Quick Links
- Report
- Introduction
- Accomplishments & Initiatives
- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
- Development of the FY11-15 Capital Investment Plan
- Affordability & Fiscal Responsibility
- Aggregate FY11-15 Capital Investment Plan
- Capital Investments by Investment Category
- Appendix A - Debt Affordabiity Analysis
- Appendix B - Bond Bills
- Appendix C - Project Listing (xls)
- Appendix D - Project Descriptions (pdf)
- Plan by Investment
- Plan by Capital Agency
- Plan by Beneficiary Agency
- Downloads
Appendix A - Debt Affordability Analysis
The Patrick-Murray Administration’s capital investment program continues to be guided by three key principles: (1) affordability, (2) strategic prioritization of capital investments, and (3) transparency. The Commonwealth faces a backlog of needed capital projects; at the same time, it faces the constraints of an extraordinarily challenging, albeit improving, economic climate and a high debt burden. In light of this challenge, it is more critical than ever that the Commonwealth take a disciplined approach to capital budgeting that is guided by the three principles stated above.
The Patrick-Murray Administration is the first Administration to develop a debt affordability analysis and policy to ensure that the amount of debt issued to fund the capital investment program is kept to affordable levels. The debt affordability analysis is formally updated each year. This report is the Administration’s fourth publication of the debt affordability analysis and five-year capital investment plan. With respect to strategic prioritization of capital investments, the Patrick-Murray Administration is the first to engage in a thorough process of reviewing and prioritizing capital investment needs and developing a comprehensive five-year capital investment plan within the fiscal constraints prescribed by the debt affordability analysis and policy. Finally, with respect to transparency, the Administration publishes its debt affordability analysis and its five-year capital investment plan (www.mass.gov/eoaf) in order to enhance public understanding of the Commonwealth’s capital investment program and thereby improve public discourse and accountability with respect to the capital budget.
This debt affordability analysis addresses the first of the key principles guiding the Administration’s approach to capital budgeting – affordability. The debt affordability analysis detailed below is an update to the analysis published in September 2009. The Administration will continue to update this analysis at least annually to inform its annual capital budgeting process.
In setting the annual administrative bond cap, the Administration has established a policy which sets a cap that will ensure debt service does not exceed 8% of annual budgeted revenues. By keeping total annual debt service within this limit, the Administration will be able to maximize needed capital investments while ensuring that debt service levels remain affordable.
For purposes of constraining growth in debt, the Administration has placed another restriction on its debt capacity model: growth in the annual bond cap for the regular capital program is limited to not more than $125 million each year (excluding carry forwards of unused bond cap from prior years). This limit will apply even if in some years the actual revenue growth projection provides capacity to issue a greater amount of debt. This additional constraint ensures stable and manageable growth and avoids taking on an unaffordable long-term debt burden on the basis of unusually robust short-term revenue growth.
State tax revenues declined at an historic rate over the last two years due to the economic downturn. Fiscal year 2009 state tax revenues were ultimately $2.7 billion less than the original fiscal year consensus revenue forecast, and fiscal year 2010 revenues were revised downward a net of $419 million from the original fiscal year consensus revenue forecast. Recent tax collection data suggest that the Massachusetts economy is growing faster and stronger than the rest of the nation, yet it is still unclear how robust growth in state tax revenues will be.
It is important that this debt affordability analysis take into account the impacts of the current challenging fiscal environment. It is also important, however, that the debt affordability analysis continue to be based in part on longer-term, historic trends rather than simply being reactive to current economic conditions. Trends reflecting experience over time are particularly relevant in the context of evaluating the affordability of long-term debt issued to fund investments in long-lived capital assets pursuant to a multi-year capital investment plan.
This debt affordability analysis is consistent with the basic analytical approach presented in the debt affordability analyses published previously. All of the underlying assumptions have been reviewed and, where appropriate, updated to reflect new information and revised outlooks.
Based on the debt affordability analysis and policy described in more detail below, the Administration has set the annual borrowing limit - or “administrative bond cap” – to fund the Commonwealth’s regular capital budget for fiscal year 2011 at $1.625 billion. This is the same bond cap level for fiscal year 2011 that was projected in the five-year capital investment plan published in September 2009. When compared to the first five-year capital investment plan published by the Patrick-Murray Administration in July 2007, this updated debt affordability analysis results in a reduction of $250 million of planned borrowing for fiscal year 2011 and a reduction of over $1 billion of planned borrowing through fiscal year 2015, reflecting the changed economic conditions. (See Table 9.) As this analysis demonstrates, the planned bond cap levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2015, together with the continuation of the planned borrowings for the accelerated bridge program and self-supporting project financings, represent an affordable level of new debt that will allow the Commonwealth to responsibly invest in the general capital infrastructure needs of the state.
top of page