SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Fitch Ratings has assigned a 'AA+' rating to the following City and County of San Francisco, CA (the city) general obligation (GO) bonds:
--$76 million taxable GO bonds (affordable housing, 2015) series 2016F.
The GOs are payable from unlimited ad valorem property taxes on all taxable property in the city.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
The city's very strong revenue growth partially offset limitations in expenditure flexibility and independent revenue raising. Strong budgetary and financial policies provide a foundation for maintaining ample reserves and financial flexibility throughout economic cycles.
Economic Resource Base
The city is the economic and cultural center of the nine-county San Francisco Bay area. Despite being essentially built out, population continues to grow as parts of the city, including former military bases, are redeveloped with increased density. The economic profile of the city benefits from good wealth levels; per capita personal income is almost twice the national level and market value per capita is over $215,000. The city's tourism sector is performing exceptionally well, resulting in record-high hotel tax revenues. The city's largest private employers include Salesforce, Wells Fargo and Gap, Inc.
Revenue Framework: 'aa' factor assessment
Very strong economic growth has been generating revenue growth well in excess of CPI and GDP. This strength is partially offset by the city's limited independent revenue raising ability.
Expenditure Framework: 'aa' factor assessment
Recent expenditure growth has lagged the unusually strong revenue growth. However, a relatively restrictive workforce framework and moderate carrying costs may pressure its expenditure framework.
Long-Term Liability Burden: 'aa' factor assessment
Long-term liabilities are a low to moderate burden relative to the city's resource base. Based on the city's debt issuance plans, its direct debt amortization rate and the expected growth of personal income, Fitch expects the liability burden to remain in the low to moderate range.
Operating Performance: 'aaa' factor assessment
The city's gap closing ability is exceptionally strong, exhibited by robust reserve levels relative to revenue volatility. Furthermore, the city's has demonstrated its ability to curb expenditure growth through negotiated concessions when necessary. Charter and ordinance approved financial policies support maintenance of financial flexibility through economic cycles.
Reserve Fund Adequacy: An unexpected shift in the city's fiscal policies, including funding of rainy day reserves could negatively pressure the ratings. Positive rating action is limited by the city's lack of independent revenue raising capacity and moderate liabilities.
The city is the economic and cultural center of the nine-county San Francisco Bay area. Despite being essentially built out, population continues to grow as parts of the city, including former military bases, are redeveloped with increased density. The economic profile of the city benefits from good wealth levels; per capita personal income is almost twice the national level and market value per capita is over $215,000. The city's tourism sector is performing exceptionally well, resulting in record high hotel tax revenues. The city's largest private employers include Salesforce, Wells Fargo and Gap, Inc.
As a city and county, San Francisco benefits from a wide variety of revenues, with the vast majority coming from local taxes and the remainder from state and federal subventions as well as local fees, charges and fines. Revenue growth has been robust, reflecting the rapid economic growth as reflected by the strong job growth, and largely offsets the city's limited ability to independently raise revenues.
The city's tax structure captures the diverse and growing economic activity with a variety of taxes, led by property (about 30% of total) as well as business, sales and hotel taxes. Recent revenue growth has well exceeded national GDP growth. The locally generated taxes yield almost three-quarters of general fund revenues, resulting in somewhat less exposure to potential state and federal funding shifts than is the case for other California counties. Total tax revenues for fiscal 2015 were 11% above prior year levels and 42% above receipts for fiscal 2011. Total revenues have increased 8.5% on average annually from fiscal 2011-2015. The city's fiscal 2016 nine-month budget report is forecasting further general fund revenue growth of about 6.6% compared to fiscal 2015
Like all local governments in California, the city's independent legal ability to raise its revenues is constrained by various voter-approved initiatives. However, Fitch assesses the city's revenue raising ability as moderate due to the city's historically very low revenue volatility, which forms the basis for the analytical assessment.
As a city and a county, San Francisco provides a wide variety of services, with the majority of expenditures focused on public health and social services, followed by public safety.
Given the city's very rapid revenue growth and the nature of its spending responsibilities, Fitch expects that growth in major spending areas is likely to be in line with revenue growth on average over time.
Estimated governmental carrying costs for direct debt service and pension costs are moderate; however, the city's workforce framework is somewhat restrictive, including binding arbitration, salary surveys, and some staffing minimums in public safety. This leaves the city with an adequate ability to cut spending as needed.
Long-Term Liability Burden
The city has about $2 billion in voter-approved GO bonds outstanding and another $1.1 billion in lease obligations paid from the general fund (about half of which are also voter approved). The city has very limited variable rate exposure. Given the city's policies which limit lease obligation debt service to 3.25% of general fund discretionary revenues and GO debt service to remain at the current property tax rate, Fitch expects the direct debt burden to grow roughly in line with the city's resource base as measured by personal income. The city's 10-year general fund capital improvement plan totals $4.7 billion.
The city's combined debt and pension liability currently equals about 11% of personal income. San Francisco maintains its own pension system (SFERS) with a public safety and a miscellaneous plan. In addition, a small portion of employees participate in CalPERS. The city funds the pensions at the actuarially required contribution (ARC) level, so funding should improve over time unless the assumed 7.5% return is not achieved. Fitch expects the long-term liability burden to remain low to moderate relative to the growing resource base.
The city's OPEB liability is sizeable; however, several charter amendments lowered the liability and resulted in contributions from employees and the city being deposited into an OPEB trust that may not be drawn upon until it is fully funded. The city expects the combination of these sources of OPEB contributions to reach the ARC in about 30 years.
Given the city's historically low revenue volatility and high reserves that offset the limited budget flexibility, Fitch expects the city to retain exceptional financial flexibility through the economic cycle. Charter and ordinance approved financial policies require formulaic deposits to various budgetary and fiscal reserves based on revenue performance, and likewise their use during downturns is limited by formula. Despite the somewhat constrained labor agreements, the city has a solid history of negotiating concessions with labor groups during downturns, including furloughs and pay deferrals. Layoffs have also been employed.
The city's available fund balance (including rainy day funds) at the end of fiscal 2015 totaled $1.1 billion, equal to 28% of expenditures. Fitch expects that the city would maintain reserves throughout a downturn at a level above the 8% reserve safety margin consistent with an 'aaa' financial resilience assessment based on the city's low revenue volatility, moderate ability to raise revenues, and adequate spending flexibility.
Budget management is conservative and the city's charter features several conservative requirements that promote financial stability. The budget must be based on revenue projections published by the independent controller. The charter also requires periodic budget status reports and permits the controller to freeze appropriations if actual revenues are less than budgeted.
A 2009 voter-approved charter amendment led to the adoption of various financial policies including: two-year budgeting, a biennial five-year forecast with balancing strategies, limiting use of one-time revenues for one-time expenditures, and budgetary reserve funding policies and procedures. Importantly, one of the budgetary reserves, the budget stabilization account, is funded from two of the city's most volatile revenue sources, including real property transfer tax revenues in excess of the five-year average, limiting volatility in the city's budget.
The new reserve policies in particular have contributed to the city's improved financial position, helping to rein-in expenditure growth during an extended period of economic expansion. Rainy day and budget stabilization reserves have increased materially since their low point in fiscal 2010 and the rainy day reserve portion is no longer available for the separately-managed local school district, protecting city reserves more than in previous downturns. In addition, the requirement to fund reserves from above-average growth in certain cyclical revenues helps curb the city's historical reliance on unsustainable revenue growth for ongoing expenditures. Although most of the city's new mechanisms remain untested by a severe fiscal shock, in Fitch's view the city is now well-positioned to absorb future economic and revenue uncertainty.
San Francisco's public hospital has maintained sound financial operations since implementation of the Affordable Care Act, as increased revenue from newly insured patients has exceeded the reductions in state and federal support. General fund transfers to the hospital remain at historical levels. Nonetheless, continued reductions in state and federal support for indigent care as well as competition for insured patients may pose a challenge going forward; however, Fitch believes the city's hospital is well positioned to address these challenges and that its general fund financial exposure is manageable.
Unaudited information indicates the city ended fiscal 2016 with an operating surplus and expects to add about $24 million to its already strong economic stabilization and general reserves. The Dec. 1, 2015 updated five-year financial forecast revealed a growing out-year deficit due to higher retiree costs resulting from lower than assumed investment returns, adjustments to mortality data, and a court ruling reversing a voter-approved adjustment to benefits. In response, the mayor directed departments to cut 1.5% of ongoing costs from fiscal 2017 and 2018 budgets, roughly offsetting the increased retiree costs.
The city's five-year forecast continues to project that expenditures will increase more rapidly than revenue and presents options for closing the projected gap, the largest of which are slowing capital spending and department savings. Fitch believes the city has sufficient expenditure flexibility to address the larger forecast deficits, though wage pressures could present a challenge. Notably, the five-year forecast includes a recession scenario allowing the city to begin discussing actions that would be needed to address significantly larger deficits.
Date of Relevant Rating Committee: May 25, 2016
Additional information is available at 'www.fitchratings.com'.
In addition to the sources of information identified in Fitch's applicable criteria specified below, this action was informed by information from Lumesis and InvestorTools.
U.S. Tax-Supported Rating Criteria (pub. 18 Apr 2016)
Copyright© 2016 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824, (212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch's factual investigation and the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third- party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch's ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward-looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed.
The information in this report is provided "as is" without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers.
For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001