articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/250331-u-s-local-governments-credit-brief-new-york-state-counties-and-municipalities-means-and-medians-13461523 content esgSubNav
In This List
COMMENTS

U.S. Local Governments Credit Brief: New York State Counties And Municipalities Means And Medians

COMMENTS

Credit FAQ: How The Global Climate Policy Pendulum Influences Our Credit Ratings

COMMENTS

The U.S. Public Finance Housing Sector Could Face Credit Pressure From Federal Policy Shifts

COMMENTS

Rating Changes Of 25 Major U.S. Cities Since 2000

COMMENTS

U.S. Brief: Energy As A Service Is Off-Balance-Sheet, But On-Credit For Not-For-Profit Health Care Providers


U.S. Local Governments Credit Brief: New York State Counties And Municipalities Means And Medians

Overview

S&P Global Ratings expects stability in New York State local government (LG) credit quality, given the portfolio's demonstrated revenue, expenditure flexibility, and reserve growth. We anticipate that built-up reserve positions for LGs will help mitigate current and future economic headwinds. Currently, sales tax revenue growth lagged previous years, with several counties trailing previous years' growth levels. Despite slowing sales tax collections, significant expenditure savings, growing property tax revenue, and strong investment income revenue underpin strong operating performances.

The potential for a broader economic slowdown in the upcoming year could temper LGs' operating performances. LGs that depend heavily on economically sensitive revenue with limited expenditure flexibility are the most exposed to downward pressure. Federal funding is not a significant portion of revenue for New York LGs, although any unknown impacts of tariffs and rising energy and capital costs, coupled with reductions in grant funding will pressure LGs, especially those with limited operational and revenue-raising flexibility.

S&P Global Ratings maintains ratings on 252 LGs: 221 municipalities and 31 counties. Throughout 2024, overall credit quality has remained stable, with 207 ratings assigned stable outlooks, three with positive outlooks, and 11 exhibiting negative outlooks or being on CreditWatch negative.

During this time, we upgraded several counties and local governments due to strong reserve growth and positive economic momentum. Negative rating actions have primarily stemmed from deteriorating financial positions, often linked to reserve draws. Following the implementation of our new criteria, "Methodology For Rating U.S. Governments," published Sept. 9, 2024, on RatingsDirect, negative rating actions have been associated with LGs with small populations and nominally low reserves. Conversely, positive rating movement has reflected strong reserve and liquidity balances and robust local economies, supported by formalized policies and practices.

What We Are Watching In 2025 And Beyond

image
Economic development is expected to continue, albeit at a slower pace than previous years

New York State's economy remains one of the strongest among states. However the possibility of an economic contraction and any potential negative variances in tax revenue, exacerbated by the state's reliance on capital gains and its exposure to changes in the financial service sector, may weaken the already anticipated slow economic growth that trails peers. Additionally, U.S. federal policy implementation on trade and tariffs, immigration, and the administration of federal funding to states could pressure New York in particular. Despite these possible pressures, the state continues to invest in various economic development projects and incubators throughout the state to ensure future growth. Notably, it continues to focus on investments in the semiconductor and renewable energy space such as Micron in Onondaga County, in addition to various projects all over New York. The governor has proposed another round of grants ($100 million) for its FAST NY shovel ready program to develop sites throughout the state for large employers. Overall, we believe ongoing economic growth will underpin key revenue sources, such as property and sales taxes, for most New York LGs.

Revenue-raising flexibility remains somewhat constrained and pressured by growing expenditures

New York LGs remain constrained by the state's 2% levy increase cap, which can be overridden with a 60% vote of its governing body, which, depending on each municipality, may be politically untenable. That said, given still-somewhat elevated inflation and pressure from collective bargaining agreements, their budgets could be squeezed further. Increases in salaries and benefits and the cessation of American Rescue Plan funding have several local governments exceeding the tax cap and raising taxes north of 4% to ensure fiscal stability. In addition, in the fiscal 2026 budget, the governor proposed keeping AIM funding flat with minimal increases in CHIPS funding, which could stress budgets even more. The governor's executive budget contains increased support, especially to counties, for initiatives around public safety, infrastructure, government consolidation, and antipoverty.

Spotlight On Environmental, Social, And Governance Factors

image

Several New York LGs have coastal exposure, particularly New York City and municipalities on Long Island, and inland flooding is common, notably in the Southern Tier and Mohawk Valley along flood plains. To address these issues, many LGs are making infrastructure improvements, such as stormwater management upgrades. The state continues to support various efforts for climate change mitigation. Investments in reductions in carbon emissions at state facilities, additional funding for coastal resiliency programs, and increasing grant funding for flood control infrastructure projects underpin the state's ongoing support to mitigate the effects of physical risks. We view these efforts positively but note the long-term risks the environment and location pose.

We consider governance factors for New York LGs neutral, based on offsetting supportive and challenging operating aspects. All New York municipalities and school districts are subject to oversight through the state comptroller's fiscal stress monitoring system, an early warning system that allows officials and taxpayers to be proactive in communities and school districts under financial stress. The 2026 state budget continues investment in the Cyber Risk Remediation Program and builds on efforts and initiatives out of the New York Security Office. We expect this continued investment will help LGs build a baseline defense against this evolving risk. OPEB liabilities continue to pose a challenge to municipalities, and we expect they will rise unless significant changes are made to state statutes.

We view social capital risks as neutral overall. Many LGs are facing demographic pressures while others face affordability problems. In addition, an aging and shrinking workforce, coupled with recruiting difficulties, has led to staffing shortages and human capital challenges. To alleviate these pressures, LGs continue to find ways to retain workers, such as offering incentive pay and higher salaries. We note the governor has launched various housing initiatives throughout the state to grow workforces and improve affordable housing. Furthermore, the budget calls for a new $50 million round of capital grants for "Resilient and Ready," which supports homeowners affected by extreme weather events.

Table 1

New York counties: Medians
AAA AA+ AA AA- A+
Median county GCP (%) of the U.S. 135.80 78.20 97.20 65.90 60.30
Median county PCPI (%) of the U.S. 190.60 106.30 91.40 80.30 72.90
Median local HHEBI (%) of the U.S. 142.60 121.20 96.55 93.80 82.00
Median local PCEBI (%) of the U.S. 154.90 115.90 98.75 90.70 78.90
Median three-year performance sverage (%) of revenues 4.80 8.00 6.95 6.50 6.10
Median general fund balance (%) of revenues 22.30 23.30 28.00 27.00 21.70
Median fund balance plus non-general fund (%) of revenues 22.30 23.30 28.15 27.00 21.70
Median debt service (%) of revenues 6.80 4.20 5.10 2.70 2.30
Median net direct debt per capita 1,737 552 890 657 494
Median pension contribution (%) of revenues 5.80 3.40 4.00 3.80 3.40
Median net pension liablity per capita 398 328 329 456 455
GCP--Gross county product. PCPI--Per capita personal income. HHEBI--Household effective buying income. PCEBI--Per capita effective buying income.

Table 2

New York municipalities: Medians
AAA AA+ AA AA- A+ A A- BBB+ or Lower
Median county GCP (%) of the U.S. 107.40 104.80 100.40 78.20 74.25 68.50 61.55 72.70
Median county PCPI (%) of the U.S. 149.90 114.60 94.30 91.50 81.70 76.10 70.90 91.10
Median local HHEBI (%) of the U.S. 179.80 148.00 124.90 99.60 87.40 81.40 82.35 71.30
Median local PCEBI (%) of the U.S. 181.70 142.70 126.20 93.70 87.90 78.70 72.65 77.95
Median three-year performance sverage (%) of revenues 4.00 3.90 4.70 4.50 4.80 4.05 5.95 1.05
Median general fund balance (%) of revenues 49.10 38.90 43.45 44.70 45.95 38.15 32.70 6.20
Median fund balance plus non-general fund (%) of revenues 54.70 40.75 45.50 44.70 41.55 38.15 39.55 6.20
Median debt service (%) of revenues 6.00 5.85 6.55 6.95 7.10 11.50 12.55 7.65
Median net direct debt per capita 1,229 843 658 961 1,367 1,735 745 1,515
Median pension contribution (%) of revenues 5.80 6.40 4.85 5.40 4.80 3.50 2.00 8.25
Median net pension liablity per capita 416 99 69 120 115 99 95 712
*While we are providing medians for BBB+ and lower ratings, such ratings have additional qualitative factors that are supporting them. GCP--Gross county product. PCPI--Per capita personal income. HHEBI--Household effective buying income. PCEBI--Per capita effective buying income.

Chart 1

image

Chart 2

image

Table 3

New York counties: Rating list
As of March 24, 2025
This list was prepared by individuals on behalf of the UPSF Group of S&P Global Ratings and is current as of March 24 2025. For the most up to date, accurate, and complete information on any credit ratings referenced in the list, please visit www.standardandpoors.com
Entity Rating Outlook
Albany County AA Stable
Allegany County A+ Stable
Broome County A+ Stable
Chautauqua County A+ Stable
Cortland County A+ Stable
Dutchess County AA+ Stable
Erie County AA Stable
Essex County AA Stable
Franklin County* A Stable
Genesee County AA- Stable
Lewis County A+ Stable
Madison County AA- Stable
Monroe County AA Stable
Montgomery County A+ Stable
Nassau County AA Stable
Oneida County AA- Stable
Onondaga County AA Positive
Orange County AA+ Stable
Rensselaer County AA Stable
Rockland County AA Stable
Saratoga County AA+ Stable
Schoharie County AA- Stable
Schuyler County A+ Stable
Seneca County AA- Stable
St Lawrence County A+ Stable
Suffolk County AA- Stable
Sullivan County AA Stable
Ulster County AA Stable
Warren County AA Stable
Wayne County AA- Stable
Westchester County AAA Stable
*Reflects the rating for Franklin County Solid Waste Management Authority--an appropriation rating for the county.

Table 4

New York municipalities: Rating list
As of March 24, 2025
This list was prepared by individuals on behalf of the UPSF Group of S&P Global Ratings and is current as of March 24 2025. For the most up to date, accurate, and complete information on any credit ratings referenced in the list, please visit www.standardandpoors.com
Entity Rating Outlook
Adams Town A+ Stable
Airmont Village AA Stable
Albany A+ Stable
Albion Town A- Stable
Alexander Twn A Stable
Alexandria Bay Village AA- Stable
Altamont Village AA- Stable
Amityville Village AA Stable
Amsterdam Town A+ Stable
Arcade Village A+ Stable
Arcadia Town A+ Stable
Atlantic Beach Village AA Stable
Avon Village A+ Stable
Babylon Town AA+ Stable
Babylon Village AA Stable
Bath Village A+ Stable
Bedford Town AAA Stable
Beekmantown AA- Stable
Bellmont Town A+ Stable
Bellport Village AA+ Stable
Benton Town A+ Stable
Bergen Town A+ Stable
Bethlehem Town AA+ Stable
Bloomfield Village A+ Stable
Boonville Village A Stable
Brewster Village BBB+ Positive
Briarcliff Manor Village AA+ Stable
Brightwaters Village AA+ Stable
Brockport Village A+ Stable
Brookhaven Town AAA Stable
Brunswick AA Stable
Buchanan Village AA- Stable
Buffalo A+ Stable
Canandaigua AA- Stable
Cattaraugus Village A Stable
Chenango Town AA- Stable
Cicero Town AA Stable
City of Hudson A+ Stable
City of Poughkeepsie BBB+ Positive
Clarendon A Stable
Clarkstown Town AA Stable
Clayton Village A+ Stable
Clinton Town AA+ Stable
Clinton Village A+ Stable
Cohoes AA- Stable
Collins Twn AA- Stable
Colonie Town AA Stable
Concord AA- Stable
Corinth Village A Stable
Corning Town A+ Stable
Cortland A Negative
Coxsackie A Stable
Depew Village AA- Stable
Dewitt Town AA Stable
Dryden Village A+ Stable
East Aurora Village AA+ Stable
East Bloomfield Town A+ Stable
East Rochester Village AA- Stable
East Rockaway Village AA Watch Neg
Elmira A- Positive
Endicott Village A Stable
Enfield Town A Stable
Esopus AA- Stable
Evans A+ Stable
Fairport Village AA Stable
Farmingdale Village AA+ Stable
Fayetteville Village A+ Stable
Fleming AA- Stable
Frankfort Town A+ Stable
Frankfort Village A Stable
Fulton BBB+ Watch Neg
Geneseo Village A+ Stable
Geneva AA- Stable
Glens Falls A+ Stable
Goshen Town AA+ Stable
Goshen Village AA- Stable
Gouverneur Village A Stable
Greece Town AA Stable
Greenburgh Town AAA Stable
Greene Village A Stable
Greenport Town AA- Stable
Guilford Town A+ Stable
Halfmoon AA+ Stable
Hamlin Town AA Stable
Hannibal Town A- Stable
Harriman Village AA- Stable
Hastings Town A+ Stable
Hempstead Town AA Stable
Hempstead Village AA- Stable
Highland Falls Village AA- Stable
Huntington Town AAA Stable
Islip AA+ Stable
Jamestown A- Stable
Jerusalem (Town of) AA- Stable
Kendall A Stable
Kingston AA- Stable
Kirkwood Town A+ Stable
Kiryas Joel Village A- Stable
Lafayette Town AA- Watch Neg
Lake George Village AA Stable
LeRay Town A Stable
Leroy Village A+ Stable
Lewisboro Town AA+ Stable
Lewiston Village AA Stable
Lima Vill A+ Stable
Lindenhurst Village AA Stable
Lynbrook Village AA+ Stable
Lyndonville Village A Stable
Lysander Town AA Stable
Malverne Village AA+ Stable
Mamaroneck Village AA+ Stable
Manorhaven Village AA+ Stable
Marcellus Town AA- Stable
Marcellus Village A+ Stable
Marilla Town AA Stable
Medina Village A+ Stable
Mendon Town AA+ Stable
New Hartford Town AA- Watch Neg
New Hartford Village A+ Stable
New Hyde Park Village AA+ Stable
New York City AA Stable
Newark Village A+ Stable
Niagara Falls BBB+ Stable
Niskayuna AA+ Stable
North Elba Town AA Stable
North Greenbush Town AA Stable
North Salem Town AA+ Stable
Nunda Twn A+ Stable
Nyack Village AA- Stable
Oakfield Town A- Stable
Ocean Beach Village AAA Stable
Old Brookvill Village AAA Stable
Oneida AA- Stable
Oneonta AA- Stable
Oneonta Town AA- Stable
Orchard Park Village AA+ Stable
Owasco Town AA- Stable
Owego Town AA- Watch Neg
Oyster Bay Town AA- Stable
Palmyra Town A+ Stable
Patchogue Village AA Stable
Pavilion Twn AA- Stable
Pawling AA+ Stable
Pelham Village AA+ Stable
Penn Yan Village A+ Stable
Perinton Town AA+ Stable
Perry Village A Stable
Peru Town A+ Stable
Piermont AA+ Stable
Plandome Village AAA Stable
Potsdam Village A Watch Neg
Princetown AA- Stable
Ramapo Town AA- Negative
Red Hook Town AA Stable
Ridgeway Town A- Stable
Rochester AA- Stable
Rockville Centre AAA Stable
Rome A+ Stable
Sackets Harbor Village A+ Stable
Saltaire Village AAA Stable
Santa Clara AA+ Stable
Saratoga Springs AA+ Stable
Saratoga Town AA+ Watch Neg
Saugerties Town AA- Stable
Schenectady A+ Stable
Schodack Town AA+ Stable
Scottsville Village A+ Stable
Sea Cliff Village AA+ Stable
Seneca Falls Town A+ Watch Neg
Shawangunk Town AA- Stable
Shoreham Village AA Stable
Silver Springs A- Stable
Skaneateles Village AA Stable
South Blooming Grove Village AA- Stable
South Bristol Twn AA Stable
Springville Village A+ Stable
Sweden Town AA Stable
Syracuse A+ Stable
Tonawanda AA- Stable
Town of LeRoy A+ Stable
Town of Lenox A+ Stable
Town of Marion A+ Stable
Town of Monroe AA Stable
Town of Oswego A Stable
Town of Phelps A+ Stable
Town of Riga AA Stable
Town of Southampton AAA Stable
Town of Wappinger AA+ Stable
Town of Windsor A+ Stable
Town of York A+ Stable
Troy A+ Stable
Tuckahoe Village AA+ Stable
Tupper Lake Village A Stable
Tuxedo Park Village AA Stable
Ulster Town AA- Stable
Upper Brookville AAA Stable
Upper Nyack Village AA+ Stable
Utica A Stable
Van Buren Town AA- Stable
Vestal AA- Stable
Village of Adams A Stable
Village of Laurel Hollow AAA Stable
Village of Philadelphia A- Stable
Village of Southampton AAA Stable
Village of Woodridge A+ Stable
Voorheesville Village AA Stable
Walton Village A Stable
Waterford Vill A Stable
Watervliet A+ Stable
Watkins Glen Village A+ Stable
Waverly Village A Stable
Wellsville Village A+ Stable
Westbury Village AA+ Stable
Whitehall Village A Negative
Williamson Town AA Stable
Woodbury Town AA+ Stable
Woodbury Village AA+ Stable
Woodstock Town AA Stable
Yates (Town of) (Orleans County) A- Stable
Yonkers A+ Stable

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analyst:Lauren Freire, New York + 1 (212) 438 7854;
lauren.freire@spglobal.com
Secondary Contact:Christian Richards, Washington D.C. + 1 (617) 530 8325;
christian.richards@spglobal.com
Research Contributors:Subria Bello, New York;
subria.bello@spglobal.com
Bhagyesh Supekar, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, 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.

 

Create a free account to unlock the article.

Gain access to exclusive research, events and more.

Already have an account?    Sign in