“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; … they may be relied on to set things to rights.”

— Thomas Jefferson

A Wave of Local Investment

From small towns to booming suburbs, communities across the United States are turning to bond elections to finance infrastructure and public works on an unprecedented scale. In just the past year, voters have been asked to approve hundreds of new bonds funding schools, roads, utilities, parks, and more. According to a recent analysis by Frontline Advisory Group (FLAG), over 700 local bond measures – totaling upwards of $100 billion in value – have been on ballots nationwide. This surge in local borrowing represents a broad wave of public investment not seen in decades, as cities and counties scramble to keep up with growth and aging infrastructure.

The trend is perhaps most visible in fast-growing Texas. Texas alone accounts for 77 bond propositions in the current pipeline, with an aggregate value exceeding $13.8 billion. On a single election day in November 2024, Texas voters faced an astounding $37.6 billion in local bond proposals – ranging from new school construction to flood control projects. That barrage of ballot measures helped make Texas the nation’s top state for municipal bond issuance in 2024, its largest volume of local debt sales since 1981. “Everything’s bigger in Texas” might be a cliché, but in this case the numbers bear it out – no other state’s ballots are as “bursting with the most bonds” as Texas’s.

Behind these big numbers is a confluence of factors. Many communities are experiencing rapid population growth and rising student enrollments, fueling demand for new schools and facilities. Others have deferred maintenance for years and now need major upgrades to water systems, transportation networks, and public safety infrastructure. Low unemployment and economic expansion have emboldened local officials to ask voters to invest in long-term capital improvements, even as interest rates inch upward. And crucially, state laws in places like Texas require voter approval for most types of public debt, so routine infrastructure financing routinely lands on the ballot. The result: a “bond boom” that is reshaping skylines and city budgets across the country.

Texas Leads the Charge

Nowhere is this boom more pronounced than in Texas. Texans have a long tradition of taking bond issues directly to voters, and the volume has reached record levels. In the May 2024 election cycle alone, Texas voters weighed almost 325 separate bond propositions, approving roughly 80% of them. That one spring election authorized over $33 billion in new local debt – funding that will build everything from new high schools and libraries to drainage improvements. By November 2024, dozens more Texas jurisdictions were back for another round, including a two-part $4.4 billion proposal in Houston Independent School District (the largest in Texas history) and a slew of billion-dollar school packages in fast-growing suburbs. Thanks to a strong economy and population growth, Texas communities have embraced bonds as the ticket to rapid development. Public school districts in particular are on a construction spree; school bond issues in Texas carry AAA ratings (backed by the state’s Permanent School Fund) and are eagerly snapped up by investors.

Several unique factors set Texas apart. State law permits bond elections twice a year (each May and November), giving local leaders frequent opportunities to ask for voter approval. This semi-annual cycle of bond votes is enshrined in Texas’ “uniform election dates” system, ensuring that citizens regularly face decisions about capital projects. By contrast, some states tightly restrict when such referendums can occur – Colorado, for example, limits debt questions to its November general elections under the TABOR amendment, and even emergency school bond votes there must wait for designated election windows. Texas’s more flexible schedule means urgent needs don’t have to wait long for the ballot. Additionally, Texas requires voter approval for nearly all general obligation bonds at the local level, from city hall projects to county roads, whereas other states allow many types of borrowing without a referendum. The culture in Texas favors direct voter input on big spending: officials see referendums not as hurdles but as a standard step in funding public works.

Different States, Different Rules

The surge of bond activity is not uniform across the nation. Local bond elections remain a state-by-state story, shaped by legal frameworks, economic conditions, and public attitudes. In some states, voter-approved bonds are a rarity; in others, they are a primary tool for public finance. According to FLAG’s data, states like Arizona and New Jersey each had dozens of local bonds on the docket this year (Arizona led with 32 measures totaling $3.9 billion) while a few states such as Delaware, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania had none at all. These disparities reflect how differently states approach public borrowing.

In the Northeast, for example, many states have constitutional debt limits that discourage frequent local referendums. New York’s constitution requires voter approval for state general obligation bonds, but the state has largely avoided such referenda in favor of other financing methods. (New York’s last major statewide bond act was in 2022 for environmental projects; the three bond measures on New York ballots this year, totaling a modest $57 million, were all at the local level.) Meanwhile, Connecticut and Delaware do not require voters to approve state bonds at all – those decisions are left to legislatures and commissions. In such states, bond elections are confined to certain localities or special districts. Delaware, for instance, holds referendums almost exclusively for school district bonds, and counties there never put debt issues before voters.

On the other hand, Western states tend to put more faith in direct democracy for public finance. California’s local agencies frequently use bond referendums to fund schools and infrastructure, taking advantage of provisions that allow school bonds to pass with 55% voter approval. Though California’s statewide bonds (for things like housing or high-speed rail) grab headlines with their multibillion-dollar price tags, the bread-and-butter is hundreds of local school bonds. This year, California’s ballot featured relatively few bond measures – just 5 propositions, albeit worth a hefty $11.5 billion combined – but historically it sees waves of school bonds in major election years. Colorado, as noted, operates under TABOR’s tight rein, requiring not only that voters approve new debt, but also constraining when votes can happen and even capping government revenue increases. Despite those hurdles, Coloradans decided 16 bond questions (worth $2.1 billion) in the past year, mostly for K–12 schools and local infrastructure. And Arizona, Georgia, Ohio and others have been hotbeds of bond activity, each logging multiple billions in local projects approved by voters. The common thread is clear: where laws empower citizens to vote on bonds, many communities are seizing the opportunity to invest in themselves.

High Stakes: Managing the Money After the Vote

For officials and taxpayers alike, passing a bond measure is only the beginning of the story. Once the confetti is swept off the gymnasium floor where election night celebrations took place, the hard work of actually spending those funds on promised projects begins. And history has shown that when bond programs are mismanaged, the consequences can be dire. A cautionary example often cited in public finance circles is Harrisburg, Pennsylvania – the state capital that nearly went bankrupt in the 2000s after a series of disastrous bond-funded projects. Harrisburg’s woes centered on an overambitious incinerator renovation financed by bonds; costs ballooned in secret, oversight failed, and eventually the city was driven into state receivership (a form of state takeover) due to hundreds of millions in debt it could not repay. The saga left Harrisburg with years of fiscal pain, higher taxes, and tarnished trust in local government.

Even in booming Texas, there have been sobering lessons. The Houston Independent School District’s $1.9 billion bond program approved in 2012 – meant to rebuild 40 schools – fell into a $211 million budget shortfall within a few years. An audit later found “weak or nonexistent policies” and insufficient oversight of contractors, among other problems, that contributed to the overruns. In other words, the district hadn’t put strong controls in place to manage the influx of bond money, and the result was a costly gap that had to be covered by taxpayers. HISD’s embarrassment became a rallying point for reform: it highlighted the need for better planning, realistic cost estimates, and rigorous monitoring of how bond dollars are spent.

New Tools and Standards for Accountability

In response, a quiet revolution is happening in how public agencies approach bond-funded programs. Municipal officials are embracing stronger controls, greater transparency, and even advanced technology to ensure bond projects succeed. Financial oversight is being beefed up from day one. Many local governments now establish formal monitoring committees and independent audits for major bond programs, to track progress and bolster credibility. National organizations like the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) have issued best-practice guidelines urging uniform accounting standards and regular reporting for capital projects. The idea is to prevent oversight gaps by standardizing how every dollar is tracked and reported, making it easier to spot red flags before they become crises. GFOA’s recommendations include steps such as aligning project accounting with GAAP, defining consistent categories for expenses, and reporting on milestones and budgets in a clear, comparable way.

Beyond process tweaks, technology is playing a transformative role in modern bond program management. Unified cloud-based platforms serve as a central “source of truth” for all project data, schedules, and documents, enabling real-time coordination among architects, contractors, and agency officials. The benefits are tangible: studies have found that organizations using such platforms see significantly less rework, faster project delivery, and improved communication. Standardized workflows enforced by software mean that each project follows best practices instead of reinventing the wheel. For bond programs spanning dozens of projects, this consistency is key to scaling up without losing control.

Perhaps the most exciting development is the arrival of AI-driven analytics to public project management. Artificial intelligence tools can sift through mountains of data to spot patterns and forecast problems before human managers might notice them. For example, AI algorithms can analyze historical project data and current market trends to predict if a project is likely to run over budget or behind schedule, flagging the issue early. Instead of reacting to a cost overrun after it happens, program managers get a proactive alert – “Project X may finish 30 days late under current conditions” – and can take corrective action in advance.

The Road Ahead: Trust and Transparency

Looking ahead, the bond boom shows few signs of slowing. America faces trillions of dollars in infrastructure needs in the coming decades – aging highways, crowded schools, strained water and power systems – and voter-approved bonds will likely remain a favored mechanism to fund these investments. The experience of the past few years suggests that voters are willing to shoulder debt for the promise of improved communities, especially in places experiencing growth or change. But each “yes” vote comes with an expectation: deliver what you promised, and do it responsibly.

That’s why firms like Frontline Advisory Group (FLAG) – which specializes in program management consulting for public capital projects – stress the importance of robust controls and oversight from day one. Their analysts note that early adoption of best practices can “build a track record of success that earns the public’s confidence.” The message is clear: it’s not enough to win at the ballot box; governments must also win in implementation. Doing so requires professionalism, transparency, and yes, sometimes saying no to spending temptations that fall outside the bond’s original scope. It means communicating candidly with the public about progress and challenges, so that surprises are minimized. In short, managing a bond program has become as much about accountability as it is about asphalt and concrete.

As we enter this new era of local government ambition, there’s an air of optimism tempered with realism. The 2020s bond boom could usher in a renaissance of public infrastructure – safer schools, modernized transit, cleaner water – or it could produce white elephants and fiscal hangovers if not handled wisely. Most likely, it will produce some of both. The difference will lie in how diligently each community minds the dollars and cents after voters have had their say. If there’s one lesson from the saga of American bonds so far, it’s that democracy doesn’t end when the votes are counted. It continues in the hard work of making good on the mandate voters have given. And in that work, transparency and trust are the ultimate currency.

References

Front Line Advisory Group. (2025). * Front Line Advisory Group.

Texas Bond Review Board. (2024–2025). *Bond issuance reports.* State of Texas.

Ballotpedia. (2025). *Local ballot measures database (2024–2025).* Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org

Texas Public Policy Foundation. (2024). *Texas’ rising local debt and the need for fiscal accountability.* Austin, TX.

Government Finance Officers Association. (2023). *Best practices in capital project monitoring and reporting.* Chicago, IL.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). *Annual survey of state and local government finances.* Washington, DC.

Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. (2025). *EMMA data portal – municipal bond issuance reports.* Retrieved from https://emma.msrb.org

Texas Secretary of State. (2024). *Uniform election dates and bond referendum requirements.* State of Texas.

Colorado Constitution, Art. X, § 20 (TABOR Amendment).

The Bond Buyer. (2024, July). *Texas tops nation in local bond issuance for 2024.*

Associated Press. (2011). *Harrisburg faces receivership amid debt crisis.*

ABC13 Houston. (2015). *Audit finds $211 million shortfall in HISD 2012 bond program.*

Reuters. (2024, November). *U.S. municipal bond market outlook, Q4 2024.*

The New York Times. (2025, February). *The infrastructure reckoning: America’s aging systems and the cost of delay.*

Oracle Construction and Engineering. (2024). *Digital transformation in capital program management.* Oracle Corporation.

Procore Technologies. (2023). *Modernizing infrastructure delivery through cloud collaboration.* Procore Technologies, Inc.

McKinsey & Company. (2024). *The next normal in infrastructure: How AI and data will reshape project delivery.*

Brookings Institution. (2023). *Financing the future: Local debt and infrastructure renewal.* Washington, DC.

Center for Municipal Finance, University of Chicago. (2024). *Public debt transparency and accountability.*

LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin. (2024). *Bond elections and local governance in Texas.* Austin, TX.