In Barrett-Anderson v. Crisostomo, CV0651-89 (Super. Ct. Guam Nov. 21, 1989), GEDA authorized the issue of limited obligation infrastructure improvement bonds and water system revenue bonds. Id. at p. 1. The then-legislative counsel issued a memo opining that the issuance of the bonds would violate the debt-limitation provision contained in Section 11 of the Organic Act. Id. at p. 2. His opinion was based on his conclusion that the term "aggregate tax valuation of the property in Guam," as used in Section 11, referred to the assessed value of taxable property, and not the appraised or market value of the property. Then Superior Court Judge Janet Healy Weeks disagreed. She concluded, instead, that the phrase "aggregate tax valuation" means the "appraised value of the taxable property on Guam." Id. at p. 14. In reaching this conclusion, Justice Weeks started with the principle that the interpretation of a statute should be gleaned from the legislative intent. Id. at p. 12. She found that because the concept of "assessed value" as used in relation to the assessment of property taxes was made part of local law after the enactment of Section 11, and because these later-enacted local statutes governing real property tax assessments did not employ the same language as that used in Section 11 or otherwise reference the debt limitation in Section 11, those statutes, which premise tax assessments on 35% of the appraised value of taxable property, could not logically be used in interpreting Section 11 of the Organic Act. Moreover, Justice Weeks found that using the assessed value as the base to calculate the debt limit would "set Guam's debt-ceiling at a far lower level then those municipalities that have proportionately greater property tax bases." Id. at p. 13. She concluded that "there is no indication that Congress, in enacting the Organic Act, sought to stifle economic growth on Guam by setting the debt ceiling restrictively low." Id.