HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 080 CC RESO1977 080 CC RESO ;¢fì õ ‹peRESOLUTION NO. 77-80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK APPROVING
AN APPLICATION FOR LAND AND MATER
CONSERVATION FUNDS
WHEREAS, the Congress under Public Law 88-578 has authorized the
establishment of a Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-in-Aid
Program, providing matching funds to the State of California and its
political subdivision for acquiring lands and developing facilities for
public outdoor recreation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible
for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary
rules and procedures governing application by local agencies under the program;
and
WHEREAS, said adopted procedures established by the State Department
of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the
approval of applications and the availability of local matching funds prior to
submission of said applications to the State; and
WHEREAS, Part V of said applications contains assurances that the
applicant must comply with; and
WHEREAS, the procedures further require the applicant to process an
adopted plan showing parks and recreation lands and facilities, existing and
proposed; and
WHEREAS, the City General Plan was first adopted by the City Council
on May 29, 1961; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project appears on the City's Plan, is
consistent with the California Outdoor Recreation Resources Plan; and
WHEREAS, the project must be compatible with the land use plans of
those jurisdictions immediately surrounding the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Baldwin Park, does hereby:
1. Approves the filing of an application for Land and
Water Conservation Fund assistance; and
2. Certifies that said agency understands the assurances
in Part V of the application and certifies that it
will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines,
and requirements, including A-95 FMC 74-4 and FMC 74-7
and as they relate to the application; and
3. Certifies that said agency has matching funds and can
finance 100 percent of the project, half of which wi11
be reimbursed; and
4. Certifies that the project is compatible with the land
use plans of those jurisdictions immediately surrounding
the project; and
5. Appoints the Director of Recreation and Parks as agent
of the City to conduct alt negotiations, execute and
submit a11 documents including but not limited to
applications, agreements, amendments, billing state-
ments, and so on which may be necessary for the
completion of the aforementioned project.
BIB]
37685-U01
1977-U02
080-U02
CC-U02
RESO-U02
LI3-U03
FO10488-U03
FO10862-U03
DO10869-U03
C6-U03
RESO-U03
3/3/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
1977 080 CC RESO ;¢fì õ ‹peResolution No. 77-80
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October 1977.
ATTEST:
THELMA L. BALKUS, CItY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS:
CITY OF BALDWIN PARK
I, THELMA L. BALKUS, City Clerk of the City of Baldwin Park, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly approved and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Baldwin Park at its regular meeting of
the City Council on the 6th day of October 1977, by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN AGUILAR, KITCHEL, BLEWETT, HAMILTON AND MAYOR WALDO
NOES: COUNCILMEN_______________________________________
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN
c^
THELMA L. BALKUS, CITY CLERK
BIB]
37685-U01
1977-U02
080-U02
CC-U02
RESO-U02
LI3-U03
FO10488-U03
FO10862-U03
DO10869-U03
C6-U03
RESO-U03
3/3/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
1977 080 CC RESO ;¢fì õ ‹peUnder 1911 Act Bonds, if the property owner does not pay installments of principal and interest
when due, the bondholder is entitled to receive a penalty payment on the delinquent principal and
interest, and can ultimately force the property to be sold under a foreclosure action. The entity
which issued the bonds merely acts as an agent for the bondholder in collecting installments of the
assessments and has no liability in regard to debt service on the bonds. Since the bondholder does
not have any assurance of prompt and timely payment of principal and interest, 1911 Act Bonds are
usually purchased by a relatively small group of specialized and sophisticated investors. The in-
centive is usually a higher rate of return than may be available on other types of municipal bonds.
The Improvement Bond Act of 1915 provides a method of issuing bonds secured by assessments
levied under one of the enabling acts. A characteristic of 1915 Act Bonds is that there is no single
bond against a specific property. Installments of principal and interest sufficient to meet annual
bond service are collected on regular tax bills sent to owners of property against which there are
unpaid assessments. If delinquencies occur in payment of the property owner's installments/ the
issuing entity is obligated to advance the amount of any such delinquencies to the bond redemption
fund from any available resources. If other monies are not available for this purpose, the entity is
required to levy a tax in any amount up to a maximum of 10 cents per assessed valuation on all tax-
able property in the jurisdiction. An advance to the redemption fund is not a payment of the delin-
quent installment/ but only a loan. Security for the loan is the property.
The impact on local property owners from use of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 is more subtle
than a direct contribution by the governmental entity, but the effect for local taxpayers is significant.
In many projects, the use of 1915 Act Bonds has reduced assessed property owners' annual payments
by half. The market for 1915 Act Bonds is much broader than the market for 1911 Act Bonds and in-
cludes banks, insurance companies, trust and pension funds, and the federal government, in addition
to private individuals. Certain institutions are not permitted to purchase 1911 Act Bonds because of
statutory limitations or because of their own investment policies, but do purchase 1915 Act Bonds.
There are arguments in favor of both types of proceedings. Generally, the 1915 Act should be
used only when the issuer is reasonably sure there will be no major delinquencies, or where the im-
provements result in growth which will benefit the entity as a whole. Seldom is there justification
for a city to use the 1915 Act for new subdivision development unless the increased taxable value
created by the development results in distinct overall benefit to the city.
An enabling act known as the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 may be used in connection with
either the 1911 Act or the 1915 Act proceedings. This act provides that an assessment may be levied
in an estimated amount prior to the time the improvement work is actually done. The usual thirty-day
cash collection period occurs. Then the bonds representing unpaid assessments are sold and the pro-
ceeds used to pay the contractor cash progress payments during construction. It is generally believed
that this type of proceeding results in lower financing costs. However, it must be remembered that
under the 1913 Act, interest begins to accrue on the bonds upon expiration of the cash collection period,
before the Improvement work is done. Under 1911 Act proceedings, interest does not accrue until after
the work is done. Offsetting this is the fact that interest during construction is usually included in
the contractor's bid anyway under the 1911 Act proceedings,
Almost all special assessment proceedings are conducted under the Improvement Act of 1911 or the
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913. These are general purpose acts which can be used to construct or
acquire a great variety of public improvements. Other special purpose acts are available to provide a
particular class or type of public improvement. Two of the best known in this category are the Vehicle
Parking District Law of 1943 and the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960.
No election is required for assessment proceedings. A series of hearings provides ample oppor-
tunity for majority protests to stop proposed projects, unless it can be shown that the work is necessary
to eliminate a health hazard.
Stone & Youngberg Municipal Financing Consultants, Inc., has a separate department devoted to
special assessment consulting. If you have any questions, or require assistance, please feel free to
call Mike Whipple 213/483-1643) or Tom Lake 415/989-2300).
2-
SELECTED RECENT CALIFORNIA BOND SALES
1976
Sale
Date
Net
Interest
Ratings
Issuing Entity Amount Maturity Moody's S&P Rate
So. Mono Hosp.Dist,-G,0.
LA Dept.ofWtr.6c Pwr.-Wtr.Wks. Rev.
Riverside Redev.Agcy.Downtn.Mile
Sq. Redev. Proj, Rev.
Clark Co. Nev.) School Dist.-G.O.
Santa Clara Marriott Bus.Park^l-170)-
Rev.
Santa Clara Marriott Bus.Park 41-170A)
Rev.
Santa Fe Springs Redev.Agcy. Pioneer-
Telegraph) Rev.
Santa Fe Springs Redev.Agcy. Norwalk)-
Rev.
Santa Yne z Vly. UHSD Bidg. Corp. Rev.
Anaheim-Elec. Rev. Subord. Lien)
La Mirada Redev.Agency-Rev.
Liver-more Vlyjt. USD Educ.Facil.
Corp. Rev,
Ventura Co. Pub.Facil.Corp.-Rev.
Coachella Vly. Co.Wtr. Di st. ID#54 G. 0.
Stockton Unif.School Dist.-G,0,
Cerritos Redev.Agcy.-Los Coyotes
Proj. Rev.
Tahoe Forest Hosp. Dist. G. 0.
Tahoe Forest Hosp.Dist. Rev.
State Calif guarantee)
Merced IDfl9 1915 Act)
FairfieldSwr.FaciLID#l-G.O.
Lodi Unif. School Dist.-G.O,
May 25 $ 2,397/000 1978/96 Baal 6.92%
May 26 20/000/000 1981/16 Aa AA 6.70
May 26 4,000/000 1979/91 Baal 7.26
May 27 2,000,000 1977/86 A 6.09
June 1 2,023,435 1977/91 AAA* 6.32
June 1 1/826/565 1977/91 AAA* 6.28
June 7 1/250/000 1977/96 Baal 7.22
June 7 2,770,000 1977/96
June 7 2,180,000 1977/99
June 8 12/500/000 1977/80
June 8 2,770/000 1978/03
June 8 1/800,000 1979/00 A 6.82
June 8 31/000,000 1979/02 Al A 6.83
June 15 1,250,000 1977/99 Baa 6.65
June 15 4,500/000 1977/96 Aa AAA* 5.27
June 16 7,500/000 1980/00
June 16 2/000/000 1978/98
June 16 1,000,000 1982/96 Aa AA 6.03
June 21 2,470,555 1977/91 7.52
June 22 7,050,000 1977/01 BBB+ 7.30
June 22 5,315/000 1977/95 Aa AA 5.40
taal 7.22
5.00**
Al A+ 4.83
A BBB 7.11
Baa BBB+ 7.28
Baa 7.18
5'
BIB]
37685-U01
1977-U02
080-U02
CC-U02
RESO-U02
LI3-U03
FO10488-U03
FO10862-U03
DO10869-U03
C6-U03
RESO-U03
3/3/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
1977 080 CC RESO ;¢fì õ ‹peSELECTED RECENT CALIFORNIA BOND SALES
Issuinq Entity 1976 Sale Date Amount Maturity Ratinqs Net Interest Rate
Moodv's S&P
TravisWastewaterAuth.-Rev. June 22 $ 7 165,000 1978/02 Al AA No Bids
Berrenda Mesa Water Dist.-G.O. June 29 2 710 000 1978/02 Baal 7.00%
Calif Toll Bridge Auth.Antioch & Carquinez Strait Bridges Rev. June 29 49 800 000 1981/05 A 6.75
Riverside Unif. School Dist.-G.O. June 29 1 000 000 1977/91 Aa 5.26
Clark Co. Nev.) Airport Imp, Rev. June 30 13 000 000 1977/96 A A 6.98
Las Virgenes Unif. School Dist.-G.O. July 6 2 600 000 1978/95 A 6.02
Travis WastewaterAuth. Rev.
No Bids June 22)
Vista Irrigation Dist. G. 0,
San Jose Airport Rev.
July 7
July 7
July 13
7,165,000 1978/02 Al AA 8.33
4,000,000 1978/99 A BBB 6.56
4,000,000 1978/01 A A 6.45
* MBIA Insured.
** Purchased by Farmers Home Administration.
ANNOUNCED CALIFORNIA BOND SALES
Iss uinq Entity Type of Issue 1976 Sale Date Amount Maturity
Duarte Redev. Agency, Notes Rev. July 20 $ 1,700,000 1980
Liver-more Valley Joint Unified School
Dist. Educ. Facll. Corp.
Lynwood Redev. Agency, Commercial
Center Project
Alameda Co.Water Dist.(Fremont) Notes
Palm Springs Assmt. Dist. #121
San Ramon Valley Unif School Dist.,
Educ. Facil. Corp.
Vallelo Impvts.
Rev.
Rev.
G.O.
1915 Act
Rev.
G.O.
July 20 9,025,000 1979/00
July 20 2,000,000 1977/01
July 22 1,500,000 1978/81
July 27 1.040,187 1977/91
July 27 11,000,000 1977/96
July 28 1,355,000 1977/90
6-
No. 55
MUNICIPAL FINANCING LETTER JUL 2 137b
WW fuiyTfff, m CLERK
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS
Use of the special assessment as a means of financing public improvements has a long his-
tory. The first recorded instance occurred over seven hundred years ago in England, when the
costs of draining a marsh were charged against lands in proportion to the area of each parcel.
Later, special assessments were used to reconstruct London following the fire of 1666. In this
country, special assessments were an integral part of American public finance long before our
federal and state constitutions were written.
Special assessments are a unique and often misunderstood form of taxation. The basic prin-
ciple of a special assessment is that property or properties which benefit from a local improve-
ment should bear the burden of paying for it. The taxpayer receives a direct and visible benefit
from the improvement financed by his tax dollars. By its nature, an assessment proceeding re-
lates to benefits accruing to a particular area within a city, county, or other political subdivision.
In such a situation, the use of general obligation bonds would probably be inequitable,
Examples of construction normally undertaken by means of special assessment include curbs,
sidewalks, gutters, sewers, water lines, street lighting, street paving, and off-street parking.
The assessment district comes into being as a result of a petition by the people in the area, or
by an initiative act of the legislative body. In the usual assessment proceeding, actual or esti-
mated costs are assessed against all properties within the benefitted area. Specific assessments
are then levied against individual parcels on the basis of the benefit each receives, measured by
such standards as extent of frontage, total area, assessed valuation, or a combination of several
factors.
The property owner has the privilege of paying his assessment in cash during a specified time
period. If any assessments remain unpaid at the expiration of this period, bonds are issued to
represent the unpaid amounts. As a rule, most property owners involved in a proceeding of this
kind will opt for the issuance of bonds rather than paying the full assessment in cash.
A special assessment can only be utilized to accomplish a beneficial public purpose. Many
public improvements financed by special assessment procedures convey such measurable benefits
to the community at large that the entity conducting the proceedings contributes to the project.
Such a contribution may take the form of cash, the performance of special services without charge,
or assistance in financing arrangements.
A distinction should be made between assessment acts" which prescribe the procedures to
be followed in forming a district and confirming the assessments, and bond acts", which provide
steps for the Issuance of bonds representing liens derived from proceedings taken under an assess-
ment act. Practices and procedures vary greatly among states, and even among cities in the same
state.
In California, there are two basic forms of bonds which allow property owners to repay a special
assessment over a period of years. Bonds issued pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 both an
assessment act and a bond act) are secured solely by the property. Those authorized by the Improve-
ment Bond Act of 1915 a bond act only) carry the credit backing of the Issuing agency as well.
BIB]
37685-U01
1977-U02
080-U02
CC-U02
RESO-U02
LI3-U03
FO10488-U03
FO10862-U03
DO10869-U03
C6-U03
RESO-U03
3/3/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
1977 080 CC RESO ;¢fì õ ‹pePart of SEC Rule 10 b) 5 states that it is unlawful for any person
with the purchase or sale of any security,
directly or indirectly, in connection
2) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material
fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circum-
stances under which they were made, not misleading."
A material fact has been defined as any information which has or would, if disclosed, have had a sig-
nificant bearing on the determination of a reasonable investor to buy, sell or hold a given security. It
is the duty and obligation of all parties connected with a municipal issue to unearth and provide the
ultimate investor with all information necessary to make such a determination. Failure to do so is a
violation of the anti-fraud provisions of both the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act. Moreover, in the event of de-
fault, the failure to exercise due diligence and make full disclosure of all material facts at the outset will
almost certainly result in action for money damages against all parties to the transaction, including the
Issuer.
Although the SEC has invoked Rule 10 b) 5 against numerous corporate issuers, to our knowledge
it has not yet moved against any municipal issuer in this regard. However, such a case has been filed
by private parties.
In the wake of the many disclosures emanating from New York City, and the increased scrutiny of
municipal issues by the SEC, it seems clear that underwriters and those dealing in the primary and
secondary markets for municipal bonds will expect local governments to provide the essential facts
they need before bidding on municipal bonds. Anticipating the reaction of certain issuers, who might
look upon the Tower Amendment as a license to withhold vital information from prospective investors,
a partner of one large underwriting firm said, If issuers don't supply the Information we need on bonds,
then we won't make bids on them and investors won't buy them." Additionally, an SEC Commissioner
said. In situations where it appears there is a serious deficiency in disclosure, the Commission should
move against the dealers involved and, if appropriate, against the issuers themselves and others res-
ponsible for the deficiency."
We believe that the preparation and dissemination of essential information concerning both the munici-
pal issuer and the bond issue will reach a wider and more receptive audience if it is gathered and re-
ported by an independent professional municipal financing consultant. In our judgement. Stone & Young-
berg Municipal Financing Consultants/ Inc. is uniquely qualified to perform this vital function, working
with underwriters and municipal securities dealers every day, and familiar with their needs as well as
those of the client public entity. The established, experienced financing consultant is a known qualtity
in the securities markets; providing accurate and reliable information on which an investment decision
can be made, without the need for further investigation or analysis by the underwriter or dealer. Nothing
less than a complete package of information, professionally prepared and presented will do the job.
Timing of the sale and many other factors also affect bidding interest and price. An analysis of each
of these contributing factors is necessary to properly merchandise bonds under the best available condi-
tions and consequently obtain the lowest interest rate. The importance of proper marketing procedures
becomes apparent when one considers that an entity will save over $50.000 for each one-quarter of one
percent savings in interest rate on a $1 million bond issue with equal annual debt service over a 30-year
period. Interest savings alone almost always exceed the cost of employing a financing consultant.
Please call Lee Mitchell in San Francisco 415/989-2300). or Bob Bulot in Los Angeles 213/483-1643)
There is no obligation. Both Lee and Bob can be reached at the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco
during the League of California Cities Convention and in San Jose at the LeBaron Hotel/San Jose Hyatt
House during the County Supervisors Convention.
2-
BOND BUYER'S INDEX
Due to extremely unsettled market conditions caused chiefly by New York City and State financial
problems, the Index reached a new all-time high of 7.67% on October 2. This is the ninth consecutive
week the Index exceeded the previous December 1.974 all-time high of 7.15. The following chart illus-
trates municipal bond market trends from 1970 to date. The Bond Buyer's 20-Bond Index of general obli-
gation bonds result from averaging the market value of bonds with 20 year maturities,expressed in terms
of yield. The average rating of the 20 bonds falls midway between the four top groups as classified by
Moody's Investors Service,Inc.
BOND BUYER 20-BOND AVERAGE YIELD
Oir^S r^O^ED Of-" FAL.'- A&fcK i^DICATbf? AR)
Issuing Entity
1975
Sale
Date
Amount Maturity
Net
Ratings Interest
Moody* s S&P___Rate
Calif. S chool Bidg. Aid G,0. July 29
City of Redlands Redev.Agcy.-Parking
Rev. July 29
San Fernando Redev. Agency, Proj.
#2 Rev. Aug. 5
Chino Basin Muni.Water Dist.,
Series D & E G,0. Aug. 6
Sacramento County Parks-G.O. Aug. 6
Simi Valley County Sanitation Dist.
AD#7-1915 Act Aug. 11
LA County Fld.Cont.Di St.-G.O. Aug. 12
$50,000,000 1976/95
3/760,000 1978/00
3,000/000 1979/00
3,000/000 1977/95
5,700,000 1976/95
1,108,576 1977/96
10,000,000 1978/95
Aaa AAA 5.92%
Baa I A 7.73
A BBB+ 7.90
A AAA 6.86*
Aa AA 6.04
AAA 6.97*
Aaa AAA 5.93
3-
BIB]
37685-U01
1977-U02
080-U02
CC-U02
RESO-U02
LI3-U03
FO10488-U03
FO10862-U03
DO10869-U03
C6-U03
RESO-U03
3/3/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
1977 080 CC RESO ;¢fì õ ‹peSELECTED RECENT CALIFORNIA BOND SALES
Issuinq Entity 197 Sale Dati 5&9 amount Maturity Ratir iqs Net Interest Rate
Moody's S&P
Chula Vista Redev.Agency-Rev, Aug. 19 $ 3 400,000 1977/96 A BBB+ 7.37%
No.Tahoe Pub. Util. Dist.-G.O. Aug. 19 1 000,000 1977/96 Baa 1 7.51
Riverside Co. Park Facil. Corp. Rev, Aug. 19 4,225,000 1977/00 A 1 AAA 6.89*
City of Ingle-wood, Water-Rev. Aug. 26 5 000,000 1981/05 Baa I AAA 7.01*
City of San Jose Redev.Agency, kincon Proj. Rev. Aug. 26 5 580,000 1977/97 A A 7.37
Mt.Diablo Hosp.Auth.-Rev. Aug. 27 1 650,000 1977/00 A BBB 7.18
Paradise USD Bidgo Corp.-Rev. Aug. 27 4,000,000 1978/97 AAA 6,81*
No.of the RiverMuni.Wtr.Dist.-G.O. Sept. 3 2 300,000 1977/01 A AAA 6.83*
Solano Co. Library Auth, Rev. Sept. 4 2 000,000 1978/01 AAA 7.15*
Lake ArrowheadSanit.Dist. AD#3 1915 Act) Sept. 8 1 069,788 1977/01 5.00 FHA)
Cerritos Reg.Co.ParkAuth.-Rev. Sept. 16 6 550,000 1978/00 Aa AAA 7.18*
Inglewood-LA Co. Civ. Ctr.Auth.-Rev. Sept. 16 1 275,000 1977/97 A AAA 7.46*
Seal Beach Redev.Agcy.-Rev.Notes Sept. 22 3 250,000 1978 8.47
IA Co.-ComptonCiv.Ctr.Auth.-
Courthouse Rev,
San BernardinoCo.Svc.Area 70,
Zone H.AD^l 1915 Act)
Calif.State Beach. Park & Rec.-G.O.
San Diego USD Pub. Sch. Bidg. Corp.
Rev.
Ukiah Unified School Dist. G.O.
Sept.25 46,000,000 1978/00
Aa
7,76
Sept. 29 2, 526, 596 1977/01 Baa 1 AAA 7.64*
Sept. 30 50, 000, 000 1976/95 Aaa AAA 6.08
Sept. 30 35, 000, 000 1978/88 1995 A 1 A+ AAA 7.59*
Sept. 30 2, 200, 000 1977/89 A 6.93
* MBIA insured.
ANNOUNCED CALIFORNIA BOND SALES
Issuinq Entity Type of Issue 1975 Sale Date Amount Maturity
Riverside Unified School District Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. G.Oo G.O. Oct, 7 Oct. 14 $ 1,200,000 6,000,000 1977/90 1976/05
Univ. of Calif. Berkeley) Group A,
Housing System
Calif. Educ. Fac. Auth., Univ. of
So. Calif. Project
Glendale Redevelopment Agency
Rev,
Rev.
Rev.
Oct. 14 6,600,000 1977/14
Oct. 21 18,750,000 1976/00
Oct. 28 6,750,000 1979/95
4-
MUNICIPAL FINANCING LETTER
No. 52
FULL DISCLOSURE
October 10, 1975
On June 4, President Ford signed the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975 S 249, Williams), the most
significant change in the structure of the securities markets since the Securities Act of 1933 and the Sec-
urities and Exchange Act of 1934 were enacted over forty years ago.
Of particular Interest to public entities are provisions which extend Federal regulation to municipal
securities dealers and brokers, including banks engaged as such. The legislation creates a 15-man Mun-
icipal Securities Rulemaking Board to adopt rules regulating trading in municipal securities subject to
SEC oversight. Municipal issuers will not be directly subject to filing or reporting regulations within
the purview of this new board. However, the municipal issuer is still accountable to the Securities and
Exchange Commission and influenced substantially by the existing Federal Legislation.
Usually referred to as the Securities Reform Act of 1975, the new legislation provides for regulation of
broker-dealers, banks, or bank departments which deal largely or solely in municipal securities. Col-
lectively referred to as municipal securities dealers", they must register with the SEC by December 1,
1975, and thereafter are subject to the rules of the new Board. The Board is given extensive powers to
adopt rules with regard to trading in municipal securities. Action against transgressors will be taken
by the National Association of Securities Dealers where a municipal securities dealer is involved, and
by appropriate banking regulatory authorities if a bank is charged, i.e., the Comptroller of the Cur-
rency. the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the Federal Reserve Board. The SEC has overall
supervision.
Who polices the municipal issuer? There is no express provision for this in the 1975 Act. In fact, the
law provides that neither the SEC nor the Board is authorized to require any municipal issuer to file in-
formation with either entity prior to the sale of its securities. Furthermore, the Board is not authorized
to require any issuer to furnish the Board or a prospective purchaser of securities any information with
respect to such issuer, except that the Board may require brokers and dealers to provide information
concerning the issuer which is generally available from a source other than the issuer.
The language exempting municipal issuers from reporting requirements is Incorporated in the so-called
Tower Amendment, which has been the subject of considerable comment. Senator John B. Tower of Texas,
when drafting the amendment bearing his name, took the position that states and cities should not be sub-
ject to the regulations of a private rulemaking body. He is also reported to have said that the necessary
information probably would be made available anyway. In today's bond markets, the trend is clearly to
fuller disclosure, not less. a position we believe is fully supported by the Municipal Finance Officers
Association and Senator Tower.
The municipal issuer remains accountable to the Securities and Exchange Commission, even though
local governments are not subject to the 1975 Act. Beginning in 1973. the SEC increased the tempo of
its enforcement activity against fraudulent practices in the sale of municipal securities. Although there
are no fixed reporting standards for municipal bonds a key paragraph of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 is worth noting, because it pertains to securities of all kinds.
BIB]
37685-U01
1977-U02
080-U02
CC-U02
RESO-U02
LI3-U03
FO10488-U03
FO10862-U03
DO10869-U03
C6-U03
RESO-U03
3/3/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
1977 080 CC RESO ;¢fì õ ‹peSELECTED RECENT CALIFORNIA BOND SALES
Issuing Entity 197 Sal Dat 6 e e Amount Maturity Rati Moody's Net nqs Interest i S&P Rate
Santa Rosa Ranches Water Dist.-G.Oo Mar. 30 $ 7,600,000 1978/96 8.06%
Victor Vly.Jt.Unif. Bldg.Corp.-Rev. Apr. 5 2,520,000 1979/97 5.00**
L. A. County Flood Cont.Dist.-G.O. Apr. 6 6,000,000 1977/06 Aaa 5.63
Cucamonga County Water Dist. Improvement Dist. #5 G. 0. Apr. 7 2,000,000 1978/01 A AAA* 6.04
Gilroy Unif. School Bidg. Corp. Rev. Apr. 7 10,000/000 1979/08 A 6.62
Irvine Ranch Wtr. Di st. Imp. Di st. f2 0 6-G. 0« Apr. 7 4,515,000 1980/93 7.05
ConejoUnif. School Dist.- G.O. Apr. 13 10,500,000 1977/96 Al 5.74
Ocean View School Dist, G,0o Apr, 13 1,900,000 1978/89 Al 5.10
San Buenaventura Assmt.Dist,#74-2-(1915 Act) Apr. 13 2,161,836 1977/01 AAA* 6.08
Anaheim Electric Rev. Apr. 27 6/000,000 1977/06 Al AA 6.07
Pajaro Vly.Unif. School Dist. Bidg. Corp. Rev. Apr. 27 4,050,000 1978/93 A 5.87
Fresno Airport Rev. Apr. 29 2,220,000 1977/01 A AAA* 6.02
LA County Health Facil.Author! ty-E. LA Corn preh. Health Ctr.-Rev, May 4 7,625,000 1979/01 Aa 6.25
IrvineRanchWtr.Dist.Imp.Dist.ttl05-G.Oo May 5 10,460,000 1980/01 6.83
Sacramento Muni.Util.Dist.-Notes-G.O. Bonds not deliv. litigation) May 6 25,000,000 1978/81 Aa AA 4.14
Oak Grove School Dist.-G.O, May 11 2,500,000 1977/91 Al 5.52
M etro Wtr. Dist. of So. Calif. Rev. May 11 50,000,000 1978/20 Aa AA 6.49
Cerritos Redev, Agency, Los Cerritos Redev.Proj TaxAlloc.Rev. May 12 7,500/000 1980/00 A 6.67
Glendale Elec. Rev. May 18 10,000/000 1978/99 Aa AA 6.25
Ventura Co. Fid. Cont. Di st. Zone III G, Oo May 18 3,000,000 1981/99 Al 6.35
Carlsbad Unif.School DistoEduc. Facil. Corp. Rev. May 19 1,210,000 1978/00 Al 6.67
Morgan Hill Unif.School Dist.-G.Oo May 25 2,050,000 1977/85 Al 5.23
4-
BIB]
37685-U01
1977-U02
080-U02
CC-U02
RESO-U02
LI3-U03
FO10488-U03
FO10862-U03
DO10869-U03
C6-U03
RESO-U03
3/3/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04
1977 080 CC RESO ;¢fì õ ‹peBOND BUYER'S INDEX
We reported a 20-Bond Index of 6.98% in our March Letter. After dropping to 6.54% in mid-April,
the Index rose again to 7 03% at the end of May, and now stands at 6.78%. The pattern for the first
half of 1976 looks much like that of 1975. The following chart illustrates municipal bond market trends
from 1970 to date. The Bond Buyer's 20-Bond Index of general obligation bonds is the result of averaging
the market value of bonds having a maturity of 20 years, expressed in terms of yield. The average rating
of the 20 bonds falls midway between the four top groups as classified by Moody's Investors Service,Inc.
BOND BUYER 20-BOND AVERAGE YIELD
POINTS PLOTTED AS OF EACH WEEK iN INDICATED YEAR)
78
f \ 74
\
f 7 Wl \ 70
\ \ I v \ r \ /
\ I/ 66
i V u I
v 62 z
A r i
f\ 58
u/i A \.
/ / if 9
w t \ f i i/" \^ V \ r/ LJ50
46
42
39
3.4
30
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
SELECTED RECENT CALIFORNIA BOND SALES
1976
Sale
Date
Net
Interest
Ratings
Issuing Entity Amount Maturity Moody's S&P Rate
Inglewood Housing Auth.-Sr. Citizens
Housing Facilities-Rev,
IrvineRanchWtr.Dist.Imp.Dist.#2-G.O
LA County Sanit.Dist.No.l9-G.O.
Marin Co, Service Area No. 2 3 G o 0
Desert Sands USD Bldg.Corp.~Rev.
Chino Unif.School Dist.-G.O.
Cabrillo Unif.School Dist.-G.O.
Pond-Poso Imp. Dist,of Semi-Tropic
Water Storage Dist.-G.O.
Calif.Veterans Welfare-G.O,
Mar. 2 $3,400,000 1979/08 A A 7.32%
Mar. 10 8/370,000 1980/06 7.73
Mar, 10 1,000,000 1977/96 A 7.28
Mar, 11 1,150/000 1977/96 Aa 6.05
Mar. 18 6,320,000 1978/96 A 6.69
Mar, 22 1,965,000 1977/91 A 5.72
Mar. 23 2,595,000 1977/91 A 5.64
Mar. 23 1,500,000 1979/96 A 5.92
Mar. 30 100,000,000 1978/02 Aaa AAA 5.38
3-
BIB]
37685-U01
1977-U02
080-U02
CC-U02
RESO-U02
LI3-U03
FO10488-U03
FO10862-U03
DO10869-U03
C6-U03
RESO-U03
3/3/2003-U04
ROBIN-U04