Untitled

2013 U.S.
State Debt Review: Despite Large Infrastructure Needs, Debt Issuance Remains Muted
Primary Credit Analyst: Henry W Henderson, Boston (1) 617-530-8314; henry.henderson@standardandpoors.com Secondary Contact: John A Sugden, New York (1) 212-438-1678; john.sugden@standardandpoors.com
Table Of Contents
U.S. Infrastructure Is Reaching A Critical Financing Point Debt Issuance In 2012 Deficit Financing Unemployment Insurance Fund Bonds The State Debt Landscape For 2014 Measuring Debt Issuer Review Contact Information Related Criteria And Research
WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT
JULY 10, 2013 1

1158166 | 301674531
2013 U.S. State Debt Review: Despite Large Infrastructure Needs, Debt Issuance Remains Muted
It might be a surprise to casual observers of U.S. state budgets, but the U.S. states aren't laboring under unbearable debt burdens. Yes, the Great Recession and its aftermath have inflicted much pain on state and local governments resulting in lower service levels, fewer government employees, and revenues that, while back to prerecession levels, have not kept up with inflation. And indeed, municipal debt issuance rose significantly in 2012 relative to 2011. However, in our opinion, this is much more a reflection of a lower-than-average level of issuance in 2011 following a significant surge in debt issuance in 2010 to take advantage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, than a significant increase in debt issuance in 2012. In fact, debt issuance in 2012 reflects a return to more average levels. It is also very telling that refinancing transactions accounted for more than half of issuance in 2012, which primarily reflects states taking advantage of a low interest rate environment to reduce the cost of servicing their debt. Despite an improved revenue environment, the significant demands on governments to reinstate services, reduce taxes, and fund rising pension and health care costs leave limited appetite for additional debt. Relative to many of the sovereigns we rate, U.S. states have lower debt ratios when measured against the size of their economies. State debt levels compared with GDP and personal income are not significantly higher now than they were before the Great Recession, despite the recession's impact on these wealth measures. We believe this reflects a fundamental strength of the U.S. state sector relative to the sovereign sector with which it is sometimes compared: U.S. states issue the overwhelming majority of debt for one-time capital projects, not to support recurring operations and finance budget deficits. An additional strength is that U.S. states almost exclusively issue amortizing debt, which eliminates rollover risk. In short, Standard & Poor's does not believe that U.S. states, in general, face a debt crisis. Our research, as reflected in the debt statistic tables in this report, shows that state debt burdens are moderate overall. For example, median tax-supported debt is 2.3% of states' GDP, ranging from 8.3% (Hawaii) to less than 0.1% (Nebraska). And Hawaii's debt ratios are higher relative to other states because Hawaii issues debt for public education and other functions that many states fund at the local level. We also view debt as moderate when measured against government spending and total personal income. The median for debt burden as a share of general government outlays is 3.7%, and it ranges from 11.0% (Hawaii) to 0.1% (Nebraska). In our view, an overall political environment emphasizing fiscal discipline and debt affordability models in many states have tempered debt issuance. Multiple states scaled back debt issuance in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 to stay within policy levels.
U.S. Infrastructure Is Reaching A Critical Financing Point

Debt issuance has not significantly increased despite revenue reductions that have lowered states' ability to finance capital through pay-as-you-go financing. This raises the question of whether state debt levels are too low given the infrastructure improvements identified by many as important for the U.S. to maintain economic competitiveness. The
JULY 10, 2013 2

1158166 | 301674531
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issues a comprehensive assessment every four years on the state of the nation's infrastructure. The 2013 assessment is a D+, a slight improvement from the D grades that it has given the U.S. since 1998. The nearly failing grade reflects the enormous amount of capital needs from bridges to levees. For example, according to ASCE, one in nine bridges in the U.S. is structurally deficient, and to eliminate the backlog of repairs or replacements by 2028, local, state, and federal spending would have to increase by $8 billion per year. The ASCE report highlights similar needs in many other infrastructure areas. Roads and highway infrastructure receives a D in the 2013 report, which was also an improvement from four years earlier. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that federal, state, and local governments would need to invest $170 billion per year to significantly improve highway conditions. They're spending only $91 billion annually now. The society asserts what most American policy makers already know: infrastructure is critical for long-term economic growth, increasing GDP, employment, and household income, and that deteriorating infrastructure can be a drag on an economy. We believe that finding the appropriate balance of funding infrastructure and other priorities will remain an ongoing challenge given the prospects for tepid economic and revenue growth and the potential for reduced federal funding. Many states have recently had large proposed infrastructure programs, particularly for transportation, including proposals for restructuring or increasing taxes. While many of these proposals were eventually downsized or not enacted, we expect that these debates will continue.
Debt Issuance In 2012

Total municipal bond issuance in calendar 2012 for all levels of government was $366.7 billion, slightly below the 10-year average of $381.3 billion, but 28% greater than the level of issuance in 2011. However, nearly 62% of last year's issuance was for refundings, which is a historical high according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Assn. New-money issuance in 2012 was, therefore, only $141.2 billion, which is that category's lowest amount since at least 2004. We believe several factors are causing this relatively low issuance, including formal state debt limits and an overall environment of fiscal restraint. Our data show that total tax-supported debt in the 50 states increased to $488 billion in fiscal 2012, a $13 billion or 2.8% increase from fiscal 2011. The fiscal 2012 growth was slightly higher than the 0.9% fiscal 2011 growth rate, but significantly lower than the 9.5% growth in fiscal 2010 and 8.3% growth in fiscal 2009. Much of the fiscal 2012 increase was from states that already had relatively high levels of debt, such as California and New York, but Michigan's $2.9 billion unemployment insurance bond issuance accounted for the largest increase in debt levels for any state in fiscal 2012. When measured against government spending, debt burdens remained essentially flat in fiscal 2012, aided by historically low interest rates (see table 1).
Table 1
Aggregate Debt Levels Of The 50 U.S. States (Median)

--Fiscal year-Debt metrics Net tax supported debt service as a % of governmental expenditures Net tax-supported debt per capita ($) 2012 3.7 1,036 2011 3.6 1,009 2010 3.6 932 2009 3.5 870 2008 3 739
JULY 10, 2013 3

1158166 | 301674531
Table 1
Aggregate Debt Levels Of The 50 U.S. States (Median) (cont.)

Net tax-supported debt as a % of personal income Net tax-supported debt as a % of GSP 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.4 2 2.1 1.8
Deficit Financing
One of the key analytical differences between U.S. state debt and sovereign debt is that states issue debt mostly for capital projects, not operations. However, the Great Recession slashed state revenue and resulted in occasional departures from this general rule, with a limited number of state-level deficit financings and debt restructurings. Illinois issued a total of $7.2 billion of debt in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to fund the state's current-year pension payments, reducing budgetary pressure by an equal amount. Arizona sold $1.5 billion in appropriation debt and lottery bonds in fiscal 2010 to fund operations as revenues declined. In early fiscal 2012, Minnesota issued $600 million of bonds backed by tobacco settlement revenues that it used for budgetary relief during the year. General obligation (GO) bonds refunded these tobacco bonds in fiscal 2013. Connecticut issued nearly $1 billion of deficit bonds for fiscal 2009 budgetary relief, and the enacted 2014-2015 budget authorized extending the repayment of the notes by two years. An additional $750 million was authorized to fund the state's accumulated deficit on a generally accepted accounting principles basis. Ohio shifted about $1.2 billion of debt payments due in fiscal years 2010 through 2012 to later years for budgetary relief. Wisconsin included debt restructuring to generate about $212 million in savings as part of its larger set of solutions to close a projected $3.46 billion deficit for the 2011-2013 biennial budget. New Jersey and Kentucky have also refunded and restructured several debt issues to close general fund budgetary gaps in the past few years. However, we believe that these deficit financings and restructurings will decline as the economy and state revenues improve.
Unemployment Insurance Fund Bonds

One unique use of state debt in recent years was for unemployment insurance fund bonds to repay federal loans that states used to pay unemployment benefits. Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have authorized or issued these bonds. The security on them varies, but typically involves a pledge of temporary special assessments on employers or other funds. An important determinant of the bonds' credit quality is whether the pledge to bondholders is a first lien or whether debt service is paid on parity with payments to the unemployed, which we view as a potentially weaker structure. For more details on these bonds, see "Unemployment Insurance Fund Bonds Help States Pay Off Federal Unemployment Loans," published Sept. 6, 2012, on RatingsDirect. From a credit standpoint, we typically include these bonds as part of a state's debt burden. Because some states issued these bonds in fiscal 2013, our debt figures in the tables don't fully capture their impact on state debt levels. An important characteristic of these bonds is that although the amounts issued have been significant--Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas each issued at least $1.5 billion--the amortization schedule is typically rapid, which somewhat mitigates their negative impact on credit quality.
JULY 10, 2013 4

1158166 | 301674531
The State Debt Landscape For 2014

In our view, debt issuance will likely continue to be constrained in fiscal 2014 based on adopted budgets. With budget officials dealing with an improving but still-uncertain revenue picture due to sequestration, rising pension costs, and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, potential increases in debt service are being crowded out of state budgets. In addition to revenue and spending pressures, other areas that could significantly influence debt issuance through 2014 are changes in the municipal bond tax exemption and states' use of public-private partnerships (P3s) as a mechanism through which to fund large infrastructure projects. We expect current state debt levels will remain moderate, and state new debt issuance in the near term will remain low by recent historical standards, despite low interest rates and large infrastructure needs. For the first half of 2013, state-level debt issuance was 17% lower than the same period in 2012 (source: Bond Buyer market data). As the U.S. economy slowly improves and state budgets recover from the Great Recession, states' ability to service additional debt also strengthens. However, we believe that pressure to increase spending in Medicaid and to restore services cut during the recession will also mount. We also believe the current political environment emphasizing fiscal restraint will result in relatively muted debt issuance in the near term.
New federal proposals could increase borrowing costs and reduce issuance
President Obama's 2014 budget includes a proposal to cap the municipal bond interest exemption at 28% for individuals making $200,000 or more per year--and couples making $250,000 or more per year--from the current maximum rate of 39.5%. A more severe proposal would be to fully eliminate the exemption for municipal debt. Senators Baucus and Hatch, the leaders of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, have proposed to take a "blank slate" approach to tax expenditures that could result in the full elimination of municipal debt exemption, which was also recommended by the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Clearly, these proposals would make municipal bonds less attractive for many of their current buyers, which would lead to an increase in interest rates on new issues, everything else being equal. The president's budget also included a proposal for America Fast Forward bonds, which would be taxable municipal bonds that receive a federal subsidy on the interest paid to bondholders, similar to Build America Bonds (BABs). However, the bonds would have a 28% subsidy rate, which is lower than the BABs subsidy and consequently could result in increased capital costs. A report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other groups estimates that President Obama's proposed tax exemption cap would have increased debt service costs by about 15% over the past 10 years, and that full elimination of municipal bond tax exemption would have increased debt service by 45% over the same period. The National Governors Assn. estimates that taxing municipal bonds would raise borrowing costs by as much as 200 basis points and infrastructure costs by 25%. We believe that given the current focus on fiscal restraint, the implementation of proposals that increase borrowing costs for states could reduce future issuance and therefore reduce some states' economic competitiveness due to inadequate infrastructure for transportation and other areas.
JULY 10, 2013 5

1158166 | 301674531
P3s offer an alternative infrastructure financing solution

Public-private partnerships (P3s) are a risk-sharing method that governments have used globally and are becoming more popular in the U.S. as states look for alternative ways of delivering large infrastructure projects. Currently, California, Florida, Indiana, Texas, and Virginia are some of the states that have participated in P3s. Under the P3 model, a partnership--consisting of a government and a private business--funds and operates an infrastructure project. The benefits of this structure are that it includes some level of private investment and that there is, typically, a transfer of construction and operating risk to the private party. These projects are done as either availability or volume-based projects. For availability projects, the government makes construction milestone payments and availability payments (payments for the operation of the asset) in exchange for a new asset. In many, but not all, cases, these state commitments are backed by toll revenues, gas taxes, or appropriations, or a combination of these. Because they are often funded through a particular state's department of transportation and because of the private equity component, these issuances are often not constrained by a state's debt affordability models. We evaluate the nature of a state's obligation under the P3 agreements in determining whether we consider the obligation to be part of a state's tax-supported debt. For volume-based projects, the government receives an up-front payment in exchange for allowing the private entity to operate and collect the project revenues over the contract term. In 2012, Standard & Poor's rated three new large transportation P3 issues. Although P3s have not yet gained widespread acceptance in the U.S., a few states have authorized P3 agreements for some additional large projects that are likely to be finalized in 2013 and 2014. Due to the size of projects financed under the P3 model, an increase in P3 activity could result in significant increases to debt levels for the private sponsor's joint ventures and government entities. For more information on P3 programs, see "Top 10 Investor Questions For 2013: Global Public Private Partnership Infrastructure Investment," published Dec. 5, 2012.
Measuring Debt
Debt analysis remains a primary focus of Standard & Poor's overall credit evaluation of states. Of particular importance are the annual costs of servicing debt compared with the funding of other long-term liabilities and operating costs for future tax streams and revenue sources. Standard & Poor's debt ratio calculations for states aggregate all tax-supported obligations, including GO bonds, appropriation obligations, and special-tax bonds, such as sales, personal income, and gas tax bonds. In general, our calculation will not include debt that is issued for true enterprise or self-sustaining purposes, such as toll revenue bonds. In addition, we do not include grant and anticipation revenue (GARVEE) notes or GARVEE bonds in state debt calculations if they are payable solely from dedicated federal revenues. We also exclude bonds secured by tobacco settlement revenues from state debt calculations if they conform to our stress scenarios for rating such debt and are payable exclusively from settlement revenues. Contingent debt obligations that historically have not required state support are excluded as well. We are including data on debt levels as of the last two fiscal years for which audited financial statements are available. Our "U.S. State Ratings Methodology," published Jan. 3, 2011 (insert hyperlink), provides details on the debt ratios that
JULY 10, 2013 6

1158166 | 301674531
we include in our analysis of U.S. states. Overall, despite much hand-wringing over state debt levels coming out of the Great Recession, the totality of our analysis makes it clear that states aren't barreling down the road to ruin. We believe that strong debt management policies, an environment of fiscal restraint, and increased pressure to reestablish service levels and to reduce taxes will contribute to limited debt issuance through fiscal 2014. States' efforts to refinance their debt for cost savings will provide some additional flexibility to issue debt while maintaining level debt service costs. We expect the already small group of states that have relied on deficit financings will decline further as the economy gradually improves. Absent widespread adoption of P3s to meet large infrastructure needs or additional issuance of unemployment compensation bonds, we expect debt levels to remain moderate--at least for now, although we expect that debate on funding infrastructure needs will continue.
Issuer Review
Table 2
State/GO Rating/Comment
Analyst
Alabama (AA/Stable) Alabama can issue GO debt only through constitutional amendments and requires authorization by Henry Henderson three-fifths of both the Legislature's houses and voter approval. The Alabama Supreme Court, however, has held that these restrictions do not apply to debt incurred by separate corporations functioning as instruments of the state. Furthermore, the state Supreme Court has ruled that the Legislature can authorize limited-obligation debt with a pledge of certain taxes or other revenues securing that debt. Due to the constitutional limits on GO debt, the state's GO debt is relatively limited, at $684 million as of fiscal 2012. Limited-obligation debt has been Alabama's preferred method of financing capital improvements, including more than $2.51 billion of tax-supported revenue debt and $315 million of appropriation debt. The large majority of the tax-supported revenue debt is issued for the Public School and College Authority and is secured by a senior lien on all utility gross receipt revenues and utility service use, sales, and general use taxes, net of collection costs; surplus revenues after debt service are transferred to the state's education trust fund to support operations. The state's total tax-supported debt obligation is moderate and debt service carrying charges are low, in our view. Pursuant to a constitutional amendment that voters approved in 2000, the state has used a portion of its oil and gas royalty receipts from the Alabama Trust Fund to support some of its GO debt service costs. The state has not made a practice of issuing deficit bonds or cash flow bonds. We understand that state officials have no plans to issue additional GO debt in the near to medium term. Alaska (AAA/Stable) Alaska's tax-supported debt (GO and appropriation) to personal income is moderate and tax-supported debt Gabe Petek to gross state product is low (not including the principal amount of municipal school debt that the state has typically reimbursed). We believe the low-to-moderate ratios are due to the level of mining and resource extraction activity in the state. The tax-supported debt figures increase when including the local municipal school- and capital reimbursement-related debt paid by the state on behalf of local jurisdictions. About 51% of combined GO and lease debt matures in the next 10 years. Following the planned issuance, Alaska anticipates having capacity for $453 million of unissued GO debt that voters authorized in November 2012 for transportation-related projects. The governor's fiscal 2014 budget proposal includes approximately $1.8 billion (all funds) in capital funding. This figure includes approximately $826 million of municipally issued debt for school construction for which the state provides partial debt service subsidies through annual appropriations. It also includes $28.2 million in locally issued debt we allocate to the state because Alaska also subsidizes the debt service associated with this amount of local government capital construction. The state does not have any interest rate swaps or tax-supported variable-rate debt. On Nov. 6, 2012, Alaska voters approved $454 million in GO bonds for transportation projects. We consider this debt authorization to be significant, at approximately 17% of the state's existing tax-supported debt. But we believe the state will have sufficient flexibility to structure debt issuances to minimize the effect of a potential net increase in annual debt service into its budget. Absent other changes in the state's credit profile, we do not believe this
JULY 10, 2013 7

1158166 | 301674531
measure would immediately affect the state's credit quality. Arizona (ICR) (AA-/Stable) Arizona cannot issue GO debt, but issues annual appropriation-backed lease-secured debt and state Dave Hitchcock highway user tax-backed debt. In addition, it issued lottery-secured debt to fund state operating deficits as a result of the last recession. Although the state sold school facilities appropriation-backed debt in fiscal 2012, partly to relieve general fund operating pressure, it is our understanding that it currently has limited plans for additional new money debt due to improvement in state finances. Arkansas (AA/Stable) As of June 30, 2012, Arkansas' tax-supported debt and tax-supported debt service burden as a percentage Henry Henderson of expenditures remain low, in our view. Debt amortization is rapid, in our opinion, with about 70% of tax-supported and revenue debt principal repaid in 10 years and nearly 100% repaid in 20 years. The state constitution does not limit the amount of GO or revenue debt issued. However, GO bonds only may be issued with voter approval at a general or special election. In November 2004, the electorate authorized Amendment 82 to the constitution that allows the state legislature to approve GO bonds for economic development projects through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA). The state can issue bonds in an amount up to 5% of general revenues for economic development under Amendment 82, and the legislature has approved $125 million of economic development bonds for infrastructure for a steel mill proposed in eastern Arkansas. Currently, no debt has been issued under Amendment 82. ADFA was created to issue bonds on behalf of the state for single-family and multifamily housing, industrial development, job creation, higher educational facilities, and assistance to local governments through a revolving loan program for wastewater facilities. Other revenues, apart from state general revenues, typically secure these debt issuances. Authorized bonding associated with the state's general fund includes $350 million of additional highway bonds authorized in November 2011, and officials project these will be fully issued as grant anticipated revenue vehicle bonds in 2013 and 2014. The authorization for these bonds requires them to be issued by Dec. 31, 2015. An additional $1.3 billion of GO bonds for highway construction was recently authorized, along with a 0.5% statewide sales tax that officials expect will be sufficient to pay the debt service on these additional bonds. Officials project the first issuance of these bonds will be in fall 2013. Other authorizations include $307 million of GO bonds for water and pollution abatement; an earlier $210 million water and pollution abatement authorization is not expected to be utilized. We anticipate that the state's tax-supported debt levels will remain low to moderate even if additional debt is authorized, based on Arkansas' recent issuance trends. California (A/Stable) General fund-supported debt service equaled 3.3% of expenditures in fiscal 2004 but has more than doubled Gabe Petek to 8.9% in fiscal 2013 (on a budgetary basis, which is not directly comparable with ratios presented in this report and does not count the portion funded by the University of California). Additional bonding will likely keep debt service at moderately high levels, in our view, as the state implements its long-term strategic growth plan with $42.7 billion in GO bonds that voters authorized in 2006. As of early 2013, California has $40.4 billion in authorized but unissued GO and lease revenue bonding capacity. In addition, the state is likely to put large ballot measure before voters in November 2014, possibly adding $11.4 billion in GO bonding capacity for statewide water infrastructure projects. California's outstanding debt (GO and lease revenue) is about twice the amount from fiscal 2006. Debt service in fiscal 2013 includes retirement of the state's nearly $2 billion in Proposition 1A bonds. Absent this payment obligation, general fund-supported debt service would still be moderate, in our view, at 6.8% of expenditures (not including the University of California share). Gross annual debt service in fiscal 2013 (not including offsets or the federal BABs subsidy and excluding the above-mentioned University of California lease revenue bonds), is also moderately high, in our view. Total per capita tax-supported debt is moderately high for both total personal income and state GDP. The state's debt is structured conservatively, in our view, in that California has limited variable-rate exposure (just 4.3%), and it has not entered into interest rate swaps or other derivatives. The legislature authorized the state to issue up to $4.5 billion of GO bonds for a portion of the costs related to a potential high-speed rail project. With California's dependence on personal income tax revenues, the state's cash receipts (which arrive later in the fiscal year) do not align with its disbursements (weighted toward the front of the fiscal year). In 24 of the past 25 years, California has managed this misalignment with intrayear cash flow borrowings. For fiscal 2013, the state borrowed $10 billion in revenue anticipation notes (RANs) for this purpose, up from $5.4 billion in publicly issued RANs in fiscal 2012. Colorado (ICR) (AA/Stable) We consider Colorado's debt level to be low. The state cannot issue GO debt, but does issue general fund annual appropriation-backed debt and transportation-related user fee debt, as well as annual cash flow notes. It currently has limited plans for additional new money debt.
Dave Hitchcock
JULY 10, 2013 8

1158166 | 301674531
Connecticut (AA/Stable) In our opinion, Connecticut's debt burden is high by all measures when compared with that of state peers, Robin Prunty in part reflecting debt issued for education (primary, secondary, and higher education) and other programs that other states might handle at the local level of government. GO debt also includes debt issued for pension liabilities, which not all states do. Existing debt consists of GO bonds, state-supported bonds for the University of Connecticut, special tax obligations, and some minor amounts of other lease and tax increment financing debt. Debt service carrying charges are relatively high in our view, at about 10% of expenditures, but have been a stable portion of the budget and amortization has been above average. The General Assembly approved $601 million of additional bond authorizations for fiscal 2013 to fund a range of capital projects, which placed total authorization at $2.7 billion, well above prior-year authorizations, which have averaged $1.5 billion in the previous five years. We believe this could further elevate debt service costs over time depending on the pace of issuance. Delaware (AAA/Stable) The state has focused its attention on reducing debt over time with clearly defined debt affordability parameters and a commitment to cash-funding capital projects funding, especially when the economy is performing well. We believe that this will contribute to a stable debt profile in the future. We view total tax-supported debt including GO and transportation bonds as moderately high. The recommended bond and capital improvement act for fiscal 2014 totals $423.5 million: $239.3 million for state projects and $184.2 million for transportation. The plan includes GO debt issuance of $185.8 million. Delaware does not have any variable-rate debt outstanding, and it has not entered into any interest-rate swap agreements or related derivative transactions. The state issues debt for political subdivisions. It pays between 60% and 80% of the cost of capital improvements for public school districts upon approval of such costs; the school districts pay the remaining portions. Delaware's other major bonding program is associated with the Delaware Transportation Authority. Transportation authority debt consists of revenue bonds supported primarily by motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle fees, and turnpike tolls.
Robin Prunty
Florida (AAA/Stable) Our debt figures for Florida include GO, appropriation, and revenue-backed debt (lottery, documentary John Sugden stamp tax, gas tax). Standard & Poor's includes post-event debt issued by Florida's Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and Citizens Property Insurance as part of its total debt calculation. We also include availability payments of $1.7 billion for the state's P3s. Florida continues in its efforts to reduce its debt burden and in fiscal 2012, reduced it by more than $1.5 billion. We expect additional debt reductions at the end of fiscal 2013 as the state has continued to limit debt issuance and has aggressively focused on achieving debt service savings through refundings. For fiscal 2014, the state authorized a total of $753 million in new debt authorization; this compares with peak authorizations of $3.15 billion in 2008. Of the amount authorized in fiscal 2014, $389 million is self-supporting and the balance, or $365 million, is net tax-supported debt. In 2001, Florida's legislature adopted the 10-year debt affordability study and created a 6% target and 7% cap for calculating estimated debt capacity. The legislature can authorize debt issuance above the 6% target if it deems the debt is in the best interest of the state. Debt issuance above the 7% cap can only be authorized if the legislature determines that it is necessary to address a critical state emergency. According to the state's 2012 debt capacity study, Florida has no additional debt capacity under the 6% benchmark, other than already-authorized debt, until 2014 when capacity becomes available as the Preservation 2000 bonds mature. The state does not borrow for cash flow purposes and has less than $100 million in variable-rate debt. Liquidity for the variable-rate bonds is provided under a standby bond purchase agreement with the state treasury. In fiscal 2013, the state authorized only $250 million in new debt in fiscal 2013. Georgia (AAA/Stable) GO debt service is paid out of the GO debt sinking fund and, if these funds are insufficient, from first monies John Sugden received by Georgia's general fund. To incur guaranteed revenue debt, the General Assembly makes a determination that the debt is self-supporting and appropriates an amount equal to maximum annual debt service to a common reserve fund. The common reserve, if tapped to pay debt service due to a revenue shortfall, is replenished by the general fund within 10 days of the start of any fiscal year. The state's overall debt burden remains moderate, in our view. The 2014 budget authorized the issuance of $850 million in debt, which is a return to previous debt authorization levels after authorizing lower debt issuances over the past two years. As part of the amended fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2014 appropriations, Georgia de-authorized $36 million in authorized but unissued debt. It will issue approximately $685 million at the end of June and will have approximately $623 million in authorized but unissued debt. Based on current revenues, management expects to be below Georgia's debt affordability model limitations for debt service as a percentage of current-year receipts in fiscal years 2013 through 2018, assuming $800 million in annual issuance. On Nov. 6, 2012, voters approved a constitutional amendment that allows multiyear leasing for
JULY 10, 2013 9

1158166 | 301674531
the Board of Regents and the State Properties Commission on behalf of state agencies. Georgia has only $127 million in floating-rate notes at a fixed spread of 40 basis points over SIFMA. The maximum rate is capped at 9% and the state is required to budget for this debt at the bonds' highest possible rate. Debt amortization is rapid, with 70% of Georgia's debt retired within 10 years and all debt amortized within 20 years. Hawaii (AA/Stable) Various measures of Hawaii's debt levels suggest a higher-than-average burden. However, a significant Gabe Petek portion of the state's debt stems from the fact that the state finances many functions that are funded at the local level in other states. Not least is the state's public education system, which is entirely centrally financed by the state government. Nevertheless, state debt ratios increased significantly throughout the 1990s as Hawaii shifted away from a pay-as-you-go approach in favor of debt financing its capital and infrastructure needs. Despite this, the state's debt is conservatively structured, in our opinion, with 70% of principal repaid in 10 years and 100% retired in 20 years. Hawaii law requires that all debt begin to amortize principal within five years, and requires level principal and interest payments. Idaho (ICR) (AA+/Stable) Idaho has no GO debt, but does issue general fund annual appropriation-backed debt and cash flow notes. We consider the state's debt levels to be low, with limited plans to issue new money debt paid from tax revenues.
Dave Hitchcock
Illinois (A-/Negative) The majority of Illinois' debt consists of GO bonds but also includes Build Illinois Bonds (supported by Robin Prunty statewide sales taxes) and minor amounts of other tax-backed and moral obligation bonds. Total per capita bonded debt is at a level we consider moderately high. Amortization of all GO debt is near average, with 52% retiring in 10 years. All but $600 million of outstanding GO bonds are fixed rate. Total GO debt service relative to total spending has been moderately high in recent years. The debt service burden has increased due to the issuance of pension bonds in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to cover current-year pension contributions. We believe that the $7.2 billion of added debt places a strain on current and future budgets, especially when viewed in the context of increasing pension contributions that result from a low funded ratio. The pension bonds are amortizing through 2019 with a relatively level payment of about $1 billion for both issues. The more rapid amortization of the pension bonds has increased the overall amortization rate of GO bonds outstanding. This is in addition to the state's 2003 pension bonds, which amortize through fiscal 2033. Pension bonds represent more than half of the outstanding GO bonds. In addition to pension debt, the state continues to fund its Illinois Jobs Now! 10-year capital program. The fiscal 2014 capital budget includes total bond issuance of $11 billion over the life of the program ($8.9 million GO bonds and $2 billion Build Illinois Bonds) and $7 billion of current revenues. In July 2012, Illinois issued $1.5 billion of unemployment insurance fund revenue bonds to pay amounts owed to repay federal government advances outstanding to the state's unemployment trust account with the federal unemployment trust fund. The bonds are secured by a statewide levy against income earned by employees working for private, for-profit employers. This will increase the total tax-supported debt burden until the bonds are retired, which could be as early as 2017. Indiana (ICR) (AAA/Stable) Indiana's constitution does not allow new debt except to meet casual deficits in revenues, pay interest on John Sugden state debt, or to provide funds for public defense. As a result, the state has no GO or tax-supported revenue debt, but does have appropriation-backed debt. As of June 30, 2012, Indiana had about $2.9 billion in appropriation-backed debt. This includes stadium and convention center bonds that are actually supported by revenues from local food and beverage, hotel, rental car, and facility admission taxes. The portion of the state's total debt that has been consolidated under the Indiana Finance Authority consists of recreation development commission bonds, airport facilities bonds and aviation technology center bonds, highway revenue bonds, and state office building commission bonds. The state has never had to provide support to debt backed by its moral obligation pledge and although it has appropriated for the university fee replacement debt in the past, there is no appropriation pledge supporting this debt and Indiana is not obligated to appropriate for it in the future. Therefore, we currently do not include $481 million in bond bank debt that is secured by the state's moral obligation pledge and $1.25 billion in university fee replacement debt in Indiana's debt calculation. As of June 30, 2012, Indiana had $768.8 million of variable-rate debt outstanding, of which $738.8 million had related swap agreements with counterparties including JPMorgan Chase Bank, Goldman Sachs Group, and The Bank of New York Mellon. Indiana's debt rose significantly in fiscal 2013 due to milestone and availability payments related to the $1.3 billion Ohio Rivers project, a P3. The payments are backed by state appropriations.
JULY 10, 2013 10

1158166 | 301674531
Iowa (ICR) (AAA/Stable) Iowa is prohibited from issuing more than $250,000 in GO debt without voter approval, and therefore the state's general capital requirements are met on a pay-as-you-go basis or with lease-backed or special revenue-backed issues. A dedicated motor fuel sales tax pays for capital programs for state highways. The state has also issued bonds backed by its moral obligation to fund programs that were set up to improve local infrastructure and to provide matching infrastructure grants to schools. Iowa's tax-supported debt increased in fiscal 2011 due to the issuance of debt for prison infrastructure and for its IJOBS program, which funded state infrastructure and certain grant and loan programs. The IJOBS bonds are paid from an appropriation of gaming and alcohol revenues, and are also secured by a debt service reserve fund that the state has a moral obligation to refill if it is drawn down. Iowa has not engaged in deficit financing or restructured debt for budget relief.
Henry Henderson
Kansas (ICR) (AA+/Stable) Kansas has no GO debt. Tax-supported debt, which, in our opinion, has remained at relatively stable levels Dave Hitchcock in the past five years, consists mostly of state annual appropriation-backed debt and highway user tax-supported debt. The state plans to sell appropriation-backed bonds this summer for new projects. There has also been discussion in the state legislature about a large issue of pension obligation bonds, but no legislative authorization for this has yet occurred. Kentucky (ICR) (AA-/Negative) Kentucky has not issued GO bonds in more than 40 years; instead, the commonwealth relies mainly on John Sugden appropriation-backed obligations and revenue bonds. The General Assembly created various commonwealth corporations, commissions, and authorities to finance projects. In many instances, the agencies are allowed to incur debt only with the General Assembly's prior approval of projects and biennial appropriation of debt service. Under financing agreements, the legislature has the authority to biennially appropriate funds to the finance and administration cabinet for the payment of debt service, and those payments are a first budget obligation. The commonwealth has typically sought to keep appropriation debt service at about 6% of revenues. Debt service as a percentage of total governmental fund expenditures was what we consider moderate in 2012. Kentucky has restructured debt for budget balancing purposes, and has issued debt to take out interfund loans between its pension fund and its state medical insurance fund, ultimately providing interest rate savings and budget relief. In fiscal 2012, it refunded a portion of its debt to restructure its debt service schedule. The restructuring provided budgetary relief by eliminating a $127 million debt service payment in 2012 and spreading that debt service to fiscal years 2019 through 2023. Louisiana (AA/Stable) Louisiana's tax-supported debt service as a percent of expenditures is, in our view, moderate after netting Ken Rodgers out federal government revenue. Debt service payable on net state tax-supported debt for fiscal 2012 was $540.6 million, or 5.5% of the estimated general fund and dedicated fund revenue as estimated by the revenue estimating conference (REC). In addition, the state's financial flexibility is enhanced by the funding and use of its budget stabilization (rainy day) fund during periods of economic cyclicality, and its ability to interfund borrow such that it has not had to borrow short term for cash flow management purposes. Louisiana also constitutionally limits its debt service to 6% of general and dedicated funds revenue, as forecast by its REC, which we consider a positive rating factor. It has a moderate debt and liability profile with moderate total debt service as a percent of governmental fund spending, though debt repayment is slow. The state has a central cash management system and the state treasurer has the ability to borrow internally for cash flow purposes from a large number of funds under its auspices. Most of these reserves would require constitutional or statutory amendments to access the funds for general governmental purposes; nevertheless, these reserves provide Louisiana with sufficient liquidity while investment income from these funds provides funding for important health and education programs. Maine (AA/Stable) Maine's total tax-supported debt includes GO bonds and other debt supported by state appropriations or Ken Rodgers revenue from specific taxes, such as the fuel excise tax. Tax-supported debt service in fiscal 2012 was moderate as a share of general governmental spending, which we calculate as general fund and highway fund spending, less federally funded expenditures. The state periodically issues a small amount of bond anticipation notes (BANs) but it cannot carry BANs into a subsequent fiscal year. Maine has a statutory requirement to retire all GO debt in 10 years, which results in total tax-supported debt amortization that we consider rapid. Moral obligation debt, which does not require voter approval, comprises a significant portion of Maine's overall debt outstanding. However, the state didn't need to restore the capital reserve fund in fiscal 2012 or in previous years, and we have not added these moral obligation issues when calculating the state's tax-supported debt. At the end of fiscal 2012, approximately $4.5 billion of moral
JULY 10, 2013 11

1158166 | 301674531
obligation debt was outstanding. The moral obligation under these arrangements requires that authorities with moral obligation debt certify to the governor any amounts necessary to restore any capital reserve fund to its minimum requirement by each Dec. 1. The governor certifies to the legislature the amount required to restore the reserves to their funding requirements and the obligation to fund the shortfall falls with the state legislature. Maryland (AAA/Stable) Maryland officials project state-supported debt levels will remain within the limitations established for debt Rich Marino to personal income (4%). The limit for debt service as a percent of revenue remains at 8% or lower. Maryland has not issued debt for deficit financing purposes. It has issued limited refunding bonds, only for savings and not to restructure its debt due to budgetary pressure. It has not issued short-term debt for cash flow purposes and has no swaps. In our view, the tax-supported debt burden is moderate by all measures. Tax-supported debt amortization is very rapid, with all GO bonds to be retired in the next 15 years, as required by the Maryland constitution. The Capital Debt Affordability Committee recommended to the governor and legislature a debt authorization of $1.075 billion for fiscal 2014, which is the same amount recommended for fiscal 2013. Massachusetts (AA+/Stable) By most measures, Massachusetts' debt burden remains high compared with that of other states. About 20% Robin Prunty of the total outstanding GO bonds is variable rate, with a small portion unhedged. The commonwealth actively manages the variable-rate portfolio, which is governed by a formal policy. In the past several years, the overall portfolio of variable-rate debt has diversified and put risk has been significantly reduced in our opinion. Massachusetts has a range of other debt obligations outstanding, including those issued by state authorities and supported by the statewide sales tax, and contract assistance debt. Debt per capita and as a percentage of personal income are high. On a budgetary basis however, debt service is affordable as a percentage of expenditures. The capital improvement plan through 2017 is lower than the previous plan but remains sizable at $16.7 billion. Transportation represents nearly half of program requirements. Planned debt issuance of about $2 billion annually remains within the parameters of the debt affordability policy and bond cap; debt service is below 8% of budgeted revenues. Although a debt affordability analysis had been done within the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, legislation was introduced in 2012 that created a capital and debt affordability committee. The committee includes seven voting members and eight nonvoting members from the legislature, and is charged with formally reviewing the capital investment plan and providing an estimate of debt authorization for the year. This is similar to the current process but is now formalized. Michigan (AA-/Positive) Michigan's outstanding tax-supported debt includes GO and appropriation-backed debt, as well as highway Dave Hitchcock user tax-backed debt. The state also sold $2.9 billion of unemployment fund assessment bonds in fiscal 2012, which are secured by assessments on Michigan employers. The unemployment fund bonds were issued to repay federal loans that the state used to pay unemployment benefits to state residents. The issuance of the unemployment fund bonds has increased our calculation of the states net tax-backed debt total, but due to their rapid amortization, the issuance of these bonds has shortened the overall tax-backed amortization schedule. In our view, the state's debt levels, including the unemployment insurance bonds, are moderate per capita and when measured against the state's personal income and gross state product. Minnesota (AA+/Stable) Minnesota maintains a moderate debt burden and adheres to well-established debt management guidelines. Henry Henderson Early in fiscal 2012, the state issued bonds secured by tobacco settlement revenues, the proceeds of which it used to balance the 2012-2013 biennial budget. Those bonds were later refunded with $700 million of debt secured by the state's appropriation pledge. Minnesota has not recently issued other deficit bonds. It has no variable-rate debt outstanding. The state's 2012 legislative session approved the construction of a professional football stadium for the Minnesota Vikings and the issuance of state appropriation bonds, of which about $348 million of net proceeds will be the state's responsibility. At the same time, the legislature approved an expansion of gambling, and it was state officials' intent that the incremental revenues from this expansion would fully cover the annual amount of the state's debt service on the future appropriation bonds. Officials project the remaining stadium costs to be funded by Minneapolis ($150 million of net bond proceeds) and the Vikings ($477 million). Mississippi (AA/Stable) The constitutional debt limit is one-and-one-half times the sum of all revenues the state collects in any one of the four preceding fiscal years, whichever is higher. The state's net tax-supported debt service as a
Ken Rodgers
JULY 10, 2013 12

1158166 | 301674531
percent of personal income and gross state product is moderately high, in our view. Tax-supported debt per capita and the debt service carrying charge are also moderately high. Missouri (AAA/Stable) Missouri is constitutionally prohibited from issuing GO bonds without voter approval, except for refunding bonds and emergency issues up to $1 million. Consequently, revenue bonds and annual appropriation bonds are important components of capital financing strategy. Missouri had about $836 million in appropriation bonds and other lease obligations as of June 30, 2012. In addition, the state had about $433 million of GO debt and $3.07 billion of gas tax and motor vehicle registration fee-backed bonds issued by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission. Existing authorizations allow the state to issue an additional $285.5 million in GO bonds for water pollution and stormwater control. At this time, it is our understanding that the state does not have any near-term debt plans or variable-rate debt.
Henry Henderson
Montana (AA/Stable) Montana's debt is low per capita and when measured against personal income and against gross state Ken Rodgers product. GO debt service consumes a low portion of the general fund budget, and amortization is above average over 10 years. All of Montana's direct GO debt is senior-lien debt and there have been no significant restructurings recently. The state has no constitutional limit on its power to issue debt obligations, although it is prohibited from issuing debt to finance a deficit. In our view, debt levels will likely drop further as the state avoids significant bonding over the next two years. Montana has no variable-rate exposure. Nebraska (ICR) (AAA/Stable) Nebraska is constitutionally prohibited from issuing GO bonds in excess of $100,000. Capital projects are largely paid for through cash on hand, according to various capital spending bills passed by the legislature annually. Revenue bonds for highway construction and construction of water conservation and management structures are allowed, but there is no debt outstanding for these purposes. Nebraska has a very low amount of capital leases at the end of fiscal 2012. Debt amortizes rapidly in our view, with about 90% of debt due to be retired within 10 years. Due to the small amount of debt, carrying charges are also very low.
Henry Henderson
Nevada (AA/Stable) Total GO debt includes $553 million of self-supporting GO bonds as of Jan. 1, 2013. Nevada levies and Gabe Petek collects property taxes for the repayment of $1.4 billion of its GO bonds. It does not levy statewide property taxes for the self-supporting GO bonds, but if the self-supporting revenues are insufficient, this debt has an equivalent claim on statewide property taxes and the general fund as the state's other GO debt. Total tax-secured debt, including the state's highway improvement revenue bonds, is low when measured against state GDP and personal income and moderate per capita. The state constitution limits total GO debt to 2% of total assessed value (AV) with exclusions for certain GO debt. Existing GO debt subject to the limitation is $1.2 billion or 1.5% of total AV, and Nevada retains $428.8 million of debt capacity. The GO debt capacity decreased by about one-third in fiscal years 2010 through 2012 due to AV declines. Principal amortization is rapid, with 71% of GO debt retired within 10 years. GO debt is all fixed rate; Nevada has no variable-rate exposure or interest rate swaps. Annual net debt service (all tax-secured) equaled about 3% of the state's fiscal 2012 general, bond interest and redemption, and highway improvement funds, which we consider moderate. Statewide property taxes levied for GO bond repayment are collected and deposited in the consolidated bond interest and redemption fund. State treasury officials target a reserve in that fund equal to six months of GO debt service to be paid from property tax revenues. The 2012 reserve balance was equivalent to approximately 11 months of the subsequent year's debt service somewhat mitigates potential concerns regarding the state's liquidity position. Strong general fund liquidity is a positive credit factor, in our view, because state law provides that if the consolidated bond interest and redemption fund is insufficient to pay debt service, the fund will borrow from the general fund. With good general fund liquidity, Nevada has not needed to borrow for cash flow management purposes. Nevada also has a $703 million loan balance as of Jan. 15, 2013, owed to the federal government for unemployment insurance trust fund loans, which it may refinance with bonds for cost savings. New Hampshire (AA/Stable) New Hampshire's debt burden is moderate when measured against the state's population and personal Henry Henderson income. The fiscal 2012 tax-supported debt service was also moderate. In July 2010, the state restructured GO debt outstanding for an estimated $40 million of general fund budgetary savings in fiscal 2011 as part of its plan to eliminate the fiscal 2011 budget gap. That restructuring was estimated to result in a net present value loss of $1.2 million over the refunding bonds' 10-year life. The state has not restructured any debt
JULY 10, 2013 13

1158166 | 301674531
since the 2010 restructuring. Amortization of general fund debt is rapid in our view, with about 70% of debt retired in the next 10 years. New Hampshire's GO debt portfolio is entirely fixed rate; the state eliminated its commercial paper program--which had an authorization of $50 million--in fiscal 2013 because it was not using the program. New Jersey (AA-/Negative) New Jersey issues debt through several authorities, including the New Jersey School Building Authority, John Sugden Economic Development Authority, the Garden State Preservation Trust Fund, and the Transportation Trust Fund Authority (TTFA). The state has GO, appropriation-backed, sales-tax-, gas tax- and cigarette tax-backed bonds as well as moral obligation debt. Appropriation-backed debt makes up 86% of New Jersey's tax-supported debt (not including moral obligation debt). The state had slightly more than $1 billion in sales tax-backed debt issued through the Garden State Preservation Trust and another $1 billion of cigarette tax bonds. Amortization was average, at about 50% over the next 10 years. In fiscal 2011, the state refunded more than $1.5 billion of New Jersey Economic Development Authority's variable-rate debt into fixed rate bonds and floating-rate notes and terminated numerous swaps to better manage its exposure to letter of credit expirations. There are no further letter of credit expirations in fiscal 2013. Over the past three years, the state has relied on debt restructurings and refunding debt for upfront savings as one of the strategies used to close budget gaps and revenue shortfalls. In addition to generating upfront savings, the restructuring of the cigarette tax bonds changed the flow of funds and now allows for increased cash flow to the state's general fund. The state typically issues tax revenue anticipation notes for cash flow and in fiscal 2013 issued $2.6 billion in cash flow notes. In November 2012, New Jersey voters approved an additional $850 million in GO bonds for community colleges. New Mexico (AA+/Stable) New Mexico issues GO debt, severance tax debt, and highway user tax-supported debt. Although debt service may seem slightly higher as a percent of expenditures than in some other states, this is partly because the state schedules its severance tax-supported debt with a very rapid paydown. New York (AA/Positive) The state has been issuing less GO and general fund appropriation-backed debt in favor of income tax-secured debt for general capital purposes. Overall tax-supported debt has been trending slowly upward in recent years and officials project it will come close to state statutory debt caps. As a result, New York plans to reduce debt subject to the cap by issuing a portion of State University of New York (SUNY) debt, which hitherto has been paid from state appropriations, instead to be paid from SUNY dormitory system revenues only. The state also has plans to issue debt with a new state sales tax security. It has guaranteed $503 million of bonds under its Secured Hospital Program for eight hospitals; four hospitals are currently delinquent on their loans, including one that has closed, representing about $105 million of loans guaranteed by the state, subject to annual state appropriation. New York projects it will need to pay approximately $39 million per year of additional costs to meet its obligation.
Dave Hitchcock
Dave Hitchcock
North Carolina (AAA/Stable) In our view, North Carolina's tax-supported debt burden is moderate by all measures. We consider overall Rich Marino tax-supported debt amortization to be rapid, and tax-supported debt service as a percentage of general government spending to be low. Current debt levels are within North Carolina's affordability parameters. The state's liquidity position is stable, refundings have been done only for savings and do not extend the maturity schedule of the bonds, no deficit bonds have been issued, and no short-term borrowing for general fund cash flow has been required historically. North Dakota (ICR) (AA+/Positive) In our view, North Dakota's conservative practices and strong revenues have kept its debt levels low. With Henry Henderson the state's limited additional debt on the horizon, we believe annual debt service should remain very low as a percent of the operating budget; the carrying charge was only about 1% of expenditures in fiscal 2012. North Dakota has very restricted ability to issue unlimited-tax GO debt, and all such debt matured in the late 1990s. Most GO-type projects are funded as appropriation debt through the North Dakota Building Authority. By statute, general fund appropriations for debt service for building authority debt cannot exceed one-10th of 1% of the sales use and motor vehicle tax revenues, and the burden from building authority debt is minimal. We understand that all building authority debt will be repaid within 15 years. North Dakota Public Finance Authority debt carries the state's moral obligation pledge; this debt is used to fund projects across the state. Given that the state legislature meets biennially, moral obligation-backed public finance authority issues must maintain a debt service reserve in the amount of maximum annual debt service for 24 months. The state has no variable-rate debt or swaps outstanding, although the North Dakota Housing
JULY 10, 2013 14

1158166 | 301674531
Finance Agency, an enterprise fund, has several swaps in place. North Dakota has had a relatively stable revenue picture during the past several years, which is primarily attributable to strong oil and gas extraction taxes, and this has enabled the state to fund its capital projects on a pay-as-you-go basis, which has kept its debt levels low. Given the strong revenue performance, North Dakota has not had to restructure existing debt for savings or borrow for cash flow purposes. Ohio (AA+/Stable) Ohio's debt burden is moderate in our view, and has some key strengths such as rapid amortization of debt Robin Prunty service, which does not exceed 20 years and is front-loaded; a formal annual debt service limitation equal to 5% of general fund revenues plus net state lottery proceeds; and average debt levels. Ohio's debt ratios, as measured on a per capita basis and as a percent of personal income, are in the midrange compared with other states'. The state adopted a debt and interest-rate risk management policy in 2006 (as amended) that formalized various practices related to state debt issuance and management. Tax-supported debt issuance has been limited in the past couple of years due to the issuance of bonds secured by payments to Ohio under the tobacco master settlement agreement. These bonds replaced GO bond issuance for education-related capital facilities. For the first time, the state completed a series of debt restructurings as part of balancing the fiscal years 2010-2012 budgets. In total, Ohio refunded bonds and shifted about $1.2 billion of debt payments due in fiscal years 2010 ($417 million), 2011 ($337 million), and 2012 ($449 million) to future fiscal years. The restructuring did not extend the final maturity on any bonds. Although the restructuring was unusual for the state and highlighted budget pressure, it did not significantly alter Ohio's overall debt structure and the amortization schedule remains relatively rapid, with more than 72% of tax-supported debt amortized in the next 10 years. Total tax-supported debt includes GO, highway, and appropriation-backed debt ($2 billion). Current debt ratios (including highway debt) are what we consider moderate. In 1999, Ohio adopted a constitutional amendment that limited annual debt service on general and special obligations to 5% of general fund revenues plus net state lottery proceeds. Ohio has $648 million of variable-rate debt, representing 6.5% of total debt. There are five floating-to-fixed-rate swaps outstanding with a notional amount of $494.5 million associated with variable-rate debt outstanding. Liquidity on variable-rate debt is provided by the state. Oklahoma (AA+/Stable) The issuance of GO debt requires voter approval, and its legal authorization must specify its purpose and John Sugden provide for a direct annual tax to pay debt service. Oklahoma can issue a wide variety of appropriation debt, and issuance in fiscal 2012 was primarily tied to debt refunding for interest savings. The state issues most of its debt through the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority (OCIA) and Oklahoma Development Financing Authority (ODFA). In the past, there have been several legal challenges to these programs, mostly tied to specific bond issuances. Most recently, Oklahoma's Supreme Court on Nov. 20, 2012, ruled that the proposed OCIA revenue bonds, series 2012A (River Parks Projects) were unconstitutional and denied the OCIA's application for approval. In the decision, the Supreme Court did not question the structure of the OCIA lease revenue bond program, but rather the particular project. In another recent case, a state senator requested an opinion from Oklahoma's Attorney General regarding whether or not the process for approving bond issuances through the ODFA master lease program violated the constitution's requirements that either voters or the legislature approve debt issuance. On Dec. 19, 2012, Oklahoma's Attorney General opined that the legislature--through a provision that allows it 45 days to reject projects that are listed to be funded through ODFA's master lease program--has the opportunity to disapprove all or part of the listed projects. The Attorney General concluded that the master lease program does not violate the Oklahoma Constitution. The state has authorization to issue up to $202 million in the Master Real Property Lease program. Oklahoma's voters on Nov. 6, 2012, approved a constitutional amendment that authorizes the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to issue GO bonds up to $300 million to serve as a reserve fund for certain water and sewer programs. Oklahoma's debt levels are low, in our view, and we do not expect the additional issuance to significantly change the state's debt and liability profile. The state has not historically relied on external borrowing for cash flow purposes. Oregon (AA+/Stable) We view Oregon's debt burden as moderate to moderately high by several measures, including Gabe Petek tax-supported debt relative to population, personal income, and gross state product. Debt amortization is average, in our view, with 45% of principal outstanding amortized over 10 years. The state scaled back general fund-supported debt issuance for the 2011-2013 biennium due to a rising debt burden. At the time, Oregon had anticipated that debt service as a percentage of general fund revenues would rise to above its 5% maximum policy. Although the state's debt levels have subsided somewhat, the governor and treasurer are advocating a more targeted approach to incurring new debt. Total tax-supported debt service as a percentage of government spending (including the funds from which debt service is paid) is moderately high in our view. Approximately $1.15 billion of certificates of participation (COPs) remained outstanding as of
JULY 10, 2013 15

1158166 | 301674531
June 30, 2012 under the state's COP program, begun in 1989. The Department of Administration manages all COP financings for the state. This program is being phased out in favor of the state's ability to issue GO bonds for these projects pursuant to Article XI-Q of the state constitution. Oregon regularly issues tax anticipation notes to manage uneven receipts under its income tax-weighted revenue structure, most recently $650 million for fiscal 2013, down from $800 million for fiscal 2012. Pennsylvania (AA/Negative) Pennsylvania's debt profile is moderate, in our opinion, but we expect it will increase significantly. The state John Sugden issues mainly GO, appropriation, and moral obligation debt. It also issues gas tax-supported debt through the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Overall tax-supported debt amortizes rapidly, with 59% of principal retired in the next 10 years. However, commonwealth management intends to issue substantially more GO debt than it retires in the next several years, raising the state's tax-supported debt about 20% from fiscal year-end 2012 levels. Furthermore, the state recently issued just less than $2.83 billion in unemployment compensation bonds. These bonds include approximately $300 million in variable-rate debt backed by a letter of credit from PNC Bank, N.A. The state hasn't borrowed for cash flow since fiscal 2010. Pennsylvania's capital budget act for fiscal 2013 totals $1.675 billion. Rhode Island (AA/Stable) Our debt ratios for Rhode Island include the $75 million of moral obligation debt issued for the Henry Henderson now-bankrupt 38 Studios as tax-supported debt, and the state administration also includes this debt in its ratios. The fiscal 2014 budget includes a $2.5 million payment to replenish the debt service reserve on the 38 Studio bonds despite attempts by some legislators to have the debt service payment stripped from the budget. As of June 30, 2012, the amount of the state's net tax-supported debt was moderate, in our view, although the carrying charge as a percentage of general governmental spending was moderately high. In previous years, Rhode Island improved its debt ratios by defeasing debt with the proceeds of a $685 million tobacco securitization. The state issued TANs annually from fiscal 2007 through fiscal 2011, but didn't issue any in fiscal years 2012 or 2013 and officials don't expect to need any TANs in fiscal 2014. Rhode Island has no exposure to interest-rate swaps, and its variable-rate debt was fully retired in December 2010. The state's debt amortization is at a level we consider rapid, and officials estimate that new debt issuance is not likely to significantly outpace amortization in future years. Debt service can be paid in the absence of a budget, but there is no other priority for the payment of debt before other general state expenditures. South Carolina (AA+/Stable) South Carolina's historically conservative stance on debt issuance has resulted in a general fund tax-supported debt burden that is, in our view, low by all measures. The state constitution, which governs debt issuance, places restrictions on debt levels as well as bond amortization. Overall tax-supported debt amortization is very rapid. The state increased its constitutional debt limit in 2012 to 6.0% from 5.5%. The additional 0.5% was for the exclusive purpose of providing university infrastructure for state research institutions. South Carolina historically has not been required to do short-term borrowing for general fund cash flow, has not done deficit financing, and has no swaps outstanding.
Rich Marino
South Dakota (ICR) (AA+/Stable) Due to a $100,000 constitutional limit on GO debt, South Dakota finances most capital projects for its Henry Henderson facilities with state building authority lease debt--which totaled about $61 million at the end of fiscal 2012--and with $64 million of capital leases. Including these, the state's debt burden is low and debt service carrying charges are also low, in our view. The South Dakota Economic Development Finance Authority bonds, which currently amount to about $20 million, carry the state's moral obligation pledge to maintain the program's capital reserve fund at the required level, which is 12.5% of the principal amount of loans with an upward adjustment for any defaulted loans. Officials project about $12 million of new debt through fiscal 2014 for a veterans' nursing home. Recently, the legislature approved the higher education board of regents' 10-year capital plan, but officials don't expect new debt to be issued before fiscal 2014. It has not been determined if the debt will be secured with higher education revenues or general fund appropriations. Due to its strong reserves, South Dakota does not issue cash flow notes. Tennessee (AA+/Positive) Tennessee's tax-supported debt has remained constant and, in our view, relatively low. The state John Sugden traditionally issues fixed-rate level debt; the commercial paper (CP) notes are the only variable-rate instruments. Debt service has historically been approximately 2%-3% of total expenditures; and the state is well below its legal debt service limit, affording management ample issuance capacity as needs arise. As of June 30, 2012, Tennessee had $200 million of commercial paper outstanding, $15.5 million in capital leases with the balance made up of GO debt. The fiscal 2013 enacted capital budget includes $709.8 million of
JULY 10, 2013 16

1158166 | 301674531
capital expenditures from all funding sources. Bond issuance accounts for $302 million, or less than half of the total. For fiscal 2014, the capital appropriations budget is $443 million, of which only $185 million is bond funded. Texas (AA+/Stable) Because a two-thirds vote of both houses of the state legislature and a majority of voters must approve Horacio debt, Texas has a debt burden we consider to be very low. The most recent approval of GO debt occurred Aldrete-Sanchez in November 2011 when voters approved an aggregate of $6 billion in additional debt to be issued by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). In addition, voters approved the increase in the maximum amount of bonds issued by the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board per fiscal year to $350 million from $125 million. These two programs are self-supporting and have never required a draw on the state's general revenue unless it was specifically appropriated for certain TWDB programs. Every year, Texas issues TRANs to cover its seasonal cash flow needs, particularly those related to school funding. Despite the significant amount of authorized and unissued GO debt ($11.5 billion), we expect that the state's overall debt ratios will remain stable given an approach to debt issuance that we consider historically conservative. This includes an emphasis on the issuance of self-supporting debt and the utilization of the state's debt affordability as a guideline to evaluate the impact of debt service costs on Texas' financial position. In our view, the state's debt service costs were low as a percentage of governmental expenditures in fiscal 2012. Utah (AAA/Stable) In our opinion, Utah's debt management practices are conservative, as evidenced by the state's limited and Gabe Petek conservatively structured existing debt burden. Because the state finances a significant portion of its capital and infrastructure needs on a pay-as-you-go basis, its ability to issue debt serves as a backup reserve of sorts. For example, during the Great Recession, the state increased its debt issuance somewhat, thereby freeing up a portion of its revenue base, which had come under recession-related pressure, to fund services. We consider Utah's tax-supported debt burden, including GO and lease revenue bonds, to be moderate per capita and as a share of state GDP and personal income. The state's debt program expanded in recent years as Utah supplanted its pay-as-you-go capital funding program with debt financing for budgetary relief. Although Utah's tax-supported debt has doubled since fiscal 2007, the state's historically restrained debt program provided ample capacity for it to increase its debt profile and retain a debt burden we consider moderate. Utah's tax-supported debt amortization is rapid compared with most states'. Historically, the state has issued its GO debt using a 15-year amortization schedule. Currently, all outstanding lease revenue bonds mature by 2030. Vermont (AA+/Positive) As of June 30, 2012, Vermont's tax-supported debt was low to moderate, in our view. The fiscal 2012 Henry Henderson tax-supported debt service of general governmental expenditures was moderate. Vermont's debt portfolio is conservative, in our view, consisting of only fixed-rate debt and without any exposure to interest rate swaps. We consider the debt amortization to be rapid, with officials retiring more than 70% of GO debt over the next 10 years. The state has a debt affordability committee that annually recommends a maximum amount of debt issuance for the next fiscal year, and although the committee's recommendations are not binding, Vermont has consistently adhered to them. Virginia (AAA/Stable) Virginia's debt burden remains manageable relative to its resources and historical strong debt management John Sugden practices. The tax-supported debt includes GO debt and debt backed by Virginia for the Virginia Port Authority, Virginia Public School Authority, Virginia College Building Authority, Virginia Public Building Authority, and the BioTech Research Park Authority. This includes debt issued by the Virginia Public School Authority that is initially supported by local GO bonds, but which is ultimately backed by the commonwealth's appropriation. Not included in these calculations is the commonwealth's moral obligation debt for the Virginia Resource Authority, which is self-supporting and not currently placing a claim on Virginia's revenues. GO debt issuance for capital projects must be authorized by a majority of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly and approved by voters in a statewide election. The debt capacity advisory committee determines the amount of debt the commonwealth can prudently authorize each year. The policy establishes a target of debt service on tax-supported debt as 5% of blended revenues. In 2010, the committee approved several changes to its debt capacity model. The changes include: 1) the inclusion of certain additional revenues and transfers that are part of the general fund forecast; 2) an adjustment to debt service for debt paid from non-general fund sources; 3) a change in the interest rate proxy used to estimate debt service on future debt; and 4) the use of the 10-year average capacity to determine the debt capacity. The model looks at how much debt can be supported over 10 years without exceeding the 5% of revenues limitation on debt service. This amount is then averaged over a 10-year period. The commonwealth estimates that it can issue $4.66 billion over 10 years while keeping debt service
JULY 10, 2013 17

1158166 | 301674531
every year below 5% of blended revenues. Based on projected additional annual debt issuance, annual debt service would stay close to 5% but would rise to 5.7% in 2016 and decline to 4.6% in 2021. Although Virginia has formulated guidelines for debt derivatives, to date no swaps have been executed. Washington (AA+/Stable) Washington's total debt comprises $17.9 billion of GO bonds, of which $6.4 billion are Motor Vehicle Fuel Gabe Petek Tax (MVFT)-GO bonds. A portion of MVFT-GO and GO bonds is reimbursable from tolls or other revenues, resulting in a net total of $15.9 billion. Washington also has $877.9 million in appropriation-backed COPs outstanding. We expect that transportation needs, including two major urban highway projects, will likely translate to additional GO and MVFT-GO debt issuance and the continued rise of the state's debt ratios in the medium term. Debt paydown is average, in our view. Gross GO and lease appropriation-backed debt service is moderate, at 5.29% of general governmentwide (all funds) spending in fiscal year 2012 (audited). Portions of the state's debt are funded from self-supporting or reimbursable sources, however. When adjusting for these offsetting revenues, we estimate that debt service is 4.78% of general fund expenditures. We anticipate that continuing transportation needs, including two major urban highway projects, will likely translate into continuing GO issuance in the next two to three years. Washington has only less than 1% of its total debt in variable-rate modes. The state has not entered any interest-rate swaps or derivatives. As a non-income tax state, Washington's cash collection pattern remains relatively stable throughout the year and the state does not issue cash flow notes for liquidity management. West Virginia (AA/Stable) West Virginia requires a constitutional amendment to issue GO debt and there is no GO debt authorization John Sugden remaining. For the GO road bonds, the bonds are paid monthly transfers from the state's road fund equal to 10% of debt service, allowing for an additional two months to make up for shortfalls. The GO infrastructure bonds are primarily secured by the first $24 million in severance tax collections. As of June 30, 2012, lottery and excess lottery bonds represented $211 million and $739 million of debt outstanding, respectively. These bonds are secured by monthly transfers of lottery revenues equal to 10% of annual debt service. Although the lottery and excess lottery bonds are secured by different revenue streams from West Virginia's lottery, excess revenues from each system are also pledged to make up for shortfalls in the other. The state does not issue debt for cash flow purposes and additional debt is limited. Wisconsin (AA/Stable) Wisconsin's debt includes GO bonds, GO CP, general fund annual appropriation debt, composed of pension Gabe Petek and sick leave bonds, tobacco settlement repurchase bonds, and master lease COPs. In addition, the state has transportation and petroleum inspection fee revenue bonds and CP. Total GO, appropriation, and fee-backed revenue debt is moderately high, in our view, per capita and measured against state GDP and personal income. Debt service on tax-supported debt is moderate in our view. The debt servicing burden is lower when allowing for some of the state's debt that is self-supporting. In 2003, the state issued $1.8 billion of taxable annual appropriation-backed bonds to fully finance its unfunded pension liability and all of its unfunded accrued sick leave liability. All of the $945 million series 2003B annual appropriation-backed bonds that bore interest at a floating auction rate were refunded in 2008 with fixed-rate and floating index-rate annual appropriation bonds. Wisconsin issued $1.53 billion of appropriation bonds in April 2009 to repurchase the state's tobacco settlement revenue that it had previously sold to the Badger Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp. This resulted in the refunding of the corporation's tobacco settlement asset-backed bonds that were issued in May 2002. The state used all of the net proceeds from the sale of its tobacco settlement revenues in 2002 on operations in fiscal 2003. Wyoming (ICR) (AAA/Stable) Wyoming cannot issue GO debt, and had a limited amount of tax-backed debt secured by the state's federal Dave Hitchcock mineral royalties at fiscal year-end 2012. Although these royalties have been cut slightly due to the federal budget sequester, debt service coverage remains high in our view. The state has no plans to issue new money debt for the foreseeable future, in part due to currently strong state finances. The state has a small guarantee program for University of Wyoming revenue debt, backed by another portion of federal mineral royalties, and is winding down an existing guarantee program for local school districts.
ICR--Issuer credit rating.
JULY 10, 2013 18

1158166 | 301674531
Table 3
State Tax-Supported Debt Statistics For Fiscal 2011

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Total (mil. $) 3,579 999 5,663 989 88,932 2,653 17,891 2,288 25,251 9,227 5,427 233 33,633 3,052 1,123 3,411 8,387 4,915 972 9,577 30,803 6,557 6,338 4,845 4,689 174 27 2,037 702 35,261 3,050 50,477 7,090 237 10,677 1,707 6,823 13,422 1,835 4,516 Rank 27 40 21 41 1 32 7 33 6 14 22 46 4 30 39 29 16 23 42 13 5 19 20 24 25 47 50 35 43 3 31 2 17 45 11 38 18 9 37 26 Per capita ($) 745 1,382 874 337 2,359 518 4,996 2,522 1,325 940 3,947 147 2,613 468 367 1,188 1,920 1,074 732 1,643 4,676 664 1,186 1,627 780 175 15 748 532 3,997 1,465 2,593 734 346 925 450 1,762 1,053 1,746 965 Rank 33 17 29 44 9 38 1 7 18 27 4 48 5 39 42 20 11 24 35 14 2 36 21 15 31 46 50 32 37 3 16 6 34 43 28 40 12 25 13 26 As % personal income 2.15 3.04 2.44 0.99 5.30 1.18 8.78 6.06 3.35 2.60 9.17 0.44 5.92 1.32 0.91 2.93 5.70 2.78 1.93 3.22 8.72 1.82 2.65 5.06 2.04 0.48 0.04 1.96 1.16 7.52 4.24 5.13 2.03 0.76 2.45 1.21 4.65 2.48 3.97 2.87 Rank 30 20 28 41 9 39 2 5 18 25 1 47 6 37 43 21 7 23 34 19 3 36 24 12 31 46 50 33 40 4 14 11 32 45 27 38 13 26 15 22 To GSP* (%) 2.07 1.94 2.19 0.93 4.54 1.00 7.78 3.48 3.35 2.20 8.10 0.40 5.01 1.10 0.75 2.61 5.09 1.98 1.88 3.18 7.86 1.70 2.25 4.95 1.88 0.46 0.03 1.56 1.10 7.24 3.84 4.36 1.61 0.59 2.21 1.10 3.50 2.32 3.66 2.72 Rank 27 30 26 41 9 40 3 15 16 25 1 47 6 39 44 21 5 29 32 18 2 34 23 7 33 46 50 36 37 4 12 11 35 45 24 38 14 22 13 20 Debt burden as % expenditures 1.04 2.11 2.00 3.48 7.90 1.40 9.41 7.40 7.75 8.60 9.61 0.50 8.13 2.83 1.76 2.40 4.04 4.32 4.53 4.06 7.20 1.30 3.43 7.15 4.32 1.37 0.09 3.69 2.28 8.04 3.50 4.10 2.13 1.30 2.25 1.76 7.23 4.50 7.96 5.01
JULY 10, 2013 19

1158166 | 301674531
Table 3
State Tax-Supported Debt Statistics For Fiscal 2011 (cont.)

South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Mean Median 134 2,036 10,005 3,442 492 8,719 16,119 2,125 11,751 36 9,487 4,603 48 36 12 28 44 15 8 34 10 49 163 318 390 1,222 785 1,077 2,360 1,145 2,057 63 1,322 1,009 47 45 41 19 30 23 8 22 10 49 0.39 0.87 0.98 3.62 1.88 2.35 5.33 3.42 5.13 0.13 3.11 2.54 48 44 42 16 35 29 8 17 10 49 0.34 0.76 0.76 2.76 1.90 2.03 4.54 3.18 4.61 0.10 2.71 2.20 48 43 42 19 31 28 10 17 8 49 2.38 2.47 1.40 4.28 2.52 4.50 4.38 5.70 2.91 0.20 4.20 3.60
*GSP (gross state product). Calculated by Standard & Poor's (see "Measuring Debt"). Sources: Personal income and GSP-Bureau of Economic Analysis; population-U.S. Census. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Table 4
State Tax-Supported Debt Statistics For Fiscal 2012

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Total (mil. $) 3,514 869 5,648 943 90,225 2,737 18,116 2,313 23,579 9,265 5,995 207 33,464 2,975 1,087 3,346 8,620 5,489 932 10,211 32,909 9,885 6,586 5,192 Rank 28 42 22 40 1 32 7 34 6 16 21 47 4 30 39 29 17 23 41 12 5 14 19 24 Per capita ($) 729 1189 862 320 2372 528 5046 2522 1221 934 4306 130 2599 455 354 1159 1968 1193 701 1735 4952 1000 1224 1740 Rank 33 22 30 46 9 38 1 7 20 28 3 48 6 40 44 23 11 21 36 14 2 26 19 13 As % personal income 2.05 2.54 2.40 0.92 5.27 1.17 8.57 6.01 3.03 2.53 9.78 0.38 5.80 1.23 0.84 2.77 5.62 3.03 1.78 3.34 9.05 2.67 2.65 5.26 Rank 32 27 30 42 10 39 3 5 20 28 1 47 6 37 46 21 7 19 36 17 2 22 23 11 To GSP* (%) 1.91 1.68 2.12 0.86 4.50 1.00 7.90 3.51 3.03 2.14 8.28 0.36 4.81 1.00 0.71 2.41 4.97 2.26 1.74 3.21 8.15 2.47 2.23 5.12 Rank 30 35 29 42 9 39 3 13 17 28 1 47 7 40 44 21 6 25 32 16 2 20 26 5 Debt burden as % expenditures 0.99 2.37 1.90 1.65 7.97 1.54 9.80 7.10 8.32 8.00 10.97 0.56 7.40 3.21 2.04 2.70 4.00 5.45 5.26 3.65 7.60 1.90 4.90 6.30
JULY 10, 2013 20

1158166 | 301674531
Table 4
State Tax-Supported Debt Statistics For Fiscal 2012 (cont.)

Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Mean Median 4,340 342 25 1,986 735 35,907 2,812 51,514 7,916 319 11,378 1,702 6,428 14,232 1,873 4,241 126 2,406 9,522 3,786 504 10,134 16,743 1,988 12,423 33 9,750 4,290 25 45 50 36 43 3 31 2 18 46 11 38 20 9 37 26 48 33 15 27 44 13 8 35 10 49 721 340 14 720 557 4051 1348 2632 812 455 986 446 1649 1115 1783 898 151 373 365 1326 805 1238 2428 1072 2169 57 1,355 1,036 34 45 50 35 37 4 16 5 31 39 27 41 15 24 12 29 47 42 43 17 32 18 8 25 10 49 1.85 0.91 0.03 1.93 1.18 7.55 3.84 5.05 2.19 0.88 2.51 1.14 4.25 2.56 3.96 2.62 0.35 0.99 0.88 3.83 1.87 2.63 5.35 3.11 5.35 0.12 3.11 2.59 35 43 50 33 38 4 15 12 31 45 29 40 13 26 14 25 48 41 44 16 34 24 9 18 8 49 1.68 0.85 0.03 1.49 1.14 7.07 3.49 4.27 1.74 0.69 2.23 1.06 3.24 2.37 3.67 2.41 0.30 0.87 0.68 2.90 1.85 2.27 4.46 2.87 4.75 0.09 2.70 2.25 34 43 50 36 37 4 14 11 33 45 27 38 15 23 12 22 48 41 46 18 31 24 10 19 8 49 3.38 1.61 0.07 3.05 4.05 8.67 1.48** 4.50 2.07 1.06 2.57 1.33 6.57 4.40 7.85 5.03 2.30 2.40 1.40 5.06 2.31 4.12 5.29 5.26 3.14 0.20 4.15 3.65
*GSP (gross state product). Calculated by Standard & Poor's (see "Measuring Debt"). **Because the fiscal 2012 audited financial statements are not available, this figure is calculated using the fiscal 2012 budgeted general obligation and lease debt service and the budgeted general fund expenditures. This figure will not be comparable with the fiscal 2011 figure. The mean and median for this column do not include the unaudited New Mexico figure. Sources: Personal income and GSP-Bureau of Economic Analysis; population-U.S. Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Contact Information
Table 5
Contact Information
Credit analyst Location Phone E-mail
Horacio Aldrete-Sanchez Dallas Henry Henderson Dave Hitchcock Rich Marino Boston New York New York
(1) 214-871-1426 horacio.aldrete@standardandpoors.com (1) 617-530-8314 henry.henderson@standardandpoors.com (1) 212-438-2022 david.hitchcock@standardandpoors.com (1) 212-438-2058 richard.marino@standardandpoors.com
JULY 10, 2013 21

1158166 | 301674531
Table 5
Contact Information (cont.)

Gabriel Petek, CFA Robin Prunty Ken Rodgers John Sugden San Francisco (1) 415-371-5042 gabriel.petek@standardandpoors.com New York New York New York (1) 212-438-2081 robin.prunty@standardandpoors.com (1) 212-438-2087 ken.rodgers@standardandpoors.com (1) 212-438-1678 john.sugden@standardandpoors.com
Related Criteria And Research

An Overview Of Key Payment Priority Provisions For U.S. State Debt, March 6, 2012
JULY 10, 2013 22

1158166 | 301674531
Copyright 2013 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription) and www.spcapitaliq.com (subscription) and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
JULY 10, 2013 23

1158166 | 301674531

Untitled

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Untitled

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2013 U.S.

JULY 10, 2013 1

U.S. Infrastructure Is Reaching A Critical Financing Point

JULY 10, 2013 2

Debt Issuance In 2012

Aggregate Debt Levels Of The 50 U.S. States (Median)

JULY 10, 2013 3

Aggregate Debt Levels Of The 50 U.S. States (Median) (cont.)

Unemployment Insurance Fund Bonds

JULY 10, 2013 4

The State Debt Landscape For 2014

JULY 10, 2013 5

P3s offer an alternative infrastructure financing solution

JULY 10, 2013 6

JULY 10, 2013 7

JULY 10, 2013 8

JULY 10, 2013 9

JULY 10, 2013 10

JULY 10, 2013 11

JULY 10, 2013 12

JULY 10, 2013 13

JULY 10, 2013 14

JULY 10, 2013 15

JULY 10, 2013 16

JULY 10, 2013 17

JULY 10, 2013 18

State Tax-Supported Debt Statistics For Fiscal 2011

JULY 10, 2013 19

State Tax-Supported Debt Statistics For Fiscal 2011 (cont.)

State Tax-Supported Debt Statistics For Fiscal 2012

JULY 10, 2013 20

State Tax-Supported Debt Statistics For Fiscal 2012 (cont.)

JULY 10, 2013 21

Contact Information (cont.)

Related Criteria And Research

JULY 10, 2013 22

JULY 10, 2013 23

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen