Vol. 390 No. 34873 N.Y., N.Y. Monday, March 12, 2018 … · Vol. 390 No. 34873 N.Y., N.Y. Monday, March 12, 2018 COMMENTARY DESPITE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE federal funding levels, President

Monday, March 12, 2018

COMMENTARY

DESPITE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE federal funding levels, President Trump’s infrastruc-ture plan advances a vision of greater private sector involve-ment – and then details how the federal government will pursue this new paradigm with

its vast authorities. . . . . . . . 5

WEB EXCLUSIVES

THE INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOL district will delay plans to ask Marion County voters for more money until November elec-tions in a bid to build commu-nity support.

WHEN CALIFORNIA SOLD $2.18 billion in general obligation Tuesday it experienced the largest retail demand for its bonds in five years. The state had $1.4 billion in retail orders in the recent sale com-pared with $992.8 million during its last negotiated GO sale in August 2017, accord-ing to the treasurer’s office.

PUERTO RICO’S CASH POSITION WAS 24% below the pre-Hurricane Maria projection as of Feb. 23, showing increased financial pressure after earlier reports had shown limited deteriora-tion.

THE GARY, INDIANA, COMMUNITY School District gained state approval for a plan to settle an $8.4 million tax liability with the Internal Revenue Service, a key step toward resolving one of the district’s obstacles to stabilizing its fiscal foun-dation.

MONDAYwww.bondbuyer.com

Vol. 390 No. 34873 N.Y., N.Y. THE DAILY NEWSPAPER OF PUBLIC FINANCE

The South Carolina Supreme Court found that Richland County misspent millions of dollars from a voter-approved 1% sales tax col-lected for transportation projects.

The r uling, h anded d own Wednesday, remands the case back to a circuit court for further proceedings that could include or-dering the county to repay the mis-spent money from its general fund.

The decision follows the coun-ty’s issuance on Feb. 6 of $250 million in general obligation bond anticipation notes that are back ed partly by the “Penny Tax,” as it is called locally. The litigation was disclosed in bond documents. The BANs are backed by the triple-A rated county’s full faith and credit.

S.C. Court: Richland County Misspent Tax Funds By Shelly Sigo

Turn to South Carolina page 16

Market Was Biggest Since 2013

The total amount of outstand-ing municipal securities in the market rose by $42 billion in the fourth quarter of 2017 to close the year at $3.851 trillion, ac -cording to the Federal Reserve’s latest Flow of Funds report.

The figure was the highest since the third quarter of 2013, when total outstanding munis were $3.852 trillion.

“I think tax reform played a huge role,” said Stephen Win-terstein, a chief municipal strat-egist at Wilmington Trust In-vestment Advisors, noting that December 2017 w as a record issuance month as issuers hur-ried to do adv ance refunding deals they feared the y would be unable to do after the end of the year.

Patrick Luby, a municipal strategist at CreditSights, noted that there were $80.6 billion of redemptions in the fourth quar -ter that need to be f actored into the equation, but concluded that the December issuance was still

By Kyle glazier

Turn to Tax Reform page 5

off the ground,” said Michael McGuinness, chief e xecutive for the New Jersey chapter of the National Association for Industrial and Of fice Parks, a commercial real estate adv o-cacy group that is promoting the proposed legislation. “It’s another tool that would make a big difference for projects that have spanned many years.”

The proposed Economic Redevelopment and Growth Financing Bond Act is mod -eled after New Jersey’s Rede-velopment Area Bond law that helped aid f inal construction at the long-stalled American Dream Meadowlands megamall

project.The legislation would help

builders get projects of f the ground faster by allowing de-velopers to issue bonds backed by the NJED A’s Economic Redevelopment and Growth Program.

It would also grant tax cred -its to multiple-phased projects beginning at the time the y are completed and operational rath-er than during the construction process.

“The hope is that with that extended time period we are going to be able to be able to go after dif ficult challenging

New Jersey lawmakers are tackling legislation that would create an easier path for de-velopers to finance large-scale economic development projects with bonds.

The state assembly approved a bill last month designed to let developers issue bonds through host municipalities back ed by the New Jersey Economic De -velopment Authority.

The measure , ca l led the Economic Redevelopment and Growth Financing Bond Act, passed the assembly on Feb . 15 and is headed to the state senate this spring.

“It’s another tool in the tool-kit for developers and munici -palities to work together to se -cure financing and get projects

A bill moving through the legislature is modeled after a law that helped finance construction of the American Dream Meadowlands project.

N.J. Weighs Munis for Developers

Turn to New Jersey page 4

By andrew Coen

A court may require Richland County, S.C., to repay millions in funds misspent from the county’s 1% transportation sales tax program.

FRIDAY’S YIELDS

Complete market coverage appears on page 2

2.8

3.3

3.8

4.3

4.8

3/93/63/12/26

The Bond Buyer 40

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.6

3.9

4.1

4.4

4.7

5.0

MFJDNOSAJJMA

To Maturity4.02 Up 0.01

To Par Call3.87 Up 0.03

001_BB03121801 1 3/9/2018 5:09:18 PM

The Bond Buyer2 Monday, March 12, 2018

Construction, Retail Gains Send Payrolls to 2016 Level

U.S. employers added the most work -ers since mid-2016 as labor-force partici-pation swelled, while below-forecast wag-es and a downward revision to Januar y’s figure suggest the pay gains that spooked markets last month aren’t yet taking hold.

Payrolls rose 313,000 in Februar y, compared with the 205,000 median esti -mate in a sur vey of economists, and the two prior months were revised higher by 54,000, Labor Department figures showed Friday. The jobless rate held at 4.1%, the fifth straight month at that level. A verage hourly earnings increased 2.6% from a year earlier following a downwardly re -vised 2.8% gain.

The report signals the labor market will keep driving economic growth, while the wage figures show a cooling from a pace that spurred concern that the Federal Re-serve may raise interest rates faster. The unemployment rate remains well below Fed estimates of sustainable levels.

The participation rate increased to 63%, the highest since September , from 62.7% the prior month, as the number of employed people in the workforce rose by 785,000, according to the report.

— Bloomberg News

Rosengren Says Fed May Move `a Bit Faster’ on Rates

Unless events change the economy , the Federal Open Market Committee probably will need four 25 basis point rate hikes this year, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Presi-dent Eric Rosengren said Friday.

“[D]evelopments since December gen -erally reinforce my view of the need for somewhat more removal of accommodation

than was reflected in the December median Summary of Economic Projections (SEP),” Rosengren said in a speech in Springfield, Mass., according to prepared text released by the Fed. “Of course, following through on this expectation is conditional on the economy unfolding about as expected, and that unexpected events such as a trade war or a substantial change in the geopolitical situation do not surprise on the downside.”

As the economy continue to improve, he said, “monetary policy remains accommoda-tive, and fiscal policy has just become quite a bit more stimulative.”

Separately, in a speech in Lincoln, Neb., on Thursday evening, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Esther George said the FOMC must keep raising rates because “monetary policy remains highly accom -modative, and the recently enacted tax cuts and federal government spending increases suggest fiscal policy has turned more stim-ulative.”

“The current setting of our target interest rate is still well below neutral,” George said. “It is, therefore, important that the FOMC continue on its current path of policy nor -malization with gradual increases in the tar-get federal funds rate.”

— Gary E. Siegel

Evans Says Fed Has Scope To Be Patient on Tightening

The Federal Reser ve may be well-served by postponing additional inter -est-rate increases until inflation data show a stronger pickup in price pressures, Chi-cago Fed President Charles Evans said.

“I do think that there is merit to the ar-gument that waiting just a little bit longer” would help policy makers “to be absolute-ly sure that the inflation data is going to move,” Evans said Friday in a Bloomberg Television interview. He dissented against the Fed’s rate increase in December and isn’t a voting member of the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee this year.

— Bloomberg News

INBRIEF

Government Securities Prices 10-year: 9822/32 to yield 2.90%, down 10/32

30-year: 9626/32 to yield 3.17%, down 20/32

Municipal Bond Index 1252/32, down 8/32

The Bond Buyer’s Total: $9.881 billion, up $788.1 million

30-Day Visible Supply Competitives: $4.712 billion, up $369.4 million

(as of 3/12) Negotiated: $5.169 billion, up $418.7 million

TheMuniCenter List Offering Total: $19.347 billion, down $0.6 million

Friday’s Data

Major Deals This Week

Amount Lead Expected Preliminary (in millions) Issuer Underwriter Pricing Date Structure

$1,001 New York City TFA Jefferies Wednesday Serials

$379 New York State Dorm Auth Competitive Tuesday Serials



$258 New York Local Gov’t Assist Competitive Thursday Serials

$240 Alameda Co., Calif. B of A Merrill Thursday Serials, term

$234 Miami-Dade Co. Morgan Stanley Thursday TBD

$200 Clark Co., Nev. Competitive Wednesday Serials


$155 Wisconsin PFA Wells Fargo Thursday Serials, terms

Economic Indicators This Week

Day Indicator Last Report Forecast

Monday Treasury Budget Jan.: +$49.2B Feb.: n/a

Wednesday CPI Jan.: +0.5% Feb.: +0.2%

Wednesday CPI Core Jan.: +0.3% Feb.: +0.2%

Wednesday PPI Jan.: +0.4% Feb.: +0.2%

Wednesday PPI Core Jan.: +0.4% Feb.: +0.2%

Wednesday Retail Sales Jan.: -0.3% Feb.: +0.3%

Thursday ex-Autos Jan.: unch Feb.: +0.4%

Thursday Business Inventories Dec.: +0.4% Jan.: +0.5%

Thursday Empire State Mfg Survey Feb.: 13.1 March: 15.0

Thursday Import Prices Jan.: +1.0% Feb.: +0.3%

Thursday Export Prices Jan.: +0.8% Feb.: n/a

Thursday Initial Jobless Claims 3/3: 231,000 3/10: n/a

Thursday Philly Fed Mfg Survey Feb.: 25.8 March: 22.5

Thursday NAHB Housing Market Index Feb.: 72 March: 72

Friday Housing Starts Jan.: 1.326M Feb.: 1.279M

Friday Building Permits Jan.: 1.396M Feb.: 1.305M

Friday Industrial Production Jan.: -0.1% Feb.: +0.3%

Friday Capacity Utilization Jan.: 77.5% Feb.: 77.6%

Friday Michigan Sentiment Feb.: 99.7 March: 97

Forecasts represent the median of estimates by economists polled by IFR Markets

Coming off the biggest volume week of the year, municipals are ready for another steady batch of issuance. Although a sec-ond straight week of volume greater than $6 billion is on tap, observers said the issuance slump may not be over.

“I am not sure we are past the doldrums,” said Alan Schankel, managing director of research at Janney Capital Markets. “The 30-day visible supply is still under $10 bil -lion. I can’t help but believe that things will pick up, but I see no confirmation so far” of a sustained rebound.

Ipreo estimates volume will drop to $6.05 billion, from the revised total of $7.99 billion sold in the past week, according to updated figures from Thomson Reuters. The calendar for the week ahead is composed of $3.57 billion of negotiated deals and $2.48 billion in competitive sales.

“Next week is certainly Ne w York fo-cused,“ Schankel said. “Despite the ab un-dance of New York paper next week, I be -

lieve demand will be strong for both deals, fueled in part by increased in-state demand due to limitations on state tax de -ductibility result-ing from Decem-ber tax law.”

NY issuers ac-count for the top 5 bi ggest dea ls of the week and $2.58 billion, or more than one third of the week’s volume. There are 15 sales scheduled $100 million or larger, with six coming via the competitive route.

Jefferies is scheduled to price the New York City Transitional Finance Authority’s $1 billion of building aid revenue bonds on Wednesday after a two-day retail order peri-od. The deal is rated Aa2 by Moody’s Inves-

Market News

Municipal Market Gears Up for $6B Amid a Slump in Volume

By Chip Barnett & aaron Weitzman

tors Service, AA by S&P Global Ratings and AA by Fitch Ratings.

On T uesday, the D ormitory Authority of the State of New York is expected to sell a total of $1.33 billion in five sep-arate sales.

Jefferies is go-ing for the hat

trick, as the f irm is scheduled to price the University of Connecticut’s $152 million of student fee revenue bonds on Wednesday after a two-day retail order period, as well as the Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp.’s $110.775 million on Thursday. The

deals are rated Aa2 by Moody’s and AA-mi-nus by S&P and A1 by Moody’s and A-plus by S&P and Fitch, respectively.

“I’ll also be looking to see ho w the Uni-versity of Connecticut deal is recei ved in the context of the state’s fiscal challenges,” said Schankel. “Despite some dependence on state aid, the bond is a revenues issue that will carry higher ratings than the state itself.”

Some of the most actively traded bonds by type in the week ended March 9 were from California and Oklahoma issuers, according to Markit.

In the GO bond sector , the California 3.625s of 2047 traded 145 times. In the revenue bond sector, the Oklahoma Devel-opment Financing Authority 5.5s of 2057 traded 64 times. And in the taxable bond sector, the Oklahoma DFA 5.45s of 2028 traded 70 times. q

002_BB03121801 2 3/9/2018 5:09:20 PM

www.bondbuyer.com 3Monday, March 12, 2018

MUTUALSTRENGTH

A M U T U A L C O M P A N Y | C O M P L E T E T R A N S P A R E N C Y | A A / S T A B L E R A T I N G | S T R O N G E R C O M M U N I T I E S

The feeling is mutual

buildamerica.com

S&P Global

AASTABLE

There’s strength in the numbers of BAM: More than $45 billion par insured for almost 3,000 members. Those U.S. municipal bond issuers all finance essential public projects, and BAM has helped them capture more than $550 million in present value savings, making infrastructure dollars go further. We do this for the same reason you do, Building America.Choose BAM.

003_BB03121801 3 3/9/2018 1:09:14 PM


TRENDS IN THE REGIONNortheast

New Jersey Bill Would Spur Munis For Commercial Real Estate Projects

projects,” said Stephen Pearlman, a public finance attorney and founding partner at Pearlman & Miranda LLC in Bloomfield, N.J. “If you are a developer it helps you greatly to have capital stock upfront.”

Previous attempts in the assembly to empower New Jersey localities with ways to spur development through pri-vate activity bonds were stalled under previous Assembly Speaker Vincent Pri-eto, D-Secaucus.

New Assembly Speaker Craig Cough-lin, D-Fords, was primary sponsor of the new bill while State Sen. Joe Vitale, D-Woodbridge Township, is sponsoring a senate v ersion. Vitale and Coughlin didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Proponents of the new legislation want to mirror the state’ s Redevelop-ment Area Bond la w passed in 2001, which gi ves local go vernments the ability to generate upfront funds for bonds that fund construction projects backed by long-term payments in lieu of taxes.

The RAB law came into play last year during a $1.1 billion tax-e xempt reve-nue bond transaction led by Goldman Sachs to fund completion of the long-stalled American Dream Meadowlands megamall project.

TRANSFORMATIVE PROJECTS

The issue w as backed by a PILO Ts agreement between the de veloper, Tri-ple Five Group, and borough of East Rutherford.

“With these big transformative proj-ects banks will only loan to a certain loan-to-value r atio,” Pearlman said. “These tools fill the gap.”

Anthony Pizzutillo, public af fairs counsel for NAIOP New Jersey, said the state was able to use ERG incentives

to help with construction costs because the American Dream project is with -in the Meadowlands district, which is operated by the Ne w Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority.

Municipalities are unable under cur -rent New Jersey current public f inance law to aid developers with ERG-backed bonds like they can with PILOTs.

“It allows for flexibility to deal with the larger projects we w ould like to see get off the ground,” said Pizzutillo. “This is expanding an existing program and making it more flexible.”

The NJEDA declined to comment on the legislation. The agency, like locali-ties that are home to lar ge-scale devel-opments, would not be on the hook if projects go bust or if the y fail to bring in enough revenue.

Pearlman said the proposed le gisla-tion would protect municipalities from exposure to the bonds unless the y de-

cide to take separate action to back the debt. Though bondholders w ould face risks if projected state sales tax re v-enues generated by the projects that backstop annual ERG payments are less than expected, Pearlman said man y in-vestors are receptive.

“The bondholders who b uy an ERG bond are taking on project finance risk,” said Pearlman. “This is the kind of risk that the traditional marketplace is used to.”

Municipal Market Analytics analyst Lisa Washburn said the bill enables lo -cal governments with another mecha -nism to encourage economic de velop-ment by f acilitating developers with access to the tax-exempt market through ERG grants or securing bonds with PI -LOT payments.

She said a positive of the legislation for bondholders is pro visions assuring that the pledge of PILOTs are subject to

a statutory lien.“The presence of a statutory lien

gives investors some comfort that their claim to the PILOT payments should survive a h ypothetical chapter nine,” said Washburn. “They will be a secured versus an unsecured creditor thus im -proving recovery prospects.”

Washburn said there are risks associ-ated with the proposal, since bonds are non-recourse unless specifically guaran-teed by the municipality.

While local governments can be im -mune from the bonds, Washburn noted that some localities may feel pressure to eventually step in and specif ically guarantee the debt to assure completion.

“Financings for some projects may be speculative and that may result in trying to get the municipality to guarantee the debt to allow it to sec ure better rates, which would be a risk factor to the mu-nicipality should the project sour,” said Washburn. “These would likely increase the amount of riskier debt issued in the state.”

McGuinness said he is confident that there is enough support in the state sen-ate to pass a bill similar to the legisla-tion that the assembly passed last month by a 65-6 vote.

He said a wild card in play is a Jan. 19 executive order signed by Go v. Phil Murphy to audit the NJED A tax incen-tives program, but is “cautiously opti -mistic” that the Democratic governor will approve of the measure.

“It won’t be a slam dunk since I think the governor will ha ve a lot of ques -tions,” said McGuinness. “I think ulti-mately this bill will get signed.” q

For more content about this region, visit the Regional News tab on BondBuyer.com.

Continued from page 1

Connecticut A1/A+/A+ 1.67 2.66 3.29 3.90 Delaware Aaa/AAA/AAA 1.42 1.96 2.46 3.04 Maine Aa2/AA/AA 1.42 2.01 2.55 3.17 Maryland Aaa/AAA/AAA 1.42 2.00 2.54 3.05 Massachusetts Aa1/AA/AA+ 1.44 2.03 2.62 3.30 New Hampshire Aa1/AA/AA+ 1.44 2.02 2.58 3.17 New Jersey A3/A/A 1.67 2.49 3.22 3.88 New York Aa1/AA+/AA+ 1.39 1.93 2.51 3.17 Pennsylvania Aa3/A+/AA– 1.58 2.46 3.06 3.61 Rhode Island Aa2/AA/AA 1.47 2.10 2.72 3.30 Vermont Aaa/AA+/AAA 1.42 1.97 2.49 3.10 Dist. of Columbia Aa1/AA/AA 1.45 2.04 2.63 3.23 Puerto Rico Caa3/CC/CC 119.42 33.56 22.37 16.45

State Ratings One-Year Five-Year 10-Year 30-Year

General ObliGatiOn Yield Curves fOr Mar. 8, 2018

Sources: Municipal Market Data, Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings

Connecticut 2 $159,885 1 $4,795 155,090Delaware 0 0 0 0 0Maine 1 3,500 1 24,140 –20,640Maryland 3 279,655 2 525,000 –245,345Massachusetts 1 5,615 4 150,070 –144,455New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0New Jersey 2 31,589 3 60,233 –28,644New York 16 2,742,005 5 99,526 2,642,479Pennsylvania 10 269,040 9 184,620 84,420Rhode Island 1 12,500 1 45,000 –32,500Vermont 0 0 0 0 0District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0Sources: Ipreo, The Bond Buyer

March 9, 2018 March 2, 2018State Issues Amount Issues Amount Chg in Amt

visible supplY bY state

Dollar amounts are in thousands

Gov. Phil Murphy, who in January ordered an audit of the New Jersey Economic Develop-ment Authority tax incentive program, is expected to have questions about the proposal.

004_BB03121801 4 3/9/2018 5:09:22 PM

www.bondbuyer.com 5Monday, March 12, 2018 Commentary

The Trump Infrastructure Plan: Dismissed too Quickly?If only the 53-page “Legislative Outline

for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America” – or the Trump Infrastructure Plan – could be read backwards, its disappearance from the public stage w ould not have been so immediate. Unfortunately, much of the detailed and largely positive initiatives that comprise eighty percent of the document is lost after the first nine pages once it be-comes clear that no new net federal fund-ing for infrastructure is being proposed.

Perhaps, even more surprising for a Re-publican administration, it also proposes a flurry of new programs that w ould move decision-making on individual projects from statehouses to Washington.

In its f irst pages, the Plan purports to provide $200 billion of federal support that will produce $1.5 trillion of infrastructure spending. Unfortunately, this only perpet-uates the prevailing false political narrative in America that we can meet our country’s challenges without paying for them. The Plan’s federal funding is not incrementally additive but rather largely reprogrammed existing funding. And to add insult to in -jury, the Administration’s subsequently released FY 2019 b udget proposal takes out the knife for man y existing federal infrastructure programs.

In order to achieve its $1.5 trillion goal, the Plan assumes that this modest funding will leverage state, local and pri vate in-vestment more than sevenfold. In practical terms, this would increase the b urden on state and local go vernment to raise tax es and other revenues while the federal go v-ernment cuts taxes by $1.5 trillion or more. The Plan seems to ignore that state and local governments already fund 75% of our nation’s infrastructure and only limited portions of our public infrastructure can be feasibly supported by tolls and user fees.

The Plan would reverse the country’s historical infrastructure bargain: significant

federal funds offered to states to carry out national goals locally. Instead, the Trump Plan moves much of individual project se-lection and approvals back to Washington with very little federal funding in return. The plan mistakenly assumes that states will compete for 20% project grant fund-ing from Washington in lieu of historical 80% category grant funding.

Not surprisingly then, the pre vailing Washington wisdom seems correct and the Trump proposal is DOA: nothing to induce Democrats to spend time at the table, and Republicans largely don’t care. All of this in the context of yet another “infrastructure week” upstaged by tragic e vents and the prospect of a global trade war.

But the larger document deserves to be read in its entirety . Despite the lack of funding, the Plan is a comprehensi ve and specific approach exceeding in thoughtful-ness many of the think tank infrastructure tomes over the last several years. Despite the absence of adequate federal funding levels, it advances a vision — greater in -volvement of the private sector with public infrastructure—and then details how the federal government will pursue this ne w infrastructure paradigm with its v ast au-thorities.

Why is this important? Because the tra-ditional “government monopoly” model for delivering and operating infrastructure has, in part, led to the predicament we are in. Said differently, the current under-funding problem isn’ t just the need for increased funding; the problem is also very much how current funding is deployed.

Governments at all le vels need to ad -vance solutions that achieve greater design, procurement and operating efficiencies with the revenues they already have. For example, recent e xperience across the country with design-build procurement techniques have reduced the cost of infra-structure projects, especially the big and complex ones, by 10% to 20%.

The Trump Plan’s numerous proposals to involve the private sector are intended to address this shortf all in our country’s current model. And, before one too quickly dismisses these ideas as “Trumpian,” recall that the Obama Administration spent much of its eight years promoting increased use of Public-Private Partnerships (P3). The private sector elements of the Trump Plan in many respects are the logical next steps of Obama-era advocacy of a similar model.

An important breakthrough of the Trump proposal is the recognition that our municipal finance model is the main engine of U.S. infrastructure in vestment and that it should not be replaced by the P3 model despite some of the latter’ s ad-vantages. There is an essential recognition that the way forward is to craft federal policies that make the two models more compatible, allowing state and local go v-ernments to better achieve the best of both approaches.

The expansion of private activity bonds and the loosening of their availability to the private sector is strong e vidence of this understanding of U.S. infrastructure financing dynamics. This element of the Plan will more readily f acilitate the ad -vantages of lower cost tax-exempt financ-ing together with the procurement and management efficiencies that the pri vate model can deliver -- not forcing governors and mayors to make a choice between one model or the other.

Beyond the private activity bond pro-visions, the Plan proposes that the federal government lead by e xample, turning to the private sector for infrastructure cost efficiencies and value enhancement of its own assets. Perhaps, most notably , is a listing of potential federal properties for divestiture, including Reagan National and Dulles Airports, and the TVA and Bonne-ville Power transmission assets. (page 19).

Other proposals include, creating an In-terior Maintenance Fund so that expanded

energy development (page 17) will di-rectly benefit the Department of Interior’s enormous backlog of public lands infra -structure needs. States would be given the authority to commercialize interstate rest areas (page 21) and toll interstate high -ways. The Department of Veterans Affairs would be permitted to retain the proceeds from the sales of its properties and create a pilot program for building private facilities on VA land (page 32).

You get the theme: the plan is a specific blueprint for how the federal go vernment can advance involvement of the pri vate sector in the provision of public infrastruc-ture—federal, state and local—employing its resources and le vers to advance this policy goal in concert with the municipal market’s existing low-cost financing tools.

There are proposals that one may not agree with and others that may not yet be fully baked. Infrastructure policy is a topic best addressed by getting int o the weeds. This document does just that. Importantly, it provides a long overdue detailed review of other topics such as design, public-bid-ding procedures, and environmental regu-latory review and permitting.

The Trump Infrastructure Plan is w or-thy of a full debate. Its polic y framework and comprehensive cataloging of e xisting federal program and re gulatory obstacles are an important contribution to the discus-sion. If this or a future Congress is willing to provide adequate and sustainable federal funding, the Trump Plan could ultimately form the basis of a meaningful long term solution to our nation’s infrastructure chal-lenges.

Kent Hiteshew served as a member of the Obama Administration’s Infrastructure Task Force.

Chris Hamel recently retired as head of RBC Capital Markets’ municipal banking group and served as Chair of the SIFMA Infrastructure Policy Committee.

By Kent HitesHew and CHris Hamel

CUSTOMER SERVICEFor Subscriptions, Renewals, Changes, Delivery Inquiries or Problems: E-Mail: [email protected] (212) 803-8500. Subscription Rate: $3,350 annually; $3,390 for all other countries..For more information about reprints and licensing content from The Bond Buyer , please visit www.SourceMediaReprints.com or contact PARS International Corp. (212) 221-9595. Single copies of current issues are available for $13. Back issue prices are based on publication date .Cancellation Policy for Print & Electronic Subscriptions:No refunds will be issued for any print or electronic subscription cancellations requested within 6 months of the subscription’ s expiration date. All other print or electronic subscription cancellations will receive a pro-rata refund of any prepaid subscription fees based on the date of ter mination. For information about Bond Buyer Worksheets, call (800) 367-8215.To order The Bond Buyer’s Municipal Marketplace® (the Red Book) contact Accuity at 800-321-3373, 1007 Church Street, Floor 6, Evanston, IL 60201.Those registered with the Copyright Clearance Center have per mission to photocopy articles owned by The Bond Buyer for a flat fee of $10 per copy of each article . Send Payment to the Copyright clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923.The Bond Buyer (ISSN 0732-0469) is published daily except for F riday, Saturday, Sunday and Federal Holidays, by SourceMedia, Inc., One State Street Plaza, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10004. Periodical rate postage paid at New York, N.Y., and additional U.S. mailing offices.POSTMASTER: Send Address changes to: The Bond Buyer, 1 State Street Plaza, New York, NY 10004. For subscriptions, renewals, address changes and deliver y service issues contact our Customer Ser vice department at (212) 803-8500 or email: [email protected].

COPYRIGHT RESPONSIBILITY© 2018 The Bond Buyer and SourceMedia, Inc. All rights reserved. Each subscriber has the responsibility to guarantee the publisher ’s copyright is not violated by anyone who has access to the subscriber ’s copy. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise without written permission. Federal copyright law carries liability of up to $100,000 per issue for such infringement.

likely a major factor in the year’s overall growth of the market.

The fourth quarter total w as up from $3.809 billion in the third quarter of 2017, and from $3.840 in the last quarter of 2016.

Bank holdings of munis totaled $571.5, up from $561.9 billion quarter over quarter and from $550.9 in 2016.

Banks have become signif icant pur-chasers of munis in recent years and the numbers have grown sharply, as bank holdings accounted for less than $300 billion as recently as the f inal quarter of 2011.

There had been fears that banking rules adopted in 2014 that excluded mu-nis from being classified as high-quality liquid assets would discourage banks from buying and holding munis, but that doesn’t appear to have been the case. An-alysts have said banks often f ind munis attractive because of their performance relative to Treasuries.

A provision included in Senate bank -ing legislation currently under debate

would allow investment-grade, readi-ly-marketable munis to count as HQLA. The bipartisan package could mo ve toward becoming la w in the ne xt few weeks, sources said, b ut it would need to be approved by the House first before heading to the president’s desk.

Money market fund holdings increased for the first time in a few quarters, rising to $142.3 billion from $135.1 billion in the previous quarter. Money market funds have followed an opposite trend from banks, having once been a signif -icant holder of municipal securities that fell off precipitously in recent years. Analysts had blamed the trend primarily on low yields. Money market funds held over $200 billion of munis as recently as 2016, and accounted for more than $400 billion back in 2010.

Mutual funds finished the year with $687 billion of munis, up slightly from $680 billion in the third quarter and con-tinuing a general trend of increased hold-ings in the past couple of years.

Mutual funds closed 2016 with $632

billion of munis, and 2015 finished up at $604 billion.

Closed-end funds accounted for $89 billion of munis in the f inal quarter of 2017, and exchange-traded funds held $30 billion.

Households and nonprof it organi-zations, generally known as the retail players in the muni market, closed 2017 with $1.57 billion of municipal securi -ties holdings, down a couple of hundred

million dollars from the third quarter of the year and also do wn from $1.67 billion in 2016 and $1.64 billion at the end of 2015.

Munis are kno wn as a mark et with extremely high retail participation, which has drawn increasing attention from reg-ulators in recent years amid attempts to protect less sophisticated investors.

The next release of Fed data is slated for June. q

Tax Reform Propels Muni Market to $3.85T – Largest Size Since 2013

005_BB03121801 5 3/9/2018 5:09:23 PM


SUMMARY NOTICE OF SALE

$90,000,000*MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE

2018 General Obligation Tax Anticipation Notes

Electronic Bids will be received via BiDCOMP/PARITY® Competitive Bidding System (BiDCOMP/PARITY®) by the Municipality of Anchorage until 11:00 A.M., Eastern Standard Time on

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

for the purchase of all or a portion of the $90,000,000* Municipality of Anchorage 2018 General Obligation Tax Anticipation Notes (the “Notes”). Each bid must conform to the terms and condi-tions of the detailed Notice of Sale.

The Notes will be issued only as fully registered bonds in book-entry form. The Notes will be dated the date of delivery, and will mature on September 17, 2018. The Notes ar e expected to be delivered on or about March 21, 2018 in New York, New York at the Depository Trust Company against full payment of the purchase price in Federal Funds. The approving opinion of K&L Gates LLP, Note Counsel to the Municipality will be fur nished without cost to the successful bidder . There will also be furnished the usual closing papers.

Unless all bids are rejected, the Notes will be awarded to the bidder whose bid meets the bid specifications and results in the lowest net inter est cost to the Municipality as pr ovided in the detailed Notice of Sale.

The Municipality reserves the right to change or postpone, from time to time, the date established for the receipt of bids. ANY SUCH CHANGE OR POSTPONEMENT WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY THE VIA BiDCOMP/PARITY® NOT LATER THAN 9:00 A.M. EASTERN ST ANDARD TIME , ON THE BID DATE.

For further information relating to the Notes, reference is made to the Preliminary Official State-ment, including the detailed Notice of Sale as an appendix, which can be accessed via the Internet at www.i-dealprospectus.com. An electr onic copy of the Pr eliminary Official Statement may be obtained from the undersigned at the offices of: the Municipality of Anchorage, Chief Fiscal Officer, 632 W. 6th Avenue, Suite 810, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (telephone (907) 343-6610) or from the municipal advisor, Hilltop Securities Inc., 485 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800, New York, NY 10022 telephone (212) 642-4350; facsimile (212) 642-4357. *Subject to change, as described in the detailed Notice of Sale.

Municipality of Anchorage

By: Robert E. Harris Chief Fiscal Officer

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL

$23,505,000*PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY (CALIFORNIA)

WATER REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION,SERIES 2018 REFUNDING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the Board of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency (the “Agency”), that electronic proposals only will be received by representatives of the Agency for the purchase of $23,505,000* principal amount of certificates of participation of the Agency designat-ed the “Water Revenue Certificates of Participation, Series 2018 Refunding.” Bids will be received in electronic form via PARITY™ on:

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018

or, at the option of the Agency, to a later date or time thereafter until acceptance of a bid, in either case at 8:30 a.m. California Time. Further information, including copies of the preliminary Official Statement and Official Notice of Sale, may be obtained from the financial advisor to the Agency, Montague DeRose and Associates, LLC, 2801 T ownsgate Road, Suite 221, W estlake Village, Cal-ifornia 91361, telephone at (805) 496-2211, and is also available on the website of MuniOS at www.munios.com. Bidders are referred to the Official Notice of Sale of the Certificates for further particulars concerning the terms and conditions of the sale.

GIVEN by order of the Board of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency by resolution adopted March 1, 2018.

*Preliminary, subject to change.

Request for QualificationsCity of Atlanta, Department of Finance

RFQ for Financial and/or SWAP Advisor Services

The Office of Treasury, Debt and Investments of the City of Atlanta, Department of Finance is requesting proposals from qualified firms to provide Financial and/or SWAP Advisor services. Details ar e included in the complete RFQ, which is available on the City of Atlanta website, located at https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/departments/finance. Deadline for submission is 5:00pm EST on Friday, March 30, 2018.

Legal Notices

REACH YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE

Place your Redemption Advertising in

For more info e-mail [email protected]

006_BB03121801 6 3/9/2018 1:50:06 PM


City of Atlanta, Department of FinanceRFQ for Financial and/or SWAP Advisor Services

The Office of Treasury, Debt and Investments of the City of Atlanta, Department of Finance is requesting proposals from qualified firms to provide Financial and/or SWAP Advisor services. Details ar e included in the complete RFQ, which is available on the City of Atlanta website, located at https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/departments/finance. Deadline for submission is 5:00pm EST on Friday, March 30, 2018.

For more inFormation, contact:

John hester (212)-849-5125James Kellum (212) 849-5156

• Full service electronic document delivery and tracking system

www.i-dealprospectus.com

I-DEAL PROSPECTUS ELECTRONIC OFFICIAL STATEMENTSNegotiated

KentucKy inFrastructure auth, WstWtr & DrinKing Wtr revol FunD rev BonDs, srs 2018aneW yorK city tFa BuilDing aiD rev BonDs, Fiscal 2018 srs s-3&4, suBsrs s-4a&4BKauFman county muD no. 11, tX unlimiteD taX roaD reFunDing BonDs, series 2018Decatur (city oF), tX (the corp For economic Development) sales taX rev BonDs, taX srs 2018 tennessee hDa, tn resiDential Finance program BonDs, 2018-1sherman isD, tX variaBle rate unlimiteD taX school BuilDing BonDs, series 2018-Beagle mountain-saginaW isD, tX unltD taX school BlDg BonDs, series 2018camBriDge (city oF), ma general oBligation BonDs, 2018 series aamarillo (city oF), tX hotel occupancy taX rev BonDs, taXaBle srs 2018neW yorK (city oF), go BonDs, Fiscal 2018 srs e, suBsrs e-1-e-3neW yorK (city oF), go BonDs, Fiscal 2004 suBsrs a-6, 2008 suBsrs J-4 & 2011 suBsrs F-3miDlothian isD, tX unlimiteD taX school BuilDing BonDs, series 2018coppell isD, tX unltD taX school BlDg & reF BonDs, series 2018auBrey isD, tX unltD taX school BlDg BonDs, srs 2018sherman isD, tX unltD taX school BlDg BonDs, series 2018-aWylie isD, tX unlimiteD taX school BuilDing BonDs, series 2018santa Fe (city oF), nm gasoline taX-suB lien gross receipts taX improv rev BonDs, srs 2018calallen isD, tX unltD taX school BlDg & reF BonDs, series 2018&2018areD river parishWiDe sD no. 1, la go school BonDs, srs 2018***s&p ratings report has Been aDDeDspring isD, tX unlimiteD taX reFunDing BonDs, series 2018reD river parishWiDe sD no. 1, la go school BonDs, srs 2018recreation District no. 14 oF the parish oF st. tammany, la go BonDs, srs 2018***the s&p rating report has Been aDDeD***aDDenDum to preliminary oFFicial statement DateD January 18, 2018 has Been aDDeDrecreation District no. 14 oF the parish oF st. tammany, la go BonDs, srs 2018parish oF laFayette school BoarD, la sales taX revenue BonDs, srs 2018***s&p ratings report has Been aDDeDmansFielD eDc, tX sales taX revenue BonDs, taXaBle neW series 2018mansFielD (city oF), tX comBination taX & revenue coo, series 2018mansFielD pFDc, tX sales taX revenue BonDs, neW srs 2018 & taXaBle neW srs 2018parish oF laFayette school BoarD, la sales taX revenue BonDs, srs 2018royse city isD, tX unlimiteD taX reFunDing BonDs, taXaBle series 2018Fort BenD county, tX unltD taX roaD & reF BonDs, series 2018pasaDena isD, tX unltD taX school BlDg BonDs, series 2018granBury (city oF), tX go reFunDing BonDs, srs 2018tomBall isD, tX unlimiteD taX school BuilDing BonDs, series 2018mcallen, inc. Development corporation, tX sales taX rev BonDs, taXaBle srs 2018miDlanD (city oF), tX go improv&reF BonDs, srs 2018a&go reF BonDs, taXaBle srs 2018Bsocorro isD, tX unlimiteD school BuilDing BonDs, series 2018socorro isD, tX unlimiteD taX reFunDing BonDs, series 2018BriDgevieW Finance corp, il sales taX securitizeD BonDs, srs 2017a & taXaBle srs 2017B

I-DEAL PROSPECTUSELECTRONIC OFFICIAL STATEMENTSCompetitive

3/7-collin county ccD, tX limiteD taX BonDs, series 2018**reviseD preliminary oFFicial statement anD notice oF sale**3/8-aBington (toWn oF), ma go Water main BonDs**pos supplement has Been aDDeD**3/12-galveston county muD no. 6, tX unlimiteD taX BonDs, series 2018**preliminary oFFicial statement & notice oF sale have Been reviseD3/12-Florence county (school District oF), Wi go corporate purpose BonDs (2018) 3/13-norFolK (city oF), va Water revenue BonDs, series 20183/13-WauKesha county area tcD, Wi go promissory notes, series 2018B3/19-hays county muD no. 5, tX unlimiteD taX BonDs, series 20183/7-collin county ccD, tX limiteD taX BonDs, series 2018**reviseD preliminary oFFicial statement3/13-Queen anne’s county, mD puBlic Facilities BonDs oF 20183/13-euless (city oF), tX taX & WW & ss (ltD pleDge) rev coo, series 20183/13-siouX Falls (city oF), sD sales taX revenue reFunDing BonDs, series 2018a3/14-anchorage (municipality oF), aK 2018 go taX anticipation notes3/14-neW yorK city tFa BuilDing aiD rev BonDs, Fiscal 2018 srs s-3&4, suBsrs s-4a&4B3/20- anne arunDel county, mD go BonDs consoliDateD general improvements & W&s series 20183/12-Fishers (city oF), in go BonDs, series 2018a3/13-millBrae puBlic Financing authority, ca 2018 WasteWater rev BonDs3/13-onalasKa (city oF), Wi go corporate purp BonDs & note anticipation notes (2018)3/14-montgomery county muD no. 95, tX unlimiteD taX BonDs, series 20183/19-graDy isD, tX unlimiteD taX school BuilDing BonDs, series 2018B3/20-harpsWell (toWn oF), me 2018 general oBligation BonDs

BiDCOMP®/Parity®

www.newissuehome.i-deal.com

3/12 - Crockett County Consolidated Common School District No. 1, TX3/12 - Village of Oostburg, WI3/12 - Independent School District No. 94 (Cloquet), MN3/12 - Urbandale Community School District, IA3/12 - School District of Florence County (WI), WI3/12 - Iowa Western Community College (Merged Area XIII), IA3/12 - Galveston County Municipal Utility District No. 6, TX3/13 - City of Carson City, NV3/13 - City of Kingston, NY3/13 - City of Kingston, NY3/13 - South Heart Public School District Building Authority (ND), ND3/20 - City of Superior (WI), WI

Employers:Are you looking for a...

Bond CounselFinance DirectorResearch Analyst

SalespersonMuni Bond TraderPortfolio ManagerInvestment Banker

UnderwriterOr other Public Finance Professionals?

If so, The Bond Buyer’s Classified Section can help you. For information on employment advertising options, in-

cluding online advertising in our Career Zone section, please contact:

Reana Teichman at 212-803-8620Or e-mail [email protected],

Or [email protected].

007_BB03121801 7 3/9/2018 1:50:06 PM

8 The Bond BuyerMonday, March 12, 2018

Amount Time of Bank- Latest Issuer St Description ($000s) Sale Financial Adviser Legal Opinion Maturing Insurer Mdy’s S&P Fitch KBRA Qual. Details

Competitive Bond Offerings *Preliminary and subject to change. SHADED LISTINGS ARE NEW.

Compiled by Ipreo

New Issues

A letter “P” signifies that a link to the POS is on the Bond Buyer Online's Competitive Bond Offering Calendar.

This monitor signifies the Notice of Sale is available on www.bondbuyer.comTo Report or Obtain Information

Competitive / Negotiated Offerings

Joycelyn Gumbs 212-849-3870

Priya Khandai 212-849-3871

Competitive / Negotiated Sales Results

Ruth-Ann Medina 212-849-3873

Anthony Andino 212-849-3868A “+” under Insurer in the Negotiated Bond Offerings and Negotiated Note Offerings signifies that insurance is available.

Fax: 212-404-8155; Email: [email protected]

Monday, March 12 Iowa Western Comm Coll IA Rev Ref *10,520 11 am C Piper Jaffray Ahlers & Cooney 19-30 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1-Mar Urbandale Comm SD IA GO Sch Ref *10,000 10 am C Piper Jaffray Ahlers & Cooney 19-30 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 1-Mar Cloquet ISD #94 MN GO *4,920 10 am C Ehlers Knutson Flynn 19-24 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 21-Feb Columbia SD MO GO Imp *35,000 10:30 am C Piper Jaffray Gilmore & Bell 19-38 --- Aa1 --- --- --- --- 6-Mar Craig Co ISD #65 OK Comb Purp (Tax) 3,840 4 pm C Stephen H. McDonald State Atty General 20-22 --- --- --- --- --- --- 28-Feb Seminole Co ISD #15 OK Bldg 250 4 pm C Stephen H. McDonald State Atty General 20-22 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 28-Feb Seminole Co ISD #2 OK Bldg 320 6 pm C Stephen L. Smith Phillips Murrah 20-21 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 28-Feb Tulsa Co ISD #9 OK Comb Purp 23,000 11 am C Municipal Fin Svcs Hilborne & Weidman 20-23 --- --- AA+ --- --- --- 7-Mar Crockett Co Cons Comm SD #1 TX Sch Bldg *5,000 9 am C Specialized Pub Fin McCall Parkhurst 19-23 PSF --- AAA --- --- BQ 2-Mar Fort Bend Co MUD #155 TX Unltd Tax 7,430 1 pm C Rathmann & Assoc Allen Boone 20-42 --- Baa1 --- --- --- BQ 2-Mar Galveston Co MUD #6 TX Unltd Tax 4,720 1 pm C GMS Group Norton Rose 19-30 --- --- A- --- --- BQ 27-Feb Beaver Dam USD WI GO Sch Bldg *9,995 10 am C PMA Securities Quarles & Brady 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 28-Feb Florence Co SD WI GO Corp Purp *3,780 10 am C Robert W. Baird Griggs Law Office 18-38 --- --- AA- --- --- BQ 6-Mar Oostburg Vlg WI GO Comm Dev (Tax) *2,040 10 am C Ehlers Quarles & Brady 20-36 --- --- --- --- --- --- 28-Feb

Tuesday, March 13 Millbrae Pub Fin Auth CA Wstwtr Rev *16,785 9 am P PFM Fin Advisors Jones Hall 18-47 --- --- AA- --- --- --- 5-Mar Windsor Locks (Town) CT GO *7,885 11:30 am E Phoenix Advisors Day Pitney 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 5-Mar Rockford Pk Dt IL GO Park *5,375 10 am C Speer Financial Chapman and Cutler 18-37 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 1-Mar St Charles Pk Dt IL GO Park *4,260 10:30 am C Speer Financial Chapman and Cutler 18-37 --- --- AA --- --- BQ 28-Feb Henderson Co SD Fin Corp KY Energy *1,275 11 am E Ross Sinclaire Steptoe & Johnson 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 8-Mar Manchester By-The-Sea (Town) MA GO Muni Purp Loan *5,615 11 am E Hilltop Securities Locke Lord 19-33 --- --- AAA --- --- BQ 9-Mar Queen Anne’s County MD Pub Fac *16,000 10:30 am E Public Advisory McKennon Shelton 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar Fowlerville Comm Sch MI Energy *3,500 1:30 pm E PFM Fin Advisors Thrun Law Firm 19-33 --- --- A --- --- BQ 5-Mar South Heart Pub SD Bldg Auth ND Lease Rev 750 12 pm C PFM Fin Advisors Arntson Stewart 19-28 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 5-Mar Carson City NV GO Swr *4,875 8:30 am P JNA Consulting Sherman & Howard 20-37 --- A1 AA- --- --- --- 6-Mar Blind Brook-Rye UFSD NY Sch Dist *4,752 11 am E Capital Markets Adv Hawkins Delafield 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 7-Mar Kingston NY Pub Imp 11,930 11 am E Munistat Services Orrick Herrington 19-38 --- --- AA- --- --- --- 2-Mar NYS Dorm Auth NY Sales Tax Rev (Tax) *66,290 12 pm E Public Resources Hawkins Delafield 20-23 --- --- AAA --- --- --- 7-Mar NYS Dorm Auth NY Sales Tax Rev *172,590 10 am E Public Resources Hawkins Delafield 20-28 --- --- AAA --- --- --- 7-Mar NYS Dorm Auth NY Sales Tax Rev *350,385 11 am E Public Resources Hawkins Delafield 38-43 --- --- AAA --- --- --- 7-Mar NYS Dorm Auth NY Sales Tax Rev *366,165 10:30 am E Public Resources Hawkins Delafield 29-37 --- --- AAA --- --- --- 7-Mar NYS Dorm Auth NY Sales Tax Rev *379,090 11:30 am E Public Resources Hawkins Delafield 44-48 --- --- AAA --- --- --- 7-Mar Stark County OH GO *9,845 11 am E Sudsina & Assoc Squire Patton 19-27 --- Aa2 --- --- --- BQ Today Creek Co ISD #3 OK Comb Purp 880 12 pm C Stephen L. Smith Phillips Murrah 20-21 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 1-Mar Pittsburg Co ISD #30 OK Trans Equipment 460 12:45 pm C Stephen H. McDonald State Atty General 20-23 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 28-Feb Pottawatomie Co ISD #5 OK Bldg 525 4 pm C Stephen H. McDonald State Atty General 20-23 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 1-Mar Mechanicsburg Area SD PA GO *19,995 11:15 am E PFM Fin Advisors Stock & Leader 19-42 --- --- AA --- --- --- 7-Mar Sioux Falls SD Sales Tax Rev *10,910 10:15 am C PFM Fin Advisors Perkins Coie 19-25 --- Aa2 --- --- --- --- 8-Mar Euless TX Tax & Limited Pledge *9,260 10 am C Hilltop Securities Norton Rose 19-38 --- --- AA --- --- --- 8-Mar Norfolk VA Wtr Rev *26,985 11 am E PFM Fin Advisors McGuireWoods 24-47 --- --- AA+ AA+ --- --- 28-Feb NE Wisconsin Tech Coll Dt WI GO Prom *16,200 10 am C PMA Securities Quarles & Brady 19-28 --- --- --- --- --- --- 27-Feb Onalaska WI Note Antic 1,570 10 am C Robert W. Baird Quarles & Brady 19 --- MIG1 --- --- --- BQ 28-Feb Onalaska WI GO Corp Purp *3,625 10 am C Robert W. Baird Quarles & Brady 20-37 --- Aa2 --- --- --- BQ 28-Feb Waukesha Co Area Tech Coll WI GO Prom *1,500 9:30 am C Robert W. Baird Quarles & Brady 19-23 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 2-Mar

Wednesday, March 14 Davenport IA GO Corp (Tax) *8,330 10 am C PFM Fin Advisors Dorsey & Whitney 19-33 --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Davenport IA GO Corp *34,365 10 am C PFM Fin Advisors Dorsey & Whitney 19-33 --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Dunkerton Comm SD IA GO Sch *1,000 11 am C Speer Financial Ahlers & Cooney 19-23 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 2-Mar Fishers IN GO *5,000 11 am E Umbaugh Barnes & Thornburg 20-38 --- --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar

008_BB03121801 8 3/9/2018 3:54:21 PM

9www.bondbuyer.comMonday, March 12, 2018


Competitive Bond Offerings *Preliminary and subject to change. SHADED LISTINGS ARE NEW.

Compiled by Ipreo

New Issues

Washington IN Wtrwks Rev (Tax) *605 11 am E Umbaugh Bose McKinney 21 --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Washington IN Wtrwks Rev *6,315 11 am E Umbaugh Bose McKinney 22-28 --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Pottawatomie Co USD #323 KS GO Sch Bldg *30,630 11 am C George K. Baum Gilmore & Bell 20-42 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5-Mar Garrard Co SD Fin Corp KY Energy *4,360 11 am E J.J.B. Hilliard Steptoe & Johnson 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 9-Mar Clark County NV GO *200,000 8:30 am P JNA Consulting Sherman & Howard 21-47 --- Aa1 AA+ --- --- --- 7-Mar Harrison Ctrl SD NY Sch Dist *22,580 11 am E Munistat Services Hawkins Delafield 19-48 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5-Mar NYC Trans Fin Auth NY Rev (Tax) *73,115 10:45 am E Acacia Fin Group Norton Rose 18-22 --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Comanche Co ISD #4 OK Comb Purp 100 7 pm C Stephen L. Smith Phillips Murrah 20 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 5-Mar Kay Co ISD #125 OK Comb Purp 1,200 12 pm C Stephen L. Smith Phillips Murrah 20-22 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 2-Mar McCurtain Co ISD #13 OK Trans Equipment 225 12:45 pm C Stephen H. McDonald State Atty General 20-23 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 5-Mar Tillman Co ISD #249 OK Comb Purp 475 11:45 am C Stephen H. McDonald State Atty General 20-23 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 2-Mar Montgomery Co MUD #95 TX Unltd Tax *3,300 10 am C Robert W. Baird Schwartz Page 19-42 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 2-Mar Virginia Beach Dev Auth VA Pub Fac *32,935 10:30 am E Public Resources Kutak Rock 19-38 --- Aa1 AA+ AA+ --- --- 8-Feb

Thursday, March 15 DuPage Co Comm Coll Dt #502 IL GO Ref *31,900 10:30 am C Speer Financial Kutak Rock 19-23 --- Aa1 --- --- --- --- 7-Mar Clark-Pleasant Comm Sch Corp IN GO 5,000 11 am E Umbaugh Ice Miller 19-21 --- --- AA+ --- --- BQ 6-Feb South Bend IN GO *5,430 11 am E Crowe Horwath Barnes & Thornburg 18-38 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7-Mar Butler Co USD #394 KS GO Sch Bldg *10,255 10 am C George K. Baum Gilmore & Bell 25-30 --- --- --- --- --- --- 6-Mar Kentucky Assn of Cos Fin Corp KY Rev *5,645 12 pm E Compass Muni Adv Dinsmore & Shohl 19-43 --- --- AA- --- --- --- 9-Mar Paintsville ISD Fin Corp KY Sch Bldg Rev *1,925 1 pm E Ross Sinclaire Steptoe & Johnson 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ Today Pike Co SD Fin Corp KY Sch Bldg Rev *3,530 11 am E Ross Sinclaire Steptoe & Johnson 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ Today

P Spring Lake Hgts Boro BOE NJ Sch 10,384 11 am E Phoenix Advisors McManimon Scotland 20-38 --- --- AA --- --- --- 1-Mar Hastings-On-Hudson Vlg NY Pub Imp *3,473 11 am E Capital Markets Adv Norton Rose 18-32 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 8-Mar New Windsor (Town) NY Pub Imp 10,525 11 am E Munistat Services Hawkins Delafield 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar

New York Local Govt Asst Corp NY Ref *257,820 10:30 am E Public Resources Hawkins Delafield 19-21 --- --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar West Hampton Dunes Vlg NY Pub Imp *870 11 am E Munistat Services Hawkins Delafield 19-32 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 8-Mar Garfield Co ISD #47 OK Comb Purp 1,150 12 pm C Stephen L. Smith Phillips Murrah 20 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 6-Mar Ottawa Co ESD #10 OK Bldg 300 12:15 pm C Stephen H. McDonald State Atty General 20-28 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 5-Mar Spartanburg Co SD #5 SC GO *4,375 11 am E Compass Muni Adv McNair Law Firm 19-24 --- Aa1 --- --- --- --- 8-Mar Cumberland County TN GO Sch *4,625 10:15 am E Cumberland Secs Owings Wilson 18-37 --- --- AA- --- --- BQ 7-Mar CNP Util Dt TX Unltd Tax 11,940 10 am C GMS Group Marks Richardson 26-45 --- --- --- --- --- --- 22-Feb Waco TX Combined Tax Rev *65,850 10 am C Hilltop Securities Bracewell LLP 19-38 --- Aa1 AA+ --- --- --- 6-Mar

Monday, March 19 Springville IA GO Corp Purp *1,500 11 am C Speer Financial Dorsey & Whitney 20-33 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 8-Mar Clarendon Hills Pk Dt IL GO Park *2,110 10:15 am C Speer Financial Chapman and Cutler 18-27 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 7-Mar Oak Park Vlg IL GO Ref (Tax) *8,755 9:45 am C Speer Financial Miller Canfield 18-26 --- --- --- --- --- --- Today Tonganoxie KS GO Sales Tax *3,850 10 am C Springsted --- 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 26-Feb Barnesville ISD #146 MN GO 1,605 10 am C Ehlers Knutson Flynn 19-28 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 21-Feb Morris ISD #2769 MN GO Sch Bldg *19,140 10:30 am C Springsted --- 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- --- 26-Feb Oak Grove MO GO Ref *1,729 11 am C Springsted --- 19-29 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 13-Feb Grady ISD TX Sch Bldg *27,000 9 am C Specialized Pub Fin Underwood Law Firm 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- --- Today Hays Co MUD #5 TX Unltd Tax 3,425 10 am C Specialized Pub Fin --- --- --- --- --- --- --- BQ 2-Mar Little Cypress-Mauriceville ISD TX Maintenance Tax *15,140 11 am C USCA Municipal Creighton Fox 19-34 --- --- --- --- --- --- Today Germantown Vlg WI GO Prom 2,825 10 am C Ehlers Griggs Law Office 19-28 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 28-Feb

Tuesday, March 20 Placer Co Wtr Agy CA Wtr Ref Rev *23,505 8:30 am P Montague DeRose --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Today San Francisco (City & Co) CA GO 251,345 8:30 am P Acacia Fin Group Norton Rose 18-37 --- --- --- AA+ --- --- Today Anne Arundel County MD Wtr & Swr *67,805 10:30 am E Public Resources --- 18-47 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7-Mar Anne Arundel County MD Gen Imp *195,850 10:30 am E Public Resources --- 18-47 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7-Mar Harpswell (Town) ME GO 3,500 11 am E Moors & Cabot Drummond Woodsum 21-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 9-Mar Lake County MN GO 4,660 10 am C Ehlers Kennedy & Graven 19-33 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 26-Feb Linden NJ GO 21,205 11 am E NW Financial Group Gibbons P.C. 19-32 --- --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar Laurel Hollow Vlg NY Road 3,000 11 am E Munistat Services Hawkins Delafield 19-33 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 9-Mar Harris Co Wtr Cntr Imp #89 TX Unltd Tax 11,310 10 am C GMS Group Strawn & Richardson --- --- --- BBB --- --- --- 23-Feb Hays Co MUD #4 TX Unltd Tax 5,250 11 am C SAMCO Cap Mkts Orrick Herrington 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- BQ Today Mosinee SD WI GO Sch Bldg Ref 17,510 10 am C Ehlers Griggs Law Office 19-38 --- --- --- --- --- --- 20-Feb Oconomowoc Area SD WI GO Sch Bldg *19,990 10 am C PMA Securities Quarles & Brady 28-38 --- --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar

For complete listings go to www.bondbuyer.com

009_BB03121801 9 3/9/2018 4:33:15 PM

10 The Bond BuyerMonday, March 12, 2018


Competitive Note Offerings Tentative dates for negotiated sales of $1 million or more. SHADED LISTINGS ARE NEW.

Compiled by Ipreo

New Issues

Tuesday, March 13 Belvidere (Town) NJ Tax Appeal 304 11 am E Municipal Official Gibbons P.C. 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 7-Mar Collingswood Borough NJ Bond Antic 7,828 11 am E Phoenix Advisors Parker McCay 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 7-Mar Fairfield Twp NJ Bond Antic 732 11 am E Municipal Official Fleishman Daniels 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 7-Mar Vernon Twp NJ Bond Antic 7,538 11 am E Municipal Official Hawkins Delafield 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 7-Mar West Wildwood Borough NJ Bond Antic 1,406 11:30 am E Municipal Official McManimon Scotland 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ Today Woodbridge Twp NJ Bond Antic (Tax) 2,500 11:30 am E Municipal Official DeCotiis FitzPatrick 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- 6-Mar Woodbridge Twp NJ Bond Antic 13,700 11:30 am E Municipal Official DeCotiis FitzPatrick 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- 6-Mar Castile (Town) NY Bond Antic 742 11 am E Municipal Solutions Hodgson Russ 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 7-Mar Kingston NY Bond Antic 2,300 11 am E Munistat Services Orrick Herrington 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2-Mar Mamaroneck Vlg NY Bond Antic 2,568 11 am E Capital Markets Adv Jeffrey E Storch 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 28-Feb Norwich NY Bond Antic 5,035 11 am E Fiscal Adv & Mkt Orrick Herrington 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 6-Mar Sherrill CSD NY Bond Antic 4,000 11:15 am E Fiscal Adv & Mkt Hodgson Russ 18 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 6-Mar

Wednesday, March 14 P Anchorage AK GO Tax Antic *90,000 11 am E Hilltop Securities K&L Gates 18 --- --- SP-1+ --- --- --- 8-Mar

Dennis (Town) MA GO Bond Antic 471 11 am E Hilltop Securities --- 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 8-Mar Clinton Twp NJ Bond Antic 5,732 11 am E Municipal Official Wilentz Goldman 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 8-Mar East Orange NJ GO Bond Antic 16,733 11 am E NW Financial Group Wilentz Goldman 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- Today

Thursday, March 15 Wichita KS GO Temp *74,635 10 am C Municipal Official Gilmore & Bell 19 --- --- SP-1+ --- --- --- 9-Mar Hasbrouck Heights Borough NJ GO Bond Antic 5,925 11 am E Municipal Official Rogut McCarthy 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 9-Mar Linwood NJ Sch 2,530 11 am E Municipal Official Fleishman Daniels 18 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 9-Mar Coxsackie (Town) NY Bond Antic 3,250 11 am E Fiscal Adv & Mkt Orrick Herrington 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 9-Mar New Windsor (Town) NY Bond Antic 15,550 11 am E Munistat Services Hawkins Delafield 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar

Tuesday, March 20 Parsippany-Troy Hills Fire Dt #1 NJ Fire District 4,710 11:30 am E Phoenix Advisors DeCotiis FitzPatrick 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ Today Webster Vlg NY Bond Antic 725 11 am E Bernard P. Donegan Harris Beach 19 --- --- --- --- --- BQ 7-Mar

Amount First Issuer St Description ($000s) Lead Manager Financial Adviser Insurer Mdy’s S&P Fitch KBRA Appeared

Negotiated Bond Offerings Tentative dates for negotiated sales of $1 million or more. A “+” under Insurer signifies that insurance is available. SHADED LISTINGS ARE NEW.

Compiled by Ipreo

Week Of March 12 Lonoke AR Sales & Use Tax Rev 20,360 Stephens --- --- --- --- --- --- 7-Mar Alameda County CA GO (Tax) 240,000 BA Merrill Lynch KNN Public Finance --- --- --- AAA --- 9-Mar Golden St Tobacco Sec Corp CA Tobacco Settlement 110,775 Jefferies --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Los Angeles Hsg Auth CA GO Ref 22,400 Raymond James CSG Advisors --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar N California Pwr Agy CA Rev Ref (Tax) 1,290 Citigroup PFM Fin Advisors --- --- --- AA- --- 9-Mar N California Pwr Agy CA Rev Ref 69,120 Citigroup PFM Fin Advisors --- --- --- AA- --- 9-Mar Oxnard SD CA GO 20,000 Stifel Nicolaus --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Rancho Cordova CFD #2005-1 CA Special Tax Ref 5,750 RBC Capital Mkts --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Redwood City SD CA GO 67,000 Stifel Nicolaus KNN Public Finance --- --- --- AAA --- 9-Mar San Rafael Jt Pwrs Auth CA Lease Rev 43,000 Raymond James --- --- --- --- --- --- 7-Mar Whittier City SD CA GO 13,585 Raymond James --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Colorado CO COPs 50,925 Wells Fargo Secs North Slope Cap Adv --- --- AA- --- --- 8-Mar Colorado CO COPs (Tax) 81,535 Wells Fargo Secs North Slope Cap Adv --- --- AA- --- --- 8-Mar Milliken (Town) CO GO 1,465 George K. Baum --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Univ of Connecticut CT Spec Oblg 152,000 Jefferies PFM Fin Advisors --- --- AA- --- --- 6-Mar Deerfield Beach FL Cap Imp 36,000 BA Merrill Lynch Dunlap & Associates --- --- --- --- --- 7-Mar Miami-Dade Co Ed Facs Auth FL Rev 232,930 Morgan Stanley Prager & Co --- --- A- --- --- 9-Mar Village Comm Dev Dt #12 FL Spec Assess 92,300 Citigroup PFM Fin Advisors --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Fulton Co Dev Auth GA Rev 35,000 BA Merrill Lynch --- --- --- AA- --- --- 8-Mar McDuffie Co SD GA GO Sales Tax 10,000 Raymond James --- --- --- --- --- --- 5-Mar Pike Co SD GA GO 4,800 Raymond James --- --- --- --- --- --- 6-Mar Boise State Univ ID Gen Rev 20,702 Barclays Capital Piper Jaffray --- --- --- --- --- Today Bolingbrook Vlg IL GO Ref 37,070 Raymond James Columbia Cap Mgmt --- --- --- --- --- 7-Mar

010_BB03121801 10 3/9/2018 3:54:23 PM

11www.bondbuyer.comMonday, March 12, 2018 New Issues

For complete listings go to www.bondbuyer.com


Negotiated Bond Offerings Tentative dates for negotiated sales of $1 million or more. A “+” under Insurer signifies that insurance is available. SHADED LISTINGS ARE NEW.

Compiled by Ipreo

Lakemoor Vlg IL GO Alt 4,000 George K. Baum --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Carmel IN Econ Dev Rev (Tax) 12,620 Mesirow Financial --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Kansas Muni Energy Agy KS Rev 33,000 Piper Jaffray Columbia Cap Mgmt BAM --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Kentucky Infra Auth KY Wtr & Wstwtr Rev 60,000 Morgan Stanley PFM Fin Advisors --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar Fruitport Comm Schs MI Sch Bldg & Site 31,315 Stifel Nicolaus PFM Fin Advisors --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Muskegon Co Bldg Auth MI Ref 5,000 Stifel Nicolaus Hilltop Securities --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Muskegon Co Bldg Auth MI Bldg Auth (Tax) 44,000 BA Merrill Lynch Hilltop Securities --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Fort Osage SD R-1 MO GO Sch Bldg Ref 9,715 George K. Baum --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Jackson Reorg SD #R-II MO GO 13,500 George K. Baum --- --- --- A+ --- --- 9-Mar Sedalia MO COPs 12,275 Stifel Nicolaus --- --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar Mississippi Dev Bank MS Spec Oblg 6,000 Raymond James --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Univ of NC Bd of Gov NC Gen Rev 44,685 Citigroup First Tryon Advisors --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar NYC Trans Fin Auth NY Bldg 1,000,920 Jefferies Public Resources --- --- --- --- --- 8-Mar NYS Energy Research NY Rev (Tax) 18,500 Ramirez Omnicap Group --- --- --- --- --- 6-Mar Miami Vly Career Tech Ctr OH Sch Imp 130,000 Stifel Nicolaus Bradley Payne --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Wayne LSD BOE OH GO 16,225 Fifth Third Secs --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Oklahoma Wtr Res Bd OK Rev 80,000 BA Merrill Lynch --- --- --- --- AAA --- 9-Mar Oklahoma Wtr Res Bd OK Rev 6,700 BOK Fin Secs --- --- --- --- --- --- Today Texas Co Dev Auth OK Ed Facs Rev 13,525 D.A. Davidson Stephen H. McDonald --- --- A --- --- 9-Mar Armstrong SD PA GO 9,995 Piper Jaffray --- BAM --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Bethlehem Area SD Auth PA Sch Rev 70,815 RBC Capital Mkts PFM Fin Advisors --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Centennial SD PA GO 13,440 PNC Capital Markets PFM Fin Advisors --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Clinton Co Sld Wst Auth PA Rev 15,000 Mesirow Financial Susquehanna Group --- --- --- --- --- Today Erie Wtr Auth PA Wtr Rev (Tax) 5,150 PNC Capital Markets --- AGM --- A --- --- 7-Mar Erie Wtr Auth PA Wtr Rev 45,000 PNC Capital Markets --- AGM --- A --- --- 7-Mar Hatboro Horsham SD PA GO 18,000 RBC Capital Mkts PFM Fin Advisors --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Pennsylvania Fin Auth PA Rev 2,500 Boenning&Scattergood --- AGM --- --- --- --- 9-Mar State Coll Area SD PA GO 49,000 BA Merrill Lynch NW Financial Group --- --- AA --- --- 28-Feb Cumberland (Town) RI GO 12,500 Raymond James Hilltop Securities --- --- AA+ --- --- 9-Mar S Carolina Jobs & Econ Dev SC Rev 20,480 Wells Fargo Secs First Tryon Advisors --- --- A+ --- --- 7-Mar Decatur Econ Dev Corp TX Sales Tax Rev (Tax) 5,625 Hilltop Securities Sentry Mgmt --- --- --- --- --- 5-Mar Pasco SD #1 WA GO 99,500 Piper Jaffray --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Pend Oreille Co Pub Hosp Dist #1 WA GO 10,000 Piper Jaffray --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Fond Du Lac WI GO Prom 12,825 Hutchinson Shockey --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Public Fin Auth WI Ref Rev (Tax) 154,905 Wells Fargo Secs Hammond Hanlon --- --- --- --- --- 7-Mar Wisconsin Hlth & Educ Fac Auth WI Rev 82,920 Piper Jaffray --- --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar Howard Vlg WI Note Antic 16,330 Robert W. Baird --- --- --- AA- --- --- 9-Mar

Wednesday, March 14 Buncombe County NC Limited Oblig 55,175 Robert W. Baird Davenport --- --- AA+ --- --- 9-Mar

Week Of March 19 Twin Falls SD #411 ID GO Ref 3,380 Piper Jaffray --- --- --- --- --- --- 23-Feb Southwest Suburban Swr Dt WA Swr Rev Ref 10,745 Piper Jaffray --- --- --- --- --- --- 2-Mar

Week Of April 9 Texas Wtr Dev Bd TX Rev 392,000 RBC Capital Mkts --- --- --- --- --- --- Today

Week Of April 23 Texas Wtr Dev Bd TX Wtr Rev 906,910 JPMorgan --- --- --- --- --- --- 5-Mar

Day to Day SW Illinois Dev Auth IL Rev 13,350 Stifel Nicolaus --- --- --- --- --- --- 1-Dec

Week Of March 12 Cumberland (Town) RI GO 6,000 Raymond James Hilltop Securities --- --- --- --- --- 9-Mar


Negotiated Note Offerings Tentative dates for negotiated sales of $1 million or more. A “+” under Insurer signifies that insurance is available. SHADED LISTINGS ARE NEW.

Compiled by Ipreo

011_BB03121801 11 3/9/2018 3:54:23 PM


Day’s 2018 2018 Daily Yesterday Change High Date Low DateMunicipal Bond Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125-02 –8/32 130-11 (1/3) 125-02 (3/9)40 Average Dollar Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 .81 –0 .20 105 .73 (1/3) 101 .79 (2/15)Average Yield to Par Call . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .87 +0 .03 3 .87 (2/14) 3 .34 (1/3)Average Yield to Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .02 +0 .01 4 .02 (2/14) 3 .79 (1/3)

Current Day’s 2018 2018 Total Change High Date Low Date30-Day Visible Supply ($mills) . . . . . . . . Total (Mar. 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9,880 .8 +788 .1 $12,069 .2 (3/7) $4,175 .5 (1/2)Competitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,711 .7 +369 .4 5,636 .0 (3/7) 903 .1 (1/26)Negotiated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,169 .1 +418 .7 7,162 .1 (1/19) 2,618 .6 (1/2)

The 30-Day Visible Supply reflects the total dollar volume of bonds to be offered at competitive bidding and through negotiatio n over the next 30 days. It includes issues scheduled for sale on the date listed along with anticipated offerings listed in that day’ s “Competitive Bond Offerings” and “Negotiated Bond Offerings” tables published on BondBuyer.com.

Current Previous 2018 2018Weekly 3/8/18 3/1/18 High Date Low Date

Bond Buyer Revenue Bond Index . . . . . 4 .37% 4 .34% 4 .37% (3/8) 3 .92% (1/4)Bond Buyer 20-Bond Index . . . . . . . . . . 3 .88% 3 .85% 3 .88% (3/8) 3 .44% (1/4)Bond Buyer 11-Bond Index . . . . . . . . . . 3 .38% 3 .35% 3 .38% (3/8) 2 .94% (1/4)

Wk of 3/16/2018 Wk of 3/9/2018 Wk of 3/2/2018 Wk of 3/10/2017New-Issue Sales ($ mills) ESTIMATE ACTUAL REVISED REVISED

Long-Term Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,053 .9 $7,989 .3 $5,136 .0 $11,192 .1Negotiated Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,566 .7 4,859 .2 3,465 .4 8,254 .8Competitive Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,487 .2 3,130 .1 1,625 .0 2,495 .1Short-Term Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 .3 202 .3 709 .9 374 .2Long-Term Bond Sales Thru 3/16/2018 Thru 3/9/2018 Thru 3/2/2018 Thru 3/10/2017

Month to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16,904 .8 $10,850 .9 $2,861 .5 $14,662 .2Year to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,088 .7 48,034 .8 40,045 .5 74,057 .6This week’s volume excludes sales expected to close on Friday. Next week’s estimated 844 excludes bond offerings on a “day to day”schedule.

Market Indicators Dollar amounts are in millions

Market Statistics

Competitive Negotiated Total ($000s) ($000s) ($000s)

Competitive Negotiated Total ($000s) ($000s) ($000s)

Visible Supply

The 30-day visible supply is compiled daily from The Bond Buyer’s Competitive and Negotiated Bond and Note Offerings calendars. It reflects the dollar volume of bonds expected to reach the market in the next 30 days. Issues maturing in 13 months or more are included. The 30-day visible supply of competitive bonds has been reported since 1927, while the negotiated supply has been reported since 1971.

Weekly Averages03/09 4,878,410 5,579,058 10,457,46803/02 3,584,987 5,840,799 9,425,78602/23 2,594,501 5,141,557 7,736,05802/16 2,096,669 3,642,106 5,738,77502/09 1,525,319 3,614,866 5,140,18502/02 1,462,618 4,594,532 6,057,15001/26 1,861,719 6,185,035 8,046,75401/19 2,624,301 5,164,774 7,789,07501/12 2,688,875 3,593,402 6,282,27701/05 2,130,866 3,024,206 5,155,07212/29 1,259,235 2,042,118 3,301,35312/22 793,103 7,423,584 8,216,68712/15 2,780,890 15,013,465 17,794,355

Monthly AveragesFeb 18 2,259,414 4,350,348 6,609,762 Jan 2,183,485 4,605,189 6,788,674 Dec 2,620,933 10,665,019 13,285,952 Nov 3,832,836 7,422,972 11,255,808 Oct 4,602,233 6,848,993 11,451,226 Sep 4,930,918 5,442,787 10,373,705 Aug 4,183,507 5,112,958 9,296,465 Jul 3,313,196 5,429,613 8,742,809 Jun 3,737,497 6,488,390 10,225,887 May 4,174,154 8,984,635 13,158,789 Apr 4,090,054 8,599,133 12,689,187 Mar 4,062,713 6,762,549 10,825,262 Feb 3,128,375 6,018,181 9,146,555

Mar. 9, 2018 Mar. 8, 2018 Mar. 10, 2017Selected MIG-1/SP-1 Notes

Houston, Tex ., 5 .00s (Jun . 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .26 1 .26 0 .59Los Angeles, Calif ., 5 .00s (Jun . 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .26 1 .26 0 .75Oregon ST Tans ., Ore ., 5 .00s (Sep . 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .34 1 .34 0 .66

Municipal Market Data

One-Month Note (MIG-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .24 1 .22 0 .67Two-Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .26 1 .24 0 .69Three-Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .28 1 .26 0 .71Four-Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .30 1 .28 0 .73Five-Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .33 1 .30 0 .76Six-Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .35 1 .32 0 .79Nine-Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .42 1 .40 0 .86One-Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .50 1 .48 0 .90

Variable-Rate Demand (Non-AMT/AMT)Daily General Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .13/1 .24 1 .11/1 .23 0 .53/0 .65

Mar. 8, 2018 Mar. 1, 2018 Mar. 9, 2017Seven-Day General Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .24/1 .26 1 .21/1 .22 0 .72/0 .75

Mar. 7, 2018 Feb. 28, 2018 Mar. 8, 2017Jefferies & Co.Jefferies Short-Term Index Rate (Jef STR) . . . . . . . . . . 1 .10 1 .10 0 .62

Mar. 7, 2018 Feb. 28, 2018 Mar. 8, 2017Municipal Market DataThe SIFMA™ Municipal Swap Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .13 1 .09 0 .62

Short-Term Tax-Exempt Yields

Aaa Aa Insured A Baa

2019 1 .44 1 .47 1 .55 1 .65 1 .922020 1 .56 1 .61 1 .74 1 .83 2 .132023 1 .98 2 .08 2 .28 2 .40 2 .712028 2 .49 2 .69 2 .86 2 .99 3 .342033 2 .77 2 .99 3 .15 3 .28 3 .642038 2 .94 3 .16 3 .30 3 .45 3 .792043 3 .02 3 .24 3 .38 3 .53 3 .852048 3 .07 3 .29 3 .43 3 .58 3 .90

Figures are as of 3 pm Eastern time Mar. 9, 2018.Yields represent the fair market offer side for most liquid and available credits in each ratings category as determined by MMD. “Insured” primarily represents bonds with the strongest available enhancement available, assuming a “A” rated underlying. The above data, provided by Thomson Reuters Municipal Market Data ([email protected]), is the copyright property of Thomson Reuters and distribution is strictly prohibited. Visit www.tm3.com.

Municipal Market Data General Obligation Yields

Figures are in billions of dollars

Visible Supply Increases

0

3

6

9

12

15

1/26 1/31 2/5 2/8 2/13 2/16 2/22 2/27 3/2 3/7 3/12

Jan. 26 – Mar. 12, 2018

Competit ive Negot iated

012_BB031218 12 3/9/2018 5:29:04 PM

www.bondbuyer.com 13Monday, March 12, 2018 Market Statistics

Treasury Bills Yesterday’s Prev. Day’s Yesterday’s

(in percent of discount) Bid/Offer Bid/Offer Bid Yield

1M — 04/05/2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .535/530 1 .535/530 1 .558

3M — 06/07/2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .645/640 1 .640/635 1 .675

6M — 09/06/2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .835/830 1 .835/830 1 .878

Treasury Notes and Bonds Yesterday’s Prev. Day’s Yesterday’s

(in points and 32ds) Bid/Offer Bid/Offer Bid Yield

2Y — 2 .25% due 02/2020 . . . . . . . 99 .30+/316 99 .312/00+ 2 .274

5Y — 2 .63% due 02/2023 . . . . . . . 99 .270/28+ 99 .30+/000 2 .659

10Y — 2 .75% due 02/2028 . . . . . . 98 .22+/24+ 99 .000/020 2 .901

30Y — 3 .00% due 02/2048 . . . . . . 96 .262/282 97 .140/160 3 .165Plus signs indicate an additional one–64th. If no bid is available, the yield shown represents the yield at the last trade.–

Barclays Capital Long Treasury Bond Index Index Value Yield Index Total

Yesterday Prev. Day Change Yesterday Prev. Day Change Return

Close 3413 .89 3402 .19 +11 .70 3 .10 3 .12 –0 .02 3313 .89

The Barclays Long Treasury Bond Index measures the performance of fixed–rate, nominal US Treasuries with at least 10 years to maturity

(Jan. 1 1973 = 100).

U.S. Securities Prices Prices as of 3.30 pm ET. Source: Thomson Reuters

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Mar. 5 Mar. 6 Mar. 7 Mar. 8 Mar. 9

Overnight* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .27 1 .28 1 .28 1 .28 1 .28Three Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .66 1 .67 1 .68 1 .68 1 .66Six Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .85 1 .86 1 .86 1 .88 1 .87Nine Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .97 1 .98 1 .98 1 .98 1 .97

One Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .04 2 .05 2 .04 2 .04 2 .03Two Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .21 2 .24 2 .24 2 .26 2 .28Three Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .37 2 .41 2 .40 2 .42 2 .44Four Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .49 2 .54 2 .52 2 .54 2 .55Five Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .59 2 .64 2 .62 2 .64 2 .65

Six Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .69 2 .74 2 .72 2 .73 2 .74Seven Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .75 2 .81 2 .78 2 .80 2 .81Eight Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .78 2 .84 2 .81 2 .83 2 .84Nine Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .80 2 .87 2 .83 2 .86 2 .8710 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .82 2 .88 2 .85 2 .87 2 .88

15 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .91 2 .96 2 .92 2 .94 2 .9520 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .99 3 .03 3 .00 3 .02 3 .0325 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .08 3 .11 3 .09 3 .11 3 .1230 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .11 3 .15 3 .12 3 .14 3 .15

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt*Overnight rate represents an annualized effective rate.

State and Local Government Series Rates

Offer Amount

Date ($Mil) RECENT OFFERINGS 1 Year 5 10 15 20 25 30

Aaa – AAA

3/8 234.2 Collin Co Comm Coll Dt, Tex.9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 2.10 2.67 3.35 3.60 … …

3/7 234.7 Collin County Community College District, Tex., . 1.50 2.10 2.67 3.35 3.60 … …

3/7 43.3 Town of Brookline, Mass., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.34 1.91 2.45 3.10 3.35 3.60 …

3/6 171.6 Hamilton County, Tenn., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.40 1.96 2.47 2.75 … … …

3/1 225.0 Baltimore County, Md., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 2.04 2.55 2.83 3.33 3.41 3.46

3/1 62.8 Rockwood SD #R-6, Mo., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.40 … 2.58 3.10 3.37 … …

3/1 6.7 Brewster, Mass., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.39 1.9 2.55 3.10 3.33 … …

2/27 67.5 Virginia Beach, Va., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.37 2.00 2.49 3.15 3.40 … …

2/27 11.7 Wilton, Conn., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.49 2.17 2.71 3.19 3.41 … …

2/26 6.3 Wayland, Mass., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.33 1.96 2.47 3.05 … … …

2/22 69.3 Davis SD BOE, Utah, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.39 2.04 2.90 3.25 3.50 … …

2/21 197.7 Wake County, N.C., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.36 1.98 2.48 3.25 … … …

Aa1/Aa2/Aa3 – AA+/AA/AA–

3/8 9.8 Bowling Green, Ohio, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.59 2.15 2.65 3.10 3.35 … …

3/8 1.0 Abington, Mass., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.45 2.05 2.60 … 3.50 … …

3/7 12.4 Nevada Sys of Hgr Ed, Nev., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.55 2.22 3.00 3.40 3.65 … 3.65

3/6 300.0 Ohio, Ohio, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.39 2.03 2.56 2.80 2.97 … …

3/6 112.0 Washington, Wash., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 2.03 2.64 2.95 3.12 3.18 …

3/6 14.0 Hicksville Wtr Dt, N.Y., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.34 1.91 2.60 3.00 3.30 … …

3/1 14.9 Dutchess County, N.Y., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.38 1.97 2.53 3.10 3.40 … …

2/28 288.3 Wisconsin, Wis., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.40 2.02 2.30 3.15 … … …

2/28 2.6 New Castle Fire Dt #1, N.Y., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.40 2.00 2.60 3.10 3.35 … …

2/27 48.7 Virginia Hsg Dev Auth, Va., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 2.25 2.95 3.40 3.62 3.65 3.75

2/27 16.3 Sun Valley, Idaho, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.45 2.13 2.66 3.20 … … …

2/27 12.4 Cresskill Boro BOE, N.J., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 2.10 2.75 3.25 3.50 3.57 …

A1/A2/A3 – A+/A/A–

3/6 6.2 Knoxville, Iowa, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 2.15 2.80 3.30 3.50 … …

2/28 1.6 Prairie Du Sac Vlg, Wis., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.80 2.25 2.80 3.40 … … …

11/28 7.7 Warrensburg, Mo., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.55 2.20 2.75 3.25 … … …

11/15 5.5 Bledsoe County, Tenn., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 1.65 2.15 2.65 3.10 3.37 …

11/6 3.2 Wahpeton, N.D., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.15 1.75 2.20 2.90 … … …

10/19 6.3 Lawrenceburg, Tenn., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 1.40 2.10 2.50 3.00 … …

10/17 3.9 Stockton, Kan., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.20 1.75 2.25 … 3.35 3.50 3.60

9/28 211.4 California Pub Wks Bd, Calif.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 1.45 2.25 3.08 … … …

9/27 7.0 Caledonia Vlg, Wis., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 1.55 2.30 2.90 3.30 … …

9/13 5.0 SW Wisconsin Comm SD, Wis., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 1.35 2.00 2.75 3.12 … …

8/15 25.0 Vocational Region 8, Maine, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.85 1.30 2.18 2.92 3.25 … …

8/10 3.6 Benton County, Tenn., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.95 1.35 2.05 2.55 … … …

Reoffering YieldsNRO – Not Reoffered; S.B. – Sealed Bid; SNA – Sold, Not Available

For additional market data, please visit bondbuyer.com/marketstatistics

Performance Comparisons for Mar. 5, 2018

Aaa–Baa Rated Corporates Index Avg. Pct.of Total Return%Close Yield Market Prior Wk. Y-T-D

ML Corporate Master 2831.80 3.79 100.00 –0.33 –2.68

Intermediate (1-10 years) 1890.88 3.47 70.31 –0.22 –1.58Industrials 684.47 3.47 38.14 –0.21 –1.59Utilities 661.92 3.56 6.18 –0.21 –1.51Finance 664.70 3.64 4.66 –0.15 –1.39Banks 701.48 3.42 20.17 –0.25 –1.63Canadians/Yankees 632.07 3.32 39.46 –0.08 –1.28

Long-term (10 years and over) 2834.94 4.53 29.69 –0.60 –5.18Industrials 1097.61 4.55 17.89 –0.59 –5.34Utilities 1074.27 4.52 6.22 –0.56 –4.32Finance 1090.14 4.51 1.85 –0.31 –5.07Banks 1163.29 4.48 2.69 –0.95 –6.02Canadians/Yankees 1524.55 4.67 9.38 –0.30 –4.44

Index values reflect the compounded total return growth of each respective market, with values set at 100 at inception dates.Total return equals the sum of price change, interest income, and reinvestment income.Source: Merrill Lynch & Co.

Merrill Lynch Corporate Bond Indexes

MARKET STATISTICSFor additional market data, please visit bondbuyer.com/marketstatistics.

013_BB031218 13 3/9/2018 5:14:57 PM


20-Bond 11-Bond 25-Bond 10-Year 30-Year GO Index1 GO Index1 Revenue 2 T reasury3 Treasury3

2018

MAR 8 . . . . . . . . . 3.88 3.38 4.37 2.87 3.13 1 . . . . . . . . . 3.85 3.35 4.34 2.81 3.09

FEB 22 . . . . . . . . . 3.86 3.36 4.35 2.93 3.21 15 . . . . . . . . . 3.84 3.34 4.33 2.91 3.15 8 . . . . . . . . . 3.73 3.23 4.22 2.86 3.14 1 . . . . . . . . . 3.72 3.22 4.21 2.79 3.01

JAN 25 . . . . . . . . . 3.59 3.09 4.08 2.63 2.89 18 . . . . . . . . . 3.52 3.02 4.01 2.63 2.90 11 . . . . . . . . . 3.54 3.04 4.03 2.54 2.87 4 . . . . . . . . . 3.44 2.94 3.92 2.46 2.79

DEC 28 . . . . . . . . . 3.44 2.94 3.92 2.43 2.76 21 . . . . . . . . . 3.56 3.06 4.04 2.49 2.84 14 . . . . . . . . . 3.41 2.91 3.89 2.35 2.71 7 . . . . . . . . . 3.29 2.79 3.77 2.37 2.76

NOV 30 . . . . . . . . . 3.59 3.09 4.04 2.42 2.84 21 . . . . . . . . . 3.51 3.01 3.97 2.37 2.76 16 . . . . . . . . . 3.52 3.01 3.91 2.37 2.82 8 . . . . . . . . . 3.49 2.99 3.86 2.33 2.79 2 . . . . . . . . . 3.67 3.17 4.04 2.35 2.83

OCT 26 . . . . . . . . . 3.65 3.16 3.98 2.46 2.96 19 . . . . . . . . . 3.53 3.04 3.86 2.33 2.83 12 . . . . . . . . . 3.61 3.12 3.82 2.33 2.86 5 . . . . . . . . . 3.63 3.14 3.84 2.35 2.89

SEP 28 . . . . . . . . . 3.64 3.15 3.85 2.31 2.87 21 . . . . . . . . . 3.60 3.11 3.81 2.28 2.80 14 . . . . . . . . . 3.56 3.07 3.77 2.20 2.78 7 . . . . . . . . . 3.49 3.00 3.70 2.05 2.67

AUG 31 . . . . . . . . . 3.51 3.02 3.72 2.13 2.73 24 . . . . . . . . . 3.53 3.04 3.74 2.20 2.77 17 . . . . . . . . . 3.57 3.08 3.78 2.20 2.78

(1) General obligation bonds maturing in 20 years are used in compiling these indexes. The 20-bond index has an average rating equivalent to Moody’s Aa2 and S&P’s AA, while the 11-bond index is equivalent to Aa1 and AA-plus. (No average Fitch rating is provided because Fitch does not rate one of the bonds.) The 11 bonds used in the high-er-grade index are marked with an asterisk.

Moody’ s/S&P/Fitch Moody’s/S&P/Fitch Moody’s/S&P/FitchBaltimore, Md. Aa2 / AA– / A+ *Massachusetts. Aa1 / AA / AA+ Pennsylvania. Aa3 / A+/ AA–California Aa3 / AA– / AA– Memphis, Tenn. Aa2 / AA / AA– *Phoenix, Ariz Aa1 / AA+ / NR*Denver, Colo. Aaa / AAA / AAA Miami-Dade Co., Fla. Aa2 / AA / NR *Seattle, Wash. Aaa / AAA / AAA*Florida Aa1 / AAA / AAA Milwaukee, Wis. Aa3 / AA / AA *South Carolina Aaa / AA+ / AAA*Georgia Aaa / AAA / AAA New York City Aa2 / AA / AA *Texas Aaa / AAA / AAAHouston, Tex. Aa3 / AA / AA *New York State Aa1 / AA+ / AA+ *Washington Aa1 / AA+ / AA+*Maryland Aaa / AAA / AAA North Carolina Aaa / AAA / AAA

(2) Revenue bonds maturing in 30 years are used in compiling this index. It has an average rating equivalent to Moody’s A1 and S&P’s A-plus. (No average Fitch rating is provided because Fitch does not rate seven of the bonds.) The bonds and their ratings are: Moody’ s S&P FitchAtlanta, Ga., airport (AMT) .................................................................................................................................................................... Aa3 AA– AA–California Housing Finance Agency, multi-unit rental (AMT) ................................................................................................................. Aa2 A+ NRConnecticut Housing Finance Authority ................................................................................................................................................ Aaa AAA NRDallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board, Tex. (AMT).................................................................................................................... A1 A+ AEnergy Northwest (formerly WPPSS), Wash., power revenue .............................................................................................................. Aa1 AA– AAIllinois Health Facilities Authority (Northwestern Memorial Hospital) ................................................................................................... Aa2 AA+ NRIllinois Housing Development Authority, multifamily ............................................................................................................................. A1 A+ A+Intermountain Power Agency, Utah ....................................................................................................................................................... Aa3 A+ AA–JEA (formerly Jacksonville Electric Authority), Fla. electric revenue ..................................................................................................... Aa2 AA– AAKentucky Turnpike Authority ................................................................................................................................................................. Aa3 AA– A+Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Calif., electric revenue .................................................................................................. Aa2 AA– AA–Maricopa Co. Industrial Development Authority, Ariz. (Samaritan Health Service) ................................................................................ Baa1 BBB NRMassachusetts Port Authority (AMT) .................................................................................................................................................... Aa2 AA AAMEAG Power (formerly Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia) .......................................................................................................... A2 A+ A+Nebraska Public Power District, power supply ...................................................................................................................................... A1 A+ A+New Jersey Turnpike Authority, turnpike revenue ................................................................................................................................. A3 A ANew York State Local Government Assistance Corp., revenue .............................................................................................................. A3 AA– A+New York State Power Authority, general purpose ................................................................................................................................ Aa2 AA– AANorth Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1, Catawba electric revenue ............................................................................................ A2 A APort Authority of New York and New Jersey, consolidated (AMT) ......................................................................................................... Aa3 AA– AA–Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority .................................................................................................................................................... Ca D DSalt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Ariz., electric revenue ....................................................................... Aa2 AA NRSouth Carolina Public Service Authority, electric revenue ..................................................................................................................... A1 A+ A+Texas Municipal Power Agency ............................................................................................................................................................. A2 A+ A+Virginia Housing Development Authority .............................................................................................................................................. Aa1 AA+ NR

Bond Buyer IndexesAverage Municipal Bond Yields — Compiled Weekly

Market Statistics

Latest Previous Year 12-Month Week Week Ago High Low20-Bond Index 3.88 3.85 4.02 4.02 3.2910-Year Treasury Note 2.87 2.81 2.60 2.93 2.0530-Year Treasury Bond 3.13 3.09 3.18 3.21 2.67Basis Pt Spread to Note –101.40 –103.70 –142.20 –87.42 –152.60BBI as % of Note 135.38 136.86 154.71 170.24 130.59Basis Pt Spread to Bond –74.80 –75.90 –83.90 –52.82 –88.10BBI as % of Bond 123.88 124.56 126.37 130.71 118.90

Weekly Yields of 20-Bond GOIndex and Treasury Securities

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

3/9/2017 6/8/2017 9/7/2017 12/7/2017 3/8/2018

20-Bond Index

Treasury Bond

Treasury Note

Changes to the list of bonds used to calculate the Municipal Bond Index after the Feb. 28 pricing.

As of Feb. 28, the new coefficient is 1.0614, the new average coupon is 4.13%, the new average par call date is May 02, 2026, and the new average maturity date is March 17, 2045.

One bond is added to the index:

Gen Obgl Bonds, Fiscal 2018 Series E Tax Exempt Bds, Subseries E-1

4.00s dated 03/13/2018, due 03/01/2042; ÿ rst coupon 09/01/2018; term amount: $55,480,000 ; callable 03/01/2028 at par; ratings: Aa2/AA/AA conversion factor: 0.8539; CUSIP: 64966MXM6; quoted dollar price on revision date: 102.901

One bond is removed from the index in accordance to the index criteria:

25. South Dakota Hlth & Edu Facs Auth4.00s due 07/01/2042

Municipal Bond Index Update

MARKETSTATISTICSFor additional market data, please visit bondbuyer.com/marketstatistics.

014_BB031218 14 3/9/2018 5:16:38 PM


Current Day Previous Day Week Ago Month Ago Year Ago

The Bond Buyer Municipal Bond Index 125.02 125.10 125.17 126.06 121.14

Friday, March 9, 2018 Maturity Par Call Dollar Conversion Converted Date Date Price Factor Price

1 Grand Parkway Transp Corp TX. 5.00. . . . . . . . 04/01/2053 10/01/2023 110.3150 0.9256 119.1822 2 South Carolina Pub Svce Auth. 5.50 . . . . . . . . 12/01/2053 12/01/2023 109.5700 0.9628 113.8035 3 South Carolina Pub Svce Auth. 5.00 . . . . . . . . 12/01/2048 12/01/2023 107.2770 0.9256 115.9000 4 California (State) GOs. 5.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/01/2043 11/01/2023 111.1680 0.9269 119.9353 5 NYC Transitional Fin. 5.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/01/2038 11/01/2023 112.6100 0.9269 121.4910 6 Metro Transp Auth NY. 5.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/15/2043 11/15/2023 111.6270 0.9269 120.4305 7 Metro Transp Auth NY. 5.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/15/2038 11/15/2023 111.8500 0.9269 120.6711 8 California St Pub Wks. 5.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/01/2038 11/01/2023 111.9420 0.9269 120.7703 9 The City Of New York. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03/01/2039 03/01/2024 103.3240 0.8539 121.0025 10 Health and Educ Facilities Auth. 4.00. . . . . . . . 11/15/2045 11/15/2024 102.4100 0.8539 119.9321 11 New Jersey Transp Trust Fund Auth. 4.25. . . . . 06/15/2044 06/15/2024 97.5200 0.8771 111.1846 12 County of Allen, Ohio. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/01/2044 11/01/2024 101.5700 0.8595 118.1734 13 Miami-Dade County Edu Facs Auth. 4.00 . . . . 04/01/2045 04/01/2025 102.5320 0.8595 119.2926 14 The Port Auth of N.Y. and N.J. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . 10/15/2045 10/15/2025 103.3720 0.8539 121.0587 15 Indiana Finance Authority. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/01/2051 11/01/2025 99.9960 0.8568 116.7087 16 New York City Transitional Fin Auth. 4.00 . . . . 07/15/2045 01/15/2026 102.0900 0.8539 119.5573 17 Hosp Auth No. 2 of Douglas County. 3.00 . . . . 05/15/2046 05/15/2026 85.3050 0.7809 109.2393 18 California Health Facs Fin Auth. 3.00. . . . . . . . 10/01/2041 10/01/2026 88.4800 0.7768 113.9032 19 California Health Facs Fin Auth. 3.00. . . . . . . . 10/01/2047 10/01/2026 85.0750 0.7768 109.5198 20 Michigan Finance Authority. 4.00. . . . . . . . . . . 11/15/2046 11/15/2026 98.4840 0.8512 115.7002 21 California Health Facs Fin Auth. 4.00. . . . . . . . 08/15/2039 08/15/2026 103.7660 0.8568 121.1088 22 Dormitory Auth of The State of N.Y.. 4.00 . . . . 07/01/2043 01/01/2027 101.8550 0.8512 119.6605 23 The Regents of the Univ of California. 4.00 . . . 05/15/2045 05/15/2027 103.3340 0.8539 121.0142 24 Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp. 4.00 . . . . . . 02/15/2044 02/15/2027 102.1830 0.8568 119.2612 25 North Texas Tollway Auth. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 01/01/2043 01/01/2028 101.7010 0.8512 119.4796 26 Hlth and Education Facs Auth. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . 11/15/2049 11/15/2027 100.9560 0.8539 118.2293 27 Washington HC Facs Auth. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . . . 08/15/2041 02/15/2028 101.7210 0.8512 119.5031 28 Wisconsin Hth and Edu Facs Auth. 4.00 . . . . . 08/15/2042 08/15/2027 101.4110 0.8568 118.3602 29 Wisconsin Hth and Edu Facs Auth. 4.00 . . . . . 08/15/2047 08/15/2027 100.9370 0.8568 117.8070 30 Miami-Dade County,Florida. 3.50 . . . . . . . . . . 10/01/2047 10/01/2027 91.0000 0.8174 111.3286 31 Dormitory Auth St of The N.Y.. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . 07/01/2047 07/01/2027 102.6550 0.8568 119.8121 32 New Hope Cult Edu Facs Fin Corp. 4.00 . . . . . 08/15/2040 08/15/2027 101.7280 0.8568 118.7302 33 Dalton-Whitefield Cty Joint Dev Auth. 4.00 . . . 08/15/2048 02/15/2028 99.9950 0.8512 117.4753 34 Spartanburg Reg Hth Srvc Dt. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . 04/15/2043 04/15/2028 99.8400 0.8484 117.6803 35 Spartanburg Reg Hth Srvc Dt. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . 04/15/2048 04/15/2028 97.9380 0.8484 115.4385 36 City of South Miami Hth Facs Auth. 4.00 . . . . . 08/15/2042 08/15/2027 100.0750 0.8568 116.8009 37 City of South Miami Hth Facs Auth. 4.00 . . . . . 08/15/2047 08/15/2027 99.6540 0.8568 116.3095 38 Sales Tax Securitization Corp.. 4.00. . . . . . . . . 01/01/2048 01/01/2028 100.3180 0.8539 117.4821 39 Haris County,Texas. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08/15/2048 02/15/2028 101.9700 0.8539 119.4168 40 The City Of New York. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03/01/2042 03/01/2028 102.8170 0.8539 120.4087

Bond Buyer 40 Current Day Previous Day Week Ago Month Ago Year Ago

Average Dollar Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.8093 102.0121 102.2033 102.3217 100.2219Yield To Par Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.87 3.84 3.82 3.80 4.33Yield To Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.02 4.01 4.00 3.99 4.35

This Index is owned by The Bond Buyer. Copyright 2018 The Bond Buyer. All rights reserved. These

40 Bonds are evaluated and priced daily by Standard & Poor’s Securities Evaluations Inc. (212-438-

4500). Copyright 2018 Standard & Poor’s Securities Evaluations Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. No copy or distribution permitted without permission

from The Bond Buyer and Standard & Poor’s Securities Evaluations Inc. No warranty is made as to the

accuracy or completeness of this data.

The Municipal Bond Index presented today employs the coefficient derived from the February 28, 2018

pricing, when it was set at 1.0614. The average price represents the simple average price of the 40 bonds.

The yield to par call is computed from the average price, the average coupon (4.13%), and the average first

par call date ( May 02, 2026). Noncallable bonds are included in the par call yield calculations, with their

maturity dates serving as their par call dates in the calculations. The yield to maturity is computed from the

average price, the average coupon, and the average maturity date (March 17, 2045).

Municipal Bond Index

Market Statistics

These 40 Bonds are evaluated and priced daily by

Standard & Poor’s Securities Evaluations Inc. All figures are rounded to the nearest eighth when reported in this table.

“Change in Bid” is rounded after calculation. Dollar Change Yield toRating Bid in Bid Worst Case

EDUCATION

A3/A-/- Dormitory Auth of The State of N.Y..4.00 07/01/2043 . . . . 101.875 - 0.125 3.75 A3/A-/- Miami-Dade County Edu Facs Auth.4.00 04/01/2045 . . . . 102.500 - 0.125 3.59 Aa2/AA/AA The Regents of the Univ of California.4.00 05/15/2045 . . . 103.375 - 0.125 3.57 Aa3/AA/- Wisconsin Hth and Edu Facs Auth.4.00 08/15/2042 . . . . . 101.375 - 0.125 3.82 Aa3/AA/- Wisconsin Hth and Edu Facs Auth.4.00 08/15/2047 . . . . . 100.875 - 0.125 3.88

G.O. ET AL.

A1/A/A California (State) GOs.5.00 11/01/2043 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.125 - 0.125 2.85 A2/A-/A- California St Pub Wks.5.00 11/01/2038. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.000 - 0.125 2.71 -/AA-/- Dalton-Whitefield Cty Joint Dev Auth.4.00 08/15/2048 . . . 100.000 - 0.125 4.00 Aa2/-/AA Haris County,Texas.4.00 08/15/2048 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.000 - 0.125 3.76 Aa3/AA-/NR Health and Educ Facilities Auth.4.00 11/15/2045. . . . . . . . 102.375 - 0.125 3.59 Aa3/AA-/NR Hlth and Education Facs Auth.4.00 11/15/2049 . . . . . . . . . 101.000 - 0.125 3.88 Aa3/-/AA Indiana Finance Authority.4.00 11/01/2051 . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.000 - 0.125 4.00 Aa2/AA/AA New York City Transitional Fin Auth.4.00 07/15/2045 . . . . 102.125 - 0.125 3.69 Aa1/AAA/AAA NYC Transitional Fin.5.00 11/01/2038 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.625 - 0.125 2.59 -/AA/AAA Sales Tax Securitization Corp..4.00 01/01/2048. . . . . . . . . 100.375 unch 3.96 Aa2/AA/AA The City Of New York.4.00 03/01/2039 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.375 - 0.125 3.38 Aa3/AA-/AA- The Port Auth of N.Y. and N.J.4.00 10/15/2045 . . . . . . . . . 103.375 - 0.125 3.49 Aa2/AA/AA The City Of New York.4.00 03/01/2042 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.875 - 0.125 3.66

HOSPITAL

Aa3/AA-/AA- California Health Facs Fin Auth.3.00 10/01/2041. . . . . . . . . 88 .500 - 0.250 3.73 Aa3/AA-/AA- California Health Facs Fin Auth.3.00 10/01/2047. . . . . . . . . 85 .125 - 0.375 3.84 Aa3/-/AA- California Health Facs Fin Auth.4.00 08/15/2039. . . . . . . . 103.750 - 0.125 3.48 A1/AA-/- City of South Miami Hth Facs Auth.4.00 08/15/2042. . . . . 100.125 - 0.125 3.99 A1/AA-/- City of South Miami Hth Facs Auth.4.00 08/15/2047. . . . . . 99 .625 - 0.375 4.02 A1/AA-/AA- County of Allen, Ohio.4.00 11/01/2044 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.625 - 0.125 3.73 Aa3/AA-/AA Dormitory Auth St of The N.Y..4.00 07/01/2047 . . . . . . . . . 102.625 - 0.500 3.66 NR/AA-/AA- Hosp Auth No. 2 of Douglas County.3.00 05/15/2046 . . . . . 85 .250 - 0.250 3.85 A3/A/- Michigan Finance Authority.4.00 11/15/2046 . . . . . . . . . . . 98 .500 -1.375 4.09 Aa2/-/AA New Hope Cult Edu Facs Fin Corp.4.00 08/15/2040 . . . . . 101.750 - 0.125 3.78 A3/A/- Spartanburg Reg Hth Srvc Dt.4.00 04/15/2043 . . . . . . . . . .99 .875 + 0.500 4.01 A3/A/- Spartanburg Reg Hth Srvc Dt.4.00 04/15/2048 . . . . . . . . . . 98.000 - 0.875 4.12 Aa3/AA-/AA- Washington HC Facs Auth.4.00 08/15/2041 . . . . . . . . . . . 101.750 - 0.125 3.79

HOUSING

Aa3/A+/A+ Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp.4.00 02/15/2044. . . . . . 102.125 - 0.125 3.71

POWER

A1/AA-/AA- South Carolina Pub Svce Auth.5.50 12/01/2053 . . . . . . . . 109.625 - 0.125 3.64 A1/AA-/AA- South Carolina Pub Svce Auth.5.00 12/01/2048 . . . . . . . . 107.250 - 0.125 3.59

TRANSPORTATION

NR/AA/AA- Grand Parkway Transp Corp TX.5.00 04/01/2053. . . . . . . . 110.375 - 0.125 2.98 A2/A/A Metro Transp Auth NY.5.00 11/15/2043 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.625 - 0.125 2.78 A2/A/A Metro Transp Auth NY.5.00 11/15/2038 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.875 - 0.125 2.74 A2/A-/A- New Jersey Transp Trust Fund Auth.4.25 06/15/2044 . . . . . 97 .500 - 0.250 4.41 A1/A/NR North Texas Tollway Auth.4.00 01/01/2043 . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.750 - 0.125 3.79

WATER

Aa3/A+/A+ Miami-Dade County,Florida.3.38 10/01/2047 . . . . . . . . . . .91 .000 - 0.375 4.02

Municipal Bond Prices

015_BB031218 15 3/9/2018 5:18:09 PM


www.bondschoolny.org

REGISTER TODAY!

MUNICIPAL BONDSCHOOL 2018

WEEKLY CLASSES 6:30 – 7:45 PM

Tuesday May 15Tuesday May 22Tuesday May 29Tuesday June 5

Tuesday April 10Tuesday April 17Tuesday April 24Tuesday May 1Tuesday May 8

REGISTER TODAY!

For further details, registration, syllabus and location, visit:

IN PERSON CLASS FEE $450 WEBINAR $550

CLASSES WILL BE hELd AT ThE NYC SEMINAR & CONFERENCE CENTER71 WEST 23Rd STREET | NEW YORK NY

For registration questions please contact facilitators by email only:

Nicolle Brescia | [email protected] Siegel | [email protected]

“Richland County wants to ensure [sic] residents we are responding responsibly to the ruling, as we do with other issues facing the county,” said a statement from the Coun-ty Council and the County Administrator Gerald Seals. “We are pleased the Supreme Court affirmed that the flow of tax funds from the penny transportation tax will con-tinue to be sent to Richland County.”

While the Supreme Court did order the South Carolina Department of Re venue to continue to remit tax revenue to the county, it also said that “DOR correctly asserted the county’s expenditure of Penny Tax funds on ‘administrative costs’ that were unrelated to any specific transportation project were improper as they exceeded the scope of the Transportation Act.”

Richland County, home to the state capi-tal of Columbia, had argued that it had spent the transportation tax funds for administra -tive expenses, including hiring tw o public relations firms and establishing a Small Local Business Enterprise Program among others.

The Supreme Court ruling did not state exactly how much money the county had earmarked as administrative expenses.

In rating the $250 million of BANs SP-1-plus last month, and discussing the pending litigation, S&P Global Ratings said, “It is our understanding that the county could be required to finance approximately $32 mil-lion in administrative expenditures.”

If the county is required to pay those e x-penditures, S&P said it did not belie ve it would have a material impact on the coun -ty’s financial or liquidity position or credit quality, given its “very strong flexibility and liquidity positions well in excess of the amounts in question.”

S&P affirmed its AAA long-term rat -ing on the county’s outstanding GO debt.Moody’s Investors Service rated the B ANs MIG 1, and af firmed its Aaa rating on the GOs.

In July 2012, the county adopted an ordi-nance enacting the Transportation Act and scheduling a referendum to ask voters to ap-prove the 1% sales and use tax for 22 years.

The county ordinance proposed using $656 million of tax re venue for improve-ments to highways, roads, streets, intersec -tions, bridges and drainage systems; $300.9 million for mass transit services pro vided by the Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority; and $80.8 million for pedestrian sidewalks, bike paths, intersections, and greenways improvements.

The referendum passed and the Penn y Tax became effective May 1, 2013.

In April 2015, the state DOR initiated a review of Penny Tax expenditures. In December of that year the DOR wrote to the county outlining a series of problems it uncovered, including the county council’ s exemption from procedures and authori-zation of certain payments to the Project Development Team that raised “questions of potential public corruption and fraud.”

The letter did not specify what was found that constituted public corruption and fraud, though it said the information had been re -ferred to law enforcement.

DOR also said it found multiple instances of illegal activity by individuals and/or com-

South Carolina Supreme Court Says Richland County Misspent Funds

Regions

panies associated with the Penny Program and that certain e xpenditures appeared to fall outside the parameters of state tax laws and county ordinances. When DOR said it would stop remitting sales tax revenue to the county, the county f iled a lawsuit in circuit court. DOR filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the county’s expenditures

were unlawful. Rulings from the lower court led to the Supreme Court appeal that w as decided Wednesday.

The County Council called a special meeting for late Friday to discuss the Su -preme Court ruling and obtain legal advice. The meeting was expected to be held in executive session and not open to the public.

In its statement Thursday, the council said that the transportation penn y program had not been suspended, and that projects were ongoing.

“The county is examining expenses that should be paid from the transportation pen-ny program pursuant to the [court] order,” the statement said. q

Continued from page 1

016_BB03121801 16 3/9/2018 5:09:24 PM

Documents

Vol. 390 No. 34873 N.Y., N.Y. Monday, March 12, 2018 … · Vol. 390 No. 34873 N.Y., N.Y. Monday, March 12, 2018 COMMENTARY DESPITE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE federal funding levels, President