I hear you there, but I didn't see where "bonds" per se were mentioned specifically in the LAO report, although they did discuss several financing schemes for repayment against "revenue transfers" (which are plainly illegal). Is that language in the Proposition itself (haven't read it all yet)?
On balance, I would rather have seen restoration of the Gann limits already in the State Constitution. I may yet vote against this for its destructive effects on the separation of powers. Ballot iniatives have protected the legislature from accountability.
A paragraph relative to the repayment of transportation funds does specifically call for authorizing bonds:
SECTION 9. Section 1 of Article XIX B of the California Constitution is amended to read:(snip)
(2) (A) The total amount, as of July 1, 2007, of revenues that were not transferred from the General Fund of the State to the Transportation Investment Fund because of a suspension pursuant to this subdivision shall be repaid to the Transportation Investment Fund no later than June 30, 2022. Until that total amount has been repaid, the amount of that repayment to be made in each fiscal year shall not be less than one-fifteenth of the total amount due.
(B) The Legislature may provide by statute for the issuance of bonds by the State or local agencies, as applicable, that are secured by the payments required by this paragraph. Proceeds of the sale of the bonds shall be applied for purposes consistent with this article, and for costs associated with the issuance and sale of the bonds.