt Management Commission, Chairman Breternitz instructed the clerk not to read it into the record. Following is what Chairman Breternitz was afraid of!
“I rise in opposition to the “Bond Bank” item on the agenda today having served several terms as Vice Chairman and Chairman of what was originally called the Washoe County General Obligation Bond Commission and later renamed the Washoe County Debt Management Commission. I doubt commissions on which I served those 16 years would have approved of this departure from standard operating procedures.
The questions today: Is this a sound idea…. and will the best interests of Washoe County tax payers be served by passage of this ordinance?
Others here today will provide extensive financial details all supporting and urging a “NO” vote on this item.”
Richard G. Pugh
Reno, NV 89509
Richard Pugh had been a member of Washoe County Debt Management Commission from 1988 to 2009 and its Chairman in 2003. 2005 and 2007
Another Option (no need for a “Bond Bank”)
The stated purpose for this exercise was to complete the merger deal with TMWA. A simple solution would have been to arrange a debt structure, and TMWA would have made appropriate payments to the county, with no need for a Bond Bank.
Another Consideration
The County's current general obligation debt limit of 10% of total assessed value of the County. Finally, the State bond bank law limits the total amount of debt by the county Bond Bank to an amount not exceeding 15 percent of the total assessed valuation of the taxable property of the County. This leaves an effective debt limit of 25% of the total assessed valuation of the taxable property of the County.
The final vote was
Yea |
Nay |
| Breternitz |
Weber |
| Larkin |
Jung |
| Humke |
|
Upon passage commisioner Larkin asked for an amendment be brought to the commission, dealing with a super majority and a new monatary limit.
Higlights of the
Bond Bank Issue
15 min |
|
|
|
Second Reading Dec. 13, 2011
Part 1
- 43 min |
|
|
|
Second Reading Dec. 13, 2011
Part 2
- 42 min |
|
|
|
Return to News or Views
Return to Main Article
Return to Top
# # #
|
Bond Ratings
Moody's - Standard & Poor's bond rating system. .
In Sept. 2011, (three months ago) Moody’s downgraded Washoe County from Aa1 to Aa2 in conjunction with issuing new debt with county's general obligation bonds for the Reno-Sparks Convention & Visitors Authority. John Sherman says that is coincidental.
Under S&P
Washoe County has a rating of “AA.”
By way of contrast, Reno’s rating is “CC” commonly referred to as junk bonds
| Moody's |
S&P |
|
| Aaa |
AAA |
Prime |
| Aa1 |
AA+ |
|
| Aa2 |
AA |
High Grade |
| Aa3 |
AA- |
|
| A1 |
A+ |
|
| A2 |
A |
Upper Medium Grade |
| A3 |
A- |
|
| Baa1 |
BBB+ |
|
| Baa2 |
BBB |
Lower Medium Grade |
| Baa3 |
BBB- |
|
| Ba1 |
BB+ |
Non-investment |
| Ba2 |
BB |
grade |
| Ba3 |
BB- |
Sspeculative |
| B1 |
B+ |
|
| B2 |
B |
Highly speculative |
| B3 |
B- |
|
| Caa1 |
CCC+ |
(Junk Bonds)
Substantial risks |
| Caa2 |
CCC |
Extremely speculative |
| Caa3 |
CCC- |
In Default with little |
| Ca |
CC |
prospect for |
| C |
C |
recovery |
| / |
D |
In Default |
|