Community Development Districts: The entrepreneurial side of government

In an effort to reduce the cost and size of government public service delivery has become more decentralized, flexible and responsive. Public entrepreneurship entailed, among other things, the establishment of special-purpose governments to finance public services and carry out development projects. Community Development Districts (CDDs) are a type of special-purpose governments whose purpose is to manage and finance infrastructure improvements in the State of Florida. They have important implications for the way both growth management and service delivery occur in the United States. This study examined the role of CDDs for growth management policy and service delivery by analyzing the CDD profile and activity, the contribution of CDDs to the growth management and infrastructure development as well as the way CDD perceived pluses and minuses impact service delivery. The study used a mixed methods research approach, drawing on secondary data pertaining to CDD features and activity, semi-structured interviews with CDD representatives and public officials as well as on a survey of public officials within the counties and cities that have established CDDs. Findings indicated that the CDD institutional model is both a policy and a service delivery tool for infrastructure provision that can be adopted by states across the United States. Results showed that CDDs inhibit rather than foster growth management through their location choices, type and pattern of development. CDDs contributed to the infrastructure development in Florida by providing basic infrastructure services for the development they supported and by building and dedicating facilities to general-purpose governments. Districts were found to be both funding mechanisms and management tools for infrastructure services. The study also pointed to the fact that specialized governance is more responsive and more flexible but less effective than general-purpose governance when delivering services. CDDs were perceived as being favorable for developers and residents and not as favorable for general-purpose governments. Overall results indicated that the CDD is a flexible institutional mechanism for infrastructure delivery which has both advantages and disadvantages. Decision-makers should balance districts’ institutional flexibility with their unintended consequences for growth management when considering urban public policies.

Variables affecting government debt: A comparison of certificates of participation, tax -exempt revenue bonds and tax -exempt general obligation bonds

This dissertation analyzed and compared variables affecting interest rate and yield of certificates of participation, tax-exempt revenue bonds and tax-exempt general obligation bonds. The study employed qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. ^ Qualitative research methods included surveys, interviews and focus groups. The survey solicited debt load information from 67 Florida school districts (21 responded) and addressed the question which districts used certificates of participation and why. Eight individuals with experience dealing with all three debt instruments were interviewed. A follow-up focus group of six school district financial officers gathered additional data. Results from the qualitative methods revealed school districts used certificates of participation based on millage authority amount available relative to overall tax base. Also identified was the belief of a significant difference in certificates of participation costs and the other two debt instrument types. ^ The study's quantitative methods analyzed 1998 and 1999 initial issues of Moody's AAA rated certificates of participation, tax-exempt revenue bonds and tax-exempt general obligation bonds. Through an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), the study examined interest rates and yields while controlling for the covariates of credit enhancement, issue size, and maturity date. The analysis identified no significant difference between interest rates of certificates of participation and tax-exempt general obligation bonds (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between interest rates of tax-exempt revenue bonds and tax-exempt general obligation bonds. This study discerned no significant difference between yield on certificates of participation and tax-exempt general obligation bonds. It identified a difference in yield between both certificates of participation and tax-exempt general obligation bonds compared with tax-exempt revenue bonds. ^ The study found COPs to have lesser overall costs than RV bonds. COPs also have a quicker entry into the market resulting in construction cost savings. The study found policy implications such as investment portfolio limitations and public choice issues about using COPs as a mechanism to grow government. ^