Overview
California counties and municipalities (local governments or LGs) have maintained stable or improved credit quality overall during the past two fiscal years, reflecting a strong economic recovery since the onset of the global pandemic. However, negative economic pressures such as elevated price levels fueled by high inflation, albeit moderating, has resulted in slowing growth in revenues and are presenting budgetary challenges with many cities forecasting general fund deficits in fiscal 2025 and beyond. We believe many cities and counties will be challenged with the task of balancing their financial operations to avoid a structural imbalance and will be tested in their ability to make the necessary budget adjustments. We also believe cities will likely seek ways to increase revenues, such as turning to voters for sales tax increases during the upcoming November 2024 election session. However, should those efforts to increase revenues fail, we may see cities begin to draw on their existing rainy day reserves that were built up in previous years while management seeks ways to cut or control spending. Should reserve levels fall materially during the next several years without a reasonable plan to restore balance to operations, we could see credit quality deterioration in the near term.
S&P Global Ratings maintains ratings on 262 LGs within the state. Overall, LG credit quality remained stable from September 2023 to October 2024. During that period, there were 23 rating actions, or 9%. Of the 23 rating actions, 18 were positive--with 15 raised ratings, two outlook revisions to positive, and one outlook revision to stable on general obligation or general-fund-secured bonds. There were only five negative rating actions--two rating downgrades (cities of Santa Monica and Willows City), and three outlook revisions to negative. Almost 98% of the ratings have a stable outlook. Only three municipalities (Saint Helena, San Francisco, and Willows City) have ratings with a negative outlook and three municipalities (El Cerrito, Mammoth Lakes, and Palmdale) have ratings with a positive outlook. In line with 2023, most of the ratings in this portfolio are stable and we expect this trend will continue for the remainder of 2024. Following the release of our "Methodology for Rating U.S. Governments," published Sept. 9, 2024, on RatingsDirect, we placed the ratings on four California cities and counties under criteria observation (UCO), signaling that those ratings could change as a result of the application of new criteria. For more information on the UCO designation and our plan for reviewing ratings under the new criteria, please see "Credit FAQ: A Closer Look At The New Methodology For Rating U.S. Governments," and "Ratings On 436 Issuers Placed Under Criteria Observation Following Publication Of New U.S. Government Methodology," published Sept. 9, 2024.
Credit Fundamentals
Potential Challenges
- General fund reserve levels that remain robust that were built up for most cities during the pandemic recovery period with positive general fund operating performance
- A persistently strong economic and taxing base with annual average assessed valuation (AV) growth that is more than the 2% increases provided under Proposition 13, driven by rising home prices and the continued demand for residential property throughout the state
- Debt levels remain moderate overall but are likely to rise in the medium-term as capital needs grow while pension cost increases may begin to moderate in the future, with preliminary CalPERS investment return that rose above its discount rate target in fiscal 2024
- Sales tax revenue growth has slowed and began to normalize in fiscals 2024 and 2025 after years of significant growth during a period of recovery since the pandemic-related closures
- Growing cost of goods and services, coupled with increases in salaries and benefits that outpace the growth in revenues, resulting in forecasted deficits for many cities
- City management may find it challenging to balance budgets and cut costs, driven by a need to retain service levels as well as political resistance from city councils or their constituents
What We're Watching In 2024 And Beyond
Slowing revenue growth forecasted to be outpaced by growing operating costs for many cities
After several years of strong growth property tax revenues from a robust housing market and property development with double-digit growth in sales tax revenues following a boom recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic in fiscals 2022 and 2023, many cities are now seeing assessed value growth normalize and are forecasting revenue to grow at a much more modest pace in fiscal 2025 and beyond. Although strong home prices continue to prop up assessed value (AV) levels for most issuers, the high mortgage rate environment, exacerbated in some places by net out migration, has resulted in a noticeable decline in real estate activity, which has contributed to slowing AV growth and property tax revenues. In some downtown areas, such as the one in San Francisco, declining office occupancy and associated property valuations have begun to weigh on property tax growth.
Sales tax revenue growth has also slowed to a much more modest pace for many cities, partly driven by the higher cost of goods and services from high inflation as well as slowing economic activity to more normal levels after several years of above average growth that many cities saw during the pandemic recovery.
Operating costs have also been growing at a steady pace, driven by rising labor costs, increased salaries and benefits, and the high cost of goods due to inflation. Many cities are now forecasting their operating expenditures to outpace revenue growth and long-term forecasts show operating deficits down the line, which can result in a growing structural imbalance and a deterioration of credit quality if left unmitigated.
Cities look to avoid structural imbalances by seeking voter approval for higher sales taxes
With many cities now forecasting general fund operating deficits in future years, some are now looking to increase revenue through higher sales tax rates. Cities in California can seek voter approval for general use sales tax rate increases, which only require a 50% simple majority under Proposition 218 (1996 election) and many cities have historically been successful in passing these sorts of sales tax measures. Certain cities are now planning to seek additional sales tax increases and place these measures before voters during the upcoming November 2024 general election. For example, San Diego plans to propose a 1% sales tax rate increase under Measure E on Nov. 5, 2024, up to a total of 8.75%. Similarly, Santa Barbara plans to ask votes for a 0.5% sales tax increase under Measure I, which would bring the total sales tax rate up to 9.25%. The average sales tax rate for California cities is approximately 8.85% which is notably higher than the 7.5% national average sales tax rate for cities. As of January 2024, California currently ranks eighth in the nation for the highest combined state and average local sales tax rates. Within the state, the highest combined sales tax rates for cities reached 10.75%, primarily within Alameda and Los Angeles counties.
While California cities have generally been successful in passing sales tax measures in the past (63% success rate in the 2022 general election and a 71% success rate in the 2020 general election), we note that voters may be more resistant to raising sales taxes if current rates are already seen as high, especially when compared with the rest of the nation. Should cities fail to pass sales tax increases in the upcoming November 2024, we believe many cities will be faced with the difficult task of adjusting their budgets by reducing staff, cutting services, and deferring capital expenditures, otherwise they risk risk drawing down their available general fund reserves.
Issuers may face political resistance in making critical spending cuts
With the growing structural imbalance that they are now forecasting, some cities may face difficult fiscal and political tradeoffs, especially if their revenue-raising efforts fail. Spending reductions generally fall under staffing layoffs and service cuts, which can be difficult to approve and implement due to political resistance from key constituencies. Infrastructure spending and capital maintenance can often fall by the wayside, potentially increasing the city's exposure to physical and climate risks or infrastructure failure. Other cities may find that staffing reductions are not a viable or realistic option since any further layoffs will materially pressure a city's ability to function. Cities also see increased risk of labor strikes if negotiations between the city management and bargaining units fall apart, signaling elevated governance risks related to governance structures or risk management and oversight. If cities demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to adjust their budgets in a timely manner to avoid projected fiscal imbalances, it could materially pressure credit quality.
Reserves remain strong on average and are a critical factor in our credit analysis
Overall, the median reserve level for California municipalities and counties remains strong compared to historical levels, bolstered by strong operating performance in previous years as well as the inflow of one-time federal stimulus or state aid funding. We believe reserves will continue to be a critical credit factor when analyzing the credit strength of issuers, especially during times of fiscal distress when structural imbalances may grow, as many cities are now forecasting. Having high general fund reserve levels provides issuers with invaluable time to adjust their budgets or implement strategies to generate more revenue. However, if cities and counties are unable to sufficiently adjust their budgets in a timely manner, resulting in significant draws on reserves without a reasonable plan to restore them, then credit quality could weaken.
California Child Victims Act (CA AB-218)
The California Child Victims Act was signed into law in 2019. The law significantly reformed the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse cases, extending the amount of time for victims to come forward and seek justice. We believe this law may affect cities or counties who maintain child youth programs, such as after-school programs, youth centers, or community-center programs. Cities and counties may face substantial financial liabilities for child sexual abuse cases if current or former employees are found liable for these sorts of crimes. A recent example includes Santa Monica, which paid a $230 million settlement to resolve legal claims brought against the city. While the scope of this liability risk is unknown, we believe the passage of CA AB-218 increases uncertainty with respect to the size of potential liabilities and their financial effect on California cities and counties. Should cities or counties be found liable for a substantial sum that results in a material drawdown in reserves or the issuance of a material amount of judgment obligation bonds, we could lower ratings by one or more notches.
California counties maintain strong credit quality bolstered by positive operating performance
California counties have benefited from continued growth in property tax revenues that have grown in tandem with increasing operating costs. Property taxes are generally the largest revenue stream for counties and most counties are not dependent on sales tax revenues to fund operations. Operational costs for counties are typically not as large of a burden as compared to cities, and we believe county management teams tend to be robust with formalized policies and practices that position them well to manage their financial operations. We do not expect credit quality for counties overall to deteriorate in the near-term.
Spotlight On Environmental, Social, Governance Factors
The state remains broadly exposed to a wide range of risks stemming from the physical effects of climate hazards. Some of these acute physical risks include wildfires and droughts, as well as chronic issues resulting from extreme heat, flooding, hydrological volatility, and sea level rise. Furthermore, water scarcity and hydrological volatility have heightened natural capital risk for some entities without adaptation measures. While the state continues to be affected wildfires and drought, the heavy rainfall in 2023 and 2024 that was close to twice the average rainfall the state normally receives provides a brief respite. However, with the atmospheric river storm and the snowfall increasing in the local mountain areas, the risk of flooding became elevated in areas affected by the substantial rainfall and melting snow.
Housing affordability issues and the high cost of living continue to loom over the state as a social capital risk. In addition, California local governments are subject to the affordable housing laws enacted by the state requiring municipalities to construct sufficient levels of affordable housing in their jurisdiction, which could help stem the net outmigration trend, if they have the intended effect. (See "No Quick Fix For The U.S. Affordable Housing Shortage," published Aug. 21, 2024.)
Governance risks remain neutral, although we may see an increase in elevated governance risks in the form of labor strikes, late budget adoptions, or an inability to adjust the budget because of forecasted deficits, for example due to disagreements between city management, city councils, or constituents.
We have also encountered an increase in cyber attacks toward municipalities in 2024, thereby substantiating the local governments to be more vigilant and alert toward existing cyber risks. For more insights on cyber risk, see "Cyber Risk Insights: Recession Pressures Could Expose More U.S. Public Finance Issuers To Cyber Attacks," published June 6, 2023.
California Counties And Municipalities Data
Table 1
California counties and municipalities: medians | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating | ||||||||||||||
AAA | AA+ | AA | AA- | A+ | A | |||||||||
Median County GCP (%) of the U.S. | 131.30 | 124.40 | 97.90 | 71.60 | 73.00 | 70.10 | ||||||||
Median County PCPI (%) of the U.S. | 127.70 | 124.90 | 103.60 | 84.60 | 75.20 | 75.20 | ||||||||
Median Local HHEBI (%) of the U.S. | 162.15 | 137.20 | 107.30 | 94.10 | 88.60 | 77.60 | ||||||||
Median Local PCEBI (%) of the U.S. | 166.35 | 127.80 | 89.10 | 67.30 | 63.30 | 52.35 | ||||||||
Median 3-Year Performance Average (%) of Revenues | 7.00 | 6.25 | 6.85 | 7.45 | 10.30 | 5.50 | ||||||||
Median General Fund Balance (%) of Revenues | 49.40 | 39.20 | 43.40 | 41.05 | 54.95 | 29.70 | ||||||||
Median Fund Balance Plus Non-General Fund (%) of Revenues | 50.20 | 38.80 | 39.40 | 37.30 | 60.00 | 29.70 | ||||||||
Median Debt Service (%) of Revenues | 2.70 | 3.30 | 4.10 | 4.05 | 4.60 | 8.00 | ||||||||
Median Net Direct Debt Per Capita | 50,757 | 50,835 | 102,625 | 73,473 | 38,619 | 41,294 | ||||||||
Median Pension Contribution (%) of Revenues | 9.20 | 12.40 | 9.00 | 8.25 | 7.45 | 12.70 | ||||||||
Median Net Pension Liablity Per Capita | 1,148 | 1,798 | 1,106 | 603 | 621 | 1,019 | ||||||||
GCP--Gross County Product. PCPI--Per Capita Personal Income. HHEBI--Household Effective buying income. PCEBI--Per Capita Effective Buying Income. |
Chart 1
Table 2
California counties: ratings list | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As of Oct. 21, 2024 | ||||||||||
This list was prepared by individuals on behalf of the USPF Group of S&P Global Ratings and is current as of Oct. 21, 2024. For the most up to date, accurate, and complete information on any credit ratings referenced in this list, please visit www.standardandpoors.com. | ||||||||||
Entity | Rating | Outlook | Ratings linked to obligor creditworthiness rating | Outlook | ||||||
Alameda County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Calaveras County | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Colusa County | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Contra Costa County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Fresno County | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Imperial County | A- | Stable | ||||||||
Kern County | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Kings County | A | Stable | ||||||||
Los Angeles County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Madera County | AA- | Stable | A+ | Stable | ||||||
Marin County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Mendocino County | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Merced County | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Mono County | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Monterey County | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Nevada County | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Orange County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Placer County | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Riverside County | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Sacramento County | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
San Benito County | AA | Stable | ||||||||
San Bernardino County | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
San Diego County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
San Joaquin County | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
San Luis Obispo County | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
San Mateo County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Santa Barbara County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Santa Clara County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Santa Cruz County | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Sierra County | AA-* | Stable | ||||||||
Solano County | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Sonoma County | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Stanislaus County | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Tehama County | A | Stable | ||||||||
Tulare County | AA-* | Stable | ||||||||
Ventura County | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Yolo County | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Yuba County | AA- | Stable | A+ | Stable | ||||||
* Legally available funds pledge. ** Moral obligation pledge. |
Table 3
California municipalities: ratings list | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As of Oct. 21, 2024 | ||||||||||
This list was prepared by individuals on behalf of the USPF Group of S&P Global Ratings and is current as of Oct. 21, 2024. For the most up to date, accurate, and complete information on any credit ratings referenced in this list, please visit www.standardandpoors.com. | ||||||||||
Entity | Rating | Outlook | Ratings linked to obligor creditworthiness rating | Outlook | ||||||
Agoura Hills | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Alameda | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Albany | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Alhambra | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Anaheim | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Antioch | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Arcadia | AAA | Stable | AAA* | Stable | ||||||
Auburn | AA+* | Stable | ||||||||
Azusa | AA-* | Stable | ||||||||
Baldwin Pk | AA-* | Stable | ||||||||
Barstow | A+* | Stable | ||||||||
Bell | A | Stable | ||||||||
Bell Gardens | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Bellflower | AA-* | Stable | ||||||||
Benicia | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Berkeley | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Beverly Hills | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Brawley | A-* | Stable | ||||||||
Brea | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Brentwood | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Brisbane | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Buena Park | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Burbank | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
Burlingame | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Calabasas | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Camarillo | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Campbell | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Carlsbad | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Carmel By The Sea | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Carson | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Cathedral City | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Cerritos | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Chowchilla | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Chula Vista | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Claremont | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
Clovis | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Coachella | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Colma Town | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Colton | A | Stable | A- | Stable | ||||||
Commerce | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Concord | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Corona | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Corte Madera Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Costa Mesa | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Covina | AA* | Stable | ||||||||
Cupertino | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Delano | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Desert Hot Springs | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Diamond Bar | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Dinuba | A- | Stable | ||||||||
Downey | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Dublin | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
El Cajon | AA* | Stable | ||||||||
El Centro | A+ | Stable | A | Stable | ||||||
El Cerrito | BBB | Positive | ||||||||
El Monte | A | Stable | ||||||||
El Paso De Robles | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
El Segundo | AAA* | Stable | ||||||||
Elk Grove | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Emeryville | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
Encinitas | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Escondido | AA- | Stable | A+ | Stable | ||||||
Fairfax Town | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Fairfield | AA* | Stable | ||||||||
Fontana | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Fort Bragg | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Foster City | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Fountain Valley | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Fremont | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Fresno | AA- | Stable | A+ | Stable | ||||||
Fullerton | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Garden Grove | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Gardena | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Gilroy | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Glendale | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Glendora | AAA* | Stable | ||||||||
Gonzales | A | Stable | ||||||||
Grass Valley | AA* | Stable | ||||||||
Grover Beach | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Hawthorne | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Hayward | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Hermosa Beach | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Hesperia | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Huntington Beach | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Indian Wells | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Indio | AA- | Stable | A+ | Stable | ||||||
Inglewood | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Irvine | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Jurupa Valley | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Kingsburg | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
La Habra | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
La Mirada | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
La Puente | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
La Verne | AA+* | Stable | ||||||||
Laguna Hills | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Lake Elsinore | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Lake Forest | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Lakeport | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Lancaster | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Larkspur | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Lincoln | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Livermore | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Lodi | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Long Beach | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Los Alamitos | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Los Altos | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Los Angeles | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Los Gatos | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Lynwood | A- | Stable | ||||||||
Madera | A | Stable | ||||||||
Malibu | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Mammoth Lakes | A | Positive | ||||||||
Manhattan Beach | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Marina | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Martinez | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Marysville | A+* | Stable | ||||||||
Maywood | A+* | Stable | ||||||||
Mill Valley | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Millbrae | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Milpitas | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Mission Viejo | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Monrovia | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Montclair | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Montebello | A+ | Stable | A | Stable | ||||||
Monterey Park | AA* | Stable | ||||||||
Moraga | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Moreno Valley | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Morgan Hill | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Mountain View | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
Murrieta | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
National City | AA- | Stable | AA-* | Stable | ||||||
Newark | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Newport Beach | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Norwalk | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Oakland | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Oakley | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Oceanside | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Ontario | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Orange | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Orinda | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Oroville | AA-* | Stable | ||||||||
Oxnard | A+ | Stable | A | Stable | ||||||
Pacifica | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Palm Springs | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Palmdale | AA- | Positive | A+ | Positive | ||||||
Palo Alto | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Paramount | AA-* | Stable | ||||||||
Pasadena | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Petaluma | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Pico Rivera | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Piedmont | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
Pismo Beach | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Pittsburg | AA- | Stable | AA-* | Stable | ||||||
Placentia | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Pomona | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Porterville | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Poway | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Rancho Cordova | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Rancho Cucamonga | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Rancho Santa Margarita | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Red Bluff | A+* | Stable | ||||||||
Redding | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Redlands | AA+* | Stable | ||||||||
Redondo Beach | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Redwood City | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Rialto | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Richmond | AA- | Stable | A+ | Stable | ||||||
Ridgecrest | A | Stable | ||||||||
Riverside | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Rocklin | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Roseville | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Sacramento | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Salinas | AA- | Stable | A+ | Stable | ||||||
San Anselmo Twn | AAA | Stable | AAA* | Stable | ||||||
San Bruno | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
San Buenaventura | AA | Stable | ||||||||
San Carlos | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
San Diego | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
San Fernando | AA-* | Stable | ||||||||
San Francisco City and County | AAA | Negative | AA+ | Negative | ||||||
San Jose | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
San Juan Capistrano | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
San Leandro | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
San Luis Obispo | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
San Mateo | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
San Pablo | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
San Rafael | AA | Stable | ||||||||
San Ramon | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Santa Ana | AA | Stable | AA* | Stable | ||||||
Santa Clara | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Santa Clarita | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Santa Cruz | AA+ | Stable | AA | Stable | ||||||
Santa Monica | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Santa Rosa | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Saratoga | AAA | Stable | ||||||||
Sausalito | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Scotts Valley | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Seaside | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Shasta Lake | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Signal Hill | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Simi Valley | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
South Gate | A+* | Stable | ||||||||
South Lake Tahoe | AA | Stable | ||||||||
South San Francisco | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
St Helena | AA+ | Negative | ||||||||
Sunnyvale | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Thousand Oaks | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Torrance | AA | Stable | ||||||||
Tracy | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
Truckee | AA+ | Stable | ||||||||
Tulare | A | Stable | ||||||||
Ukiah | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Union City | AA+* | Stable | ||||||||
Vallejo | A | Stable | ||||||||
Victorville | AA- | Stable | A-** | Stable | ||||||
Visalia | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
Vista | AA- | Stable | ||||||||
West Covina | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
West Hollywood | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Whittier | AA* | Stable | ||||||||
Willows City | A* | Negative | ||||||||
Yorba Linda | AAA | Stable | AA+ | Stable | ||||||
Yountville | AA | Stable | AA- | Stable | ||||||
Yuba City | A+ | Stable | ||||||||
* Legally available funds pledge. ** Moral obligation pledge. |
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analyst: | Li Yang, San Francisco + 1 (415) 371 5024; li.yang@spglobal.com |
Secondary Contacts: | Krystal Tena, New York + 1 (212) 438-1628; krystal.tena@spglobal.com |
Sarah Sullivant, Austin + 1 (415) 371 5051; sarah.sullivant@spglobal.com | |
Research Assistant: | Yogeshwar Suresh, Mumbai |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.