Weekly Credit Outlook for Public Finance - January 9, 2014

8/13/2019 Weekly Credit Outlook for Public Finance - January 9, 2014

1/18

MOODYS.CO

JANUARY 9, 20

FEATURE ARTICLESVolcker Rules Effect on Tender Option Bonds a Credit Negative forMunicipal MarketThe version of the rule adopted in December prohibits banks fromparticipating in tender option bonds as currently structured. TOBproviders are seeking alternatives.

2

Boeing Machinists Approve Contract, a Credit Positive forWashington StateIn a reversal, Boeing machinists have a deal to build 777X jetliners in

Washington state, where the manufacturer is the largestprivate employer.

4

Courts Offer Contrasting Outcomes for California Cities Seeking toCut Retirement Benefits A court upheld restrictions on pension reform in San Jose, while anotheraffirmed San Diegos right to modify non-vested retiree health benefits.

6

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Pension Reforms, a CreditPositive for the State and Local GovernmentsA court decision reduces the adjusted net pension liabilities of the statestwo cost-sharing pension plans by $2 billion, while also curbing the rateof growth of pension costs.

8

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTSPhiladelphia School District: Fiscal Stabilization Requires Support ofAll Major StakeholdersMoodys Ba2 underlying rating on the Philadelphia School Districts $3.4billion of long-term general obligation revenue bonds reflects thedistricts high poverty, sizeable debt burden and history of unevenfinancial management.

16

MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY UPDATEHighlights of Recent DevelopmentsCreditors are challenging a deal Detroit has with UBS and Bank ofAmerica, while San Bernardino, CA may look to pension restructuring.

Single-Employer Pension Plans May Be Easiest to Restructure inChapter 9A pension plan like Detroits may be simpler to reorganize in Chapter 9than a CalPERS-style plan burdening bankrupt California cities.

General Obligation Spotlight: AlabamaMunicipalities issue limited tax debt, while the state constitution has strictlimitations on property tax rates and closely regulates revenue sources.

RATING CHANGE HIGHLIGHTSCalifornia Department of Water Resources Power Supply BondsPlaced Under Review for Upgrade, Rating Aa3The review on $6.6 billion of power supply revenue bonds reflectsdecreasing operating risk.

Mercy Medical Center's (IA) Outlook Revised to Negative, A2Rating AffirmedThe revised outlook of $118 million in revenue bonds takes deteriorationin MSC's operating margins in fiscal year 2013 into account.

Greenville Utilities Commissions (NC) Revenue Bonds Upgraded toAa3 from A1, Outlook StableThe upgrade of $115 million in revenue bonds factors in the diverse utilityrevenue stream of the system, which is pledged to bondholders.

Bon Secours Health System, Inc.'s Outlook to Positive, A3Rating AffirmedThe outlook change on $790 million reflects expectations that operatingmargins in 2014 will continue at rates higher than the historical levels.

Broward County Seaport Enterprise Port Facilities Outlook Revised toPositive, A2 Rating AffirmedThe outlook change on $224 million factors in expectations of increasedtraffic and operations.

Bard College Downgraded to Ba1 from Baa1, Outlook Revisedto NegativeThe downgrade and outlook change on the $135 million in debt reflectliquidity concerns and the possibility of breaching loan covenants.

Access our moodys.com public finance landing page atmoodys.com/UsPublicFinance
http://www.moodys.com/https://www.moodys.com/researchandratings/market-segment/u.s.-public-finance/-/005003/4294966117/4294966623/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/rrahttps://www.moodys.com/researchandratings/market-segment/u.s.-public-finance/-/005003/4294966117/4294966623/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/rrahttps://www.moodys.com/researchandratings/market-segment/u.s.-public-finance/-/005003/4294966117/4294966623/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/rrahttp://www.moodys.com/


2/18

MOODYS WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION JANU

Volcker Rules Effect on Tender Option Bonds a Credit Negative for Municipal MarketSection 619 of the final version of the Volcker Rule adopted by federal regulators in December prohibitsbanks from participating in tender option bond (TOB) programs as currently structured. Unless TOBprogram sponsors find a way to structure TOBs that does not violate the rule, the Volcker Rule will

eliminate TOBs when it becomes effective in July 2015. The elimination of the TOB market, currentlyabout $75 billion, would be a credit negative for the municipal bond market because it would put upwardpressure on municipal interest rates as TOBs are unwound. On the margin, market volatility would alsoincrease because the market would lose the TOB investor base.

A TOB transaction typically involves the deposit of tax-exempt long-term municipal bonds into a trust. Ttrust issues two classes of securities: floater certificates and residual certificates. Like variable rate demabonds (VRDB), the floater certificate provides the holder the option, generally on a daily or weekly basitender the floater for purchase at par. On tender dates, a remarketing agent sets an interest rate for the flocertificate at a level it expects will allow for a sale at par. Investors, primarily money market funds, purcfloater certificates based mainly on a liquidity providers commitment to purchase any floater certificateare not successfully remarketed. Residual investors receive all interest on the underlying bond minus

whatever is paid to floater certificate holders. From a business perspective, the residual investor holds thunderlying bond with financing provided by investors in the floaters. Residual certificates are typically hby the program sponsor, a mutual fund or a hedge fund. Banks participate in every TOB program assponsor, residual investor and/or liquidity support provider, in many cases all three.

The removal of TOB programs as buyers of municipal bonds as well as the unwinding of existing TOB tbetween now and July 2015 will put upward pressure on municipal interest rates by eliminating a sourcedemand and by increasing supply. Higher rates would be credit negative for the municipal issuers,particularly for those with significant borrowing needs. Redistribution of $75 billion mostly fixed ratemunicipal bonds currently held by TOB programs is effectively incremental secondary market supply eqto more than 20% of the new issue supply projected for 2014 (see Exhibit 1).

EXHIBIT 1

Unwinding of TOB Market Would Increase Supply Into the MarketAmount of annual issuance; $ billions

Source: Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA)

The elimination of the TOB market would also be a negative for tax-exempt money market funds that reon such investments to remain fully invested within strict average maturity and diversification requireme

At a total of about $270 billion outstanding, tax-exempt money market funds represent the primary buyeTOB floater certificates. Without TOB floaters some tax-exempt money market funds may not be able tostay fully invested (see Exhibit 2) in tax-exempt securities.

0

100

200

300

400

500

2010 2011 2012 2013 Est. 2014

Total Municipal Issuance TOB Market

Michael LoughlinVice President Senior [email protected]


3/18


EXHIBIT 2Without TOB Market Tax Exempt Funds Pressed in Decreasing Variable Rate Demand ObligationMarketSize of the Tax Exempt Money Market Funds and Municipal VRDO markets; $ billions

Source: Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Tax Exempt Money Market Funds Municipal VRDO Market


4/18


Boeing Machinists Approve Contract, a Credit Positive for Washington StateOn January 3, the Boeing Company (A2 stable) machinists approved the companys proposed contractextension, securing the companys assembly of its new 777X jetliners in the state of Washingtons (Aa1stable) Puget Sound region. Workers narrowly approved (51% to 49%) a proposal similar to one they

rejected in November. The vote solidifies Boeings presence in Washington, where it is the largest privatemployer, and is credit positive for the state and the Puget Sound region.

Although Boeing made some concessions in the new contract, the rapid vote reversal largely reflects thecompanys willingness to relocate in another state depending on the contract outcome. Following the failNovember vote, Boeing pursued incentives offered by several other states to move production. At least 2states, including California, Missouri and South Carolina, wooed Boeing, and some offered subsidies wobillions of dollars. Had Boeings production moved from Washington, it would have been credit negativethe state.

Boeings 86,000 workers in Washington account for about 3% of the states labor force. The states totalaerospace-related employment is approximately 130,000. Boeings backlog of customer orders is worth billion, fueling the addition of more than 4,000 jobs in the region over the past two years. The jobs havebeen crucial to the regions vibrant labor market and its rebound from the economic downturn, although states economic forecast reflects modest declines in aerospace employment over the next four years. Boand its suppliers, employees and other related companies generated approximately $76 billion in total saacross the state and $20 billion in employee incomes, including benefits, in 2012.

The revised contract extends through 2024 a November 2011 labor agreement that was set to expire in 2It adds a $5,000 onetime payment to each worker in January 2020, on top of the $10,000 signing bonuspreviously promised upon ratification, and preserves the current six-year progression to full pay rather thextending the period to at least 16 years. It also freezes pension benefits and moves workers from a definbenefit to a defined contribution retirement savings plan. As part of the 2011 agreement, Boeings union

withdrew a complaint lodged with the National Labor Relations Board over the companys decision to loa production line in South Carolina, significantly reducing the likelihood of a strike. Following the recenvote, Boeing confirmed plans to assemble its next airplane, the 777X, and build its new wing in Washing

where it has been for nearly 100 years, ensuring that thousands of high-paying, highly skilled aerospacemanufacturing jobs will stay in the Puget Sound region.

To help win the 777X, Washington offered to extend tax incentives that were scheduled to expire at the eof the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. The extensions will save aerospace-related companies an estima$8.7 billion between fiscal 2025 and 2040, the largest corporate tax break any state has ever bestowed upan industry. The largest beneficiary is Boeing. In turn, the state expects the aerospace industry will gener$21.3 billion in direct and indirect fiscal benefits to the state over that period from additional business anoccupation, sales and other state taxes. Since Washington does not levy an income tax, it relies heavily osales tax (48% of 2013 general fund revenues) and business and occupation tax (21% of 2013 general furevenues). Boeing and other supporting companies paid the state a total of $544 million in various taxes

2012, as shown in the exhibit.

Nicole Johnsonenior Vice [email protected]

Andrea UnsworthAnalyst

[email protected]
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Boeing-Company-The-credit-rating-108050https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Boeing-Company-The-credit-rating-108050https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Boeing-Company-The-credit-rating-108050https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Washington-State-of-credit-rating-600026663https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Washington-State-of-credit-rating-600026663https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Washington-State-of-credit-rating-600026663https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Washington-State-of-credit-rating-600026663https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Boeing-Company-The-credit-rating-108050


5/18


Washington State Estimated Taxes from Aerospace

Note: Estimated taxes include business and occupation, sales and other taxes.Source: Washington State Aerospace Industry Economic Impact Study, November 2013

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$ M

i l l i o n s


6/18


Courts Offer Contrasting Outcomes for California Cities Seeking RetirementBenefit CutsIn late December, California judicial decisions offered contrasting views on a municipalitys ability to alretirement benefits. A court upheld restrictions on pension reform in San Jose (Aa1 stable1), while another

affirmed San Diegos (Aa3 stable) right to modify non-vested retiree health benefits.

The credit implications are mixed for San Jose as the city will continue to realize $20 million in annualsavings from some aspects of a 2012 reform initiative, according to the mayor. However, the city will beunable to achieve further savings called for by voters. San Diego will continue to benefit from retireehealthcare savings implemented in 2010, which at the time lowered its other post-employment benefits(OPEB) unfunded liability by 31% to $969 million, a credit positive.

On December 23, a lower court ruled that certain provisions of a voter-approved reform measure in San were invalid because they illegally impaired benefits. On December 26, a state appellate court upheld a rin favor of San Diegos ability to modify non-vested retiree health benefits.

The decisions underscore a distinction between vested pension benefits, which cannot be modified eventhrough a voter initiative, and non-vested OPEBs, which California local governments have flexibility toreduce.

In San Jose, the judge blocked the city from suspending retiree cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) andmandating that employees increase pension contributions or accept lower benefits for future work. The jdid leave in place the elimination of supplemental pension payouts and increases to employee contributitoward OPEBs, prompting the mayor to assert a continued $20 million in annual savings.

The San Jose ruling upholds protections both for pension benefits that have already been earned and willearned going forward. This locks municipal employers into the same or a more expensive benefit formulthe length of service.

The San Jose mayor has proposed an amendment to the states constitution to allow pension benefitreductions for future work. Our projections show the provision could generate pension savings by reducigrowth in actuarial accrued liabilities (AALs). The cost for funding one hypothetical workers pension cbe trimmed by thousands of dollars annually. The liability at retirement could be lowered by hundreds ofthousands of dollars, if five years into this employees career, the benefit formula were reduced from 3%final average salary at age 65 to 2% (see Exhibit 1).

1 All ratings are for general obligation debt.

om AaronAnalyst

[email protected]
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Jose-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600013108https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Jose-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600013108https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Jose-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600013108https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Diego-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005266https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Diego-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005266https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Diego-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005266mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Diego-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005266https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Jose-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600013108


7/18


EXHIBIT 1Changes to Pension Benefit Formulas for Future Work Could Generate Significant Savings

Source: Moodys. Assumptions: entry age of 25, $50,000 salary at age 30, r etirement age of 65, 3% and 2% benefit multipliers oear final average salary, Entry Age Normal cost method, 7.75% discount rate, 3% annual salary growth, 3% COLA, mortality ag

In San Diego, a state lower courts ruling affirmed the citys reduction of retiree health benefits. The decupheld a 2010 freeze of OPEB benefits for San Diego employees, which at the time lowered the citys Ounfunded liability from $1.4 billion to $969 million. Under the citys charter, changes to the pension systrequire a vote of employees and retirees. But the court affirmed that OPEBs are not provided under the cpension system and do not require a vote to be changed.

The San Diego ruling also relied partly on a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that OPEBsSan Diego are not protected contract rights, but are a term of employment that can be changed.Conversely, a recent ruling found that OPEBs for certain employees in Los Angeles (Aa2 stable) arecontractually protected. That ruling concluded that sections of the citys Administrative Code signal alegislative intent to grant a vested right to retiree health benefits, unlike the case of San Diego.

For more information on Moodys insights on employee pensions and the related credit impact oncompanies, governments, and other entities across the globe please visit Moodys on Pensions at

www.moodys.com/pensions.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

$ i n M

i l l i o n s

$ D o

l l a r s

Age

AAL - 3% @ 65 AAL - 2% Reform Begin Age 31

Normal Cost - 2% reform begin at age 31 Normal Cost - 3% @ 65
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Los-Angeles-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600003106https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Los-Angeles-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600003106https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Los-Angeles-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600003106https://www.moodys.com/newsandevents/topics/moody-s-on-pensions/-/007021/4294961899/4294965962/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rrahttps://www.moodys.com/newsandevents/topics/moody-s-on-pensions/-/007021/4294961899/4294965962/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rrahttps://www.moodys.com/newsandevents/topics/moody-s-on-pensions/-/007021/4294961899/4294965962/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rrahttp://www.moodys.com/pensionshttp://www.moodys.com/pensionshttp://www.moodys.com/pensionshttps://www.moodys.com/newsandevents/topics/moody-s-on-pensions/-/007021/4294961899/4294965962/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rrahttps://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Los-Angeles-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600003106


8/18


New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Pension Reforms, a Credit Positive for the Stateand Local GovernmentsOn December 19, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld recent pension reforms enacted by the state la

July, rejecting a challenge by retirees. The courts decision is credit positive for New Mexico (Aaa stable) an

local governments in the state because it upholds measures that reduced the adjusted net pension liabiliti(ANPL) of the states two cost-sharing pension plans by $2 billion, or 8%. The reform measures also cuthe rate of growth of pension costs for participating governments.

The New Mexico legislature passed two bills in July to reform the Public Employees Retirement Associ(PERA) and Educational Retirement Board (ERB). The reforms reduced cost-of-living adjustments(COLand increased employee contribution rates. As reported by the pension plans, fiscal 2013 unfunded accruactuarial liability (UAAL) declined by an estimated $1.7 billion for PERA over the prior year, but ERBUAAL only declined by $6.7 million because its COLA was not reduced as much. By increasing employcontributions, the reforms also enabled a reduction in the rate of growth of employer contributions.

According to our calculations that make various adjustments to reported UAAL, PERAs ANPL declined

$4.4 billion in fiscal 2013, reversing 68% of the increase from the prior year (see Exhibit 1). The ERBs ANPL declined by $1.9 billion. About $2 billion of the two plans combined $6.3 billion reduction in ANPL in fiscal 2013 is due to the positive impact of the reforms. The remaining reduction was fueled bystrong investment performance over the year and the higher interest rates used to calculate the present vaof the liabilities. We derive ANPL figures by making adjustments to reported numbers, such as applyingmarket-based interest rate (the Citibank Pension Liability Index) to estimate the present value of liabilitiThe index rose to 4.81% as of June 30, 2013 from 4.13% a year earlier, and accounted for the largestportion of the ANPL decline for both plans.

EXHIBIT 1Adjusted Net Pension Liability

Source: Preliminary pension valuation data and ou r pension adjustments, as explained in (Adjustments to US State and Local GovReported Pension Data)

Despite the recent improvement, the average ANPL of a contributing local governmental entity of PERAand ERB is approximately three-times its operating revenues, which is significantly higher than the natiomedian of onetime. Going forward, even with the reforms, the unfunded liabilities will remain elevated,

which will be a continued source of risk to local governments participating in the plans. Mending the larliabilities would likely require deeper cuts to benefits, more substantial increases in employer and emplocontributions, or having a sustained multi-year trend of making contributions at full actuarial required le

$5,000

$7,000

$9,000

$11,000

$13,000

$15,000

$17,000

6/30/2010 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 6/30/2013

M i l l i o n s

PERA ERB PERA without reform ERB without reform

rayson NicholsAnalyst

[email protected]
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/New-Mexico-State-of-credit-rating-600025482https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/New-Mexico-State-of-credit-rating-600025482https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/New-Mexico-State-of-credit-rating-600025482https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/New-Mexico-State-of-credit-rating-600025482


9/18


The level that participating local governments contribute to the plans is set by the state. Historically, thestate has set contribution levels much lower than what is actuarially required, which is a major reason whthe unfunded liability is so high.

The upheld reforms instituted last July raise contribution levels (see Exhibit 2), but not enough to reachlevels prescribed by actuarial standards. To meet these standards, PERA and ERB would each need toincrease annual statutory contribution rates by 4.3% in order to fully close unfunded liabilities over the n30 years.

EXHIBIT 2

Shifts Increase Amortization and Employer Pension Costs

PERA ERB

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2013

Member Contribution Rate 11.24% 12.04% 9.40% 10.10%

Employer Normal Cost Rate 9.58% 6.88% 4.39% 3.06%Amortization Rate 4.30% 7.71% 6.51% 10.09%

Total Employer ontribution Rate 13.88 14.59 10.90 13.15

Source: PERA and ERB Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Actuarial Valuations

New Mexico is one of several of states that have enacted COLA changes affecting retirees and existingemployees. Legal challenges to COLA reductions are currently in progress in a number states, such as Iland Montana, though these will be decided in the context of the legal framework in each state and will nbe directly affected by the decision in New Mexico.

For more information on Moodys insights on employee pensions and the related credit impact oncompanies, governments, and other entities across the globe please visit Moodys on Pensions at

www.moodys.com/pensions.
https://www.moodys.com/newsandevents/topics/moody-s-on-pensions/-/007021/4294961899/4294965962/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rrahttps://www.moodys.com/newsandevents/topics/moody-s-on-pensions/-/007021/4294961899/4294965962/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rrahttps://www.moodys.com/newsandevents/topics/moody-s-on-pensions/-/007021/4294961899/4294965962/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rrahttp://www.moodys.com/pensionshttp://www.moodys.com/pensionshttp://www.moodys.com/pensionshttps://www.moodys.com/newsandevents/topics/moody-s-on-pensions/-/007021/4294961899/4294965962/-1/0/-/0/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/en/global/pdf/-/rra


10/18

0 MOODYS WEEKLY CREDIT OUTLOOK: US PUBLIC FINANCE EDITION JANU

MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY: UPDATE & INSIGHTS

Highlights of Recent Developments

DETROIT, MI(Caa3 NEGATIVE2)

Judge Reviews Proposed Swap Deal With UBS/Bank Of America Detroit has renegotiated with swap counterparties UBS and Bank of America to lower the swap

termination payment to $165 million, $65 million less than the original deal. The payment would befinanced by new debt. Bond insurers and other creditors are challenging the agreement, and the partiesawait a ruling from the presiding judge.

Detroits mediation with multiple classes of creditors continues as the parties seek to reach compromisbefore the city files its plan of adjustment, expected this month.

The citys negotiation with suburban leaders continues regarding a possible long-term lease of the city water and sewer system.

Recent Publications:

1. Court Approval of Detroit Public Lighting Authority Issuance is Credit Negative

2. Detroit Eligible for Bankruptcy; Pensions Will Not Be Protected, but Debt Priority RemainsUnclear

HARRISBURG, PA(UNRATED)

City Erases Nearly $500 Million in Debt, Remains under State Control The state-appointed receiver filed closing papers with Pennsylvanias Commonwealth Court on Decem

23 that erased approximately $492 million of debt and restructured an additional $100 million throughthe sale of the city waste-to-energy incinerator, a 40-year lease of parking assets and creditor haircuts.

The centerpiece of agreements concluded on December 23 were two bond transactions totaling $415million. Both transactions involved the sale of new bonds to extinguish outstanding indebtedness of thHarrisburg Authority, which operated the troubled waste-to-energy incinerator.

The city will remain under the control of the receiver until at least mid-2014.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL (Caa3 REVIEW FOR UPGRADE)

Emerges From Bankruptcy, Exit Plan on Appeal Exited bankruptcy on December 3 by retiring $3.1 billion in defaulted sewer warrants and by issuing

$1.78 billion in new sewer warrants. Warrant-holders had a 35%-65% recovery rate.

The countys general obligation limited tax debt was also in default. We now expect debt service paymto resume.

2 All ratings are for general obligation debt unless otherwise indicated.

This marks the second monthly section on municipal bankruptcy offering updates and analysis on whats happening with Detroit, Stockton and other high-profile distressed local governments. We

welcome your feedback at [email protected] .
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Detroit-City-of-MI-credit-rating-600001576http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161552http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161552http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161144http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161144http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161144http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161144http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161144https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Harrisburg-City-of-PA-credit-rating-600026118https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Jefferson-County-of-AL-credit-rating-423811mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Jefferson-County-of-AL-credit-rating-423811https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Harrisburg-City-of-PA-credit-rating-600026118http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161144http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161144http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM161552https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Detroit-City-of-MI-credit-rating-600001576


11/18


One group of ratepayers, the Bennet group is appealing the confirmation of the countys exit plan anprior court rulings, while another, the Wilson group has dropped their appeal.

SAN BERNARDINO, CA (UNRATED)

Mediation Continues, CalPERS Appealing Eligibility Mediation is scheduled to resume between the city and multiple parties on January 9 and 10.

California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) is participating in the mediation, while aopposing the citys eligibility for bankruptcy. Last month, a federal judge gave CalPERS approval to ato the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Questions remain whether San Bernardino will look to Chapter 9 as a way to trim pension liabilities foemployees and retirees, bringing a direct challenge to CalPERS. The citys efforts could be emboldenea Detroit ruling that pension agreements are contracts and are subject to impairment in bankruptcyproceedings.

STOCKTON, CA (LEASE REVENUE Caa3 DEVELOPING)

Negotiations Continue With Key Creditor In Advance Of Confirmation Hearing A court hearing to confirm exit plan is scheduled for March 5.

The citys plan faces a challenge from Franklin Advisers, Inc., which holds $35 million of the citys boand would get less than 1% of par under Stocktons proposal. If Franklin does not approve the plan, thcity will likely seek a cram down.

Stockton has not proposed pension reductions in bankruptcy.
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Bernardino-County-of-CA-credit-rating-655375https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Stockton-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005706https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Stockton-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005706https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Bernardino-County-of-CA-credit-rating-655375


12/18


Single-Employer Pension Plans May Be Easiest to Restructure in Chapter 9Treatment of public employee pensions in Chapter 9 suggests that single-employer plans like Detroits mbe simpler to reorganize than multi-employer agent or cost-sharing plans, which involve more parties. A

with Detroit (Caa3 negative), where a judge ruled in December that pensions are contracts that can be

impaired in bankruptcy, we find a guide in the bankruptcies of Central Falls, RI (B1 positive), Stockton, CA(lease revenue Caa3 developing) and Vallejo, CA (not rated). Depending on how its case progresses, SanBernardino, CA (not rated) may create a counterexample through altering an agent plan. Defunct Michigschool districts underscore the difficulties in restructuring a cost-sharing plan. Exhibit 1 summarizes thevarious types of municipal pension plans:

EXHIBIT 1

Three Types of Local Government Pension Plans

Characteristics Single-Employer Agent Cost-Sharing

Number of participatingmunicipalities

One More than one Several

Administration and asset

management

Municipality Independent agent-fiduciary, e.g.

CalPERS

The plan

Benefit determinations Municipality Municipality from menu of optionsagent provides

The plan

Sample municipality Detroit and Central Falls Vallejo, Stockton and San Bernardino Michigan public schooldistricts

For a more detailed discussion of pension plan types, see our Pension Landscape publication.

Single-Employer Plans May Be Easier To Restructure Than Agent PlansIn Central Falls, which emerged from bankruptcy in 2012, the city conducted negotiations on cuttingbenefits to its single-employer plan. Central Falls retirees were not represented by unions who could deftheir interests with a unified voice. Additionally, Rhode Island passed a law giving bondholders greater

statutory protections than retirees. Pensioners voted in favor of reductions by as much as 55%. While anoutcome in Detroit is pending, the judges decision on pension impairment will likely encourage the citylook into cutting benefits.

EXHIBIT 2

Pension Plan Type Appears Correlated With Impairment of Benefits

City Plan Type

ReportedUnfunded

Liability in 000s( year reported ) Treatment Impaired (%)

Detroit Single-employer $643,754 (2012) Likely Impaired TBD

Central Falls Single-employer $148,158 (2011) Impaired 55%

Vallejo Agent $146,577 (2011) Unimpaired 0%

Stockton Agent $171,935 (2011) Likely Unimpaired 0%

San Bernardino Agent $160,732(2011) TBD TBD

mily KorotAssistant Vice President-Analyst

[email protected]
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Detroit-City-of-MI-credit-rating-600001576https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Detroit-City-of-MI-credit-rating-600001576https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Detroit-City-of-MI-credit-rating-600001576https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Central-Falls-City-of-RI-credit-rating-600026223https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Central-Falls-City-of-RI-credit-rating-600026223https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Central-Falls-City-of-RI-credit-rating-600026223https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Stockton-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005706https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Stockton-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005706https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Vallejo-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005975https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Vallejo-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005975https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Vallejo-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005975https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Bernardino-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600028141https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Bernardino-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600028141https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Bernardino-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600028141https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Bernardino-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600028141http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM157154http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM157154http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM157154http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM157154https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Bernardino-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600028141https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/San-Bernardino-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600028141https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Vallejo-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005975https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Stockton-City-of-CA-credit-rating-600005706https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Central-Falls-City-of-RI-credit-rating-600026223https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Detroit-City-of-MI-credit-rating-600001576


13/18


California Cases Offer Examples of Difficulty in Cutting Agent Plans CalPERS (the California Public Employees Retirement System, issuer rating Aa3) offers an example of large, state-sponsored agent that has vigorously acted to protect pensions of its retirees, and current andfuture members. CalPERS administers agent plans for Vallejo, Stockton and San Bernardino. Agent plan

inject a third party into the relationship between cities and public employees/retirees. A third party likeCalPERS, may, through a combination of its legal status and mission, be more aligned with retirees than with distressed cities. State laws favoring retirees may also play a role in creating conflicts between citiethese fiduciaries. The well-financed agents may be better organized and able to press their cases throughlitigation more aggressively than retirees in single-employer plans, who lack the same bargaining power

CalPERS has publicly drawn distinctions between pension obligations in California and Michigan. It argthat unlike Michigan, where the judge ruled that public employees rights to their pension is by contract can be impaired in bankruptcy courts, CalPERS administered pensions are outside of a bankruptcy court

jurisdiction.

CalPERS strategy of defending pension rights has proven successful thus far by deterring cities from seto reduce or halt contributions to its plans. Vallejo opted not to challenge CalPERS before emerging frombankruptcy in 2011. Stockton is following the same path as it looks towards an exit in 2014. Compton (nrated), which has not filed for Chapter 9, issued a $10 million tax and revenue anticipation note to coverdelinquent payments to CalPERS to avoid a costly legal battle. Following CalPERS lead, agents in othestates may use or advocate a similar litigation strategy.

San Bernardino May Be California Game Changer CalPERS is moving to appeal San Bernardinos bankruptcy eligibility to the 9th Circuit of Appeals. If SaBernardino is successful in restructuring its liability to CalPERS, it could embolden other distressedmunicipalities in agent plans, in California and elsewhere, to consider bankruptcy as an avenue to reducetheir pension obligations.

Cost-Sharing Plans Could Complicate Reorganization The pooled nature of cost-sharing plans reduces the likelihood that local government participants would able to impair benefits. In Michigan, both Buena Vista (not rated) and Inkster (not rated) school districts

were dissolved in 2013 amidst deteriorating finances and enrollment erosion. Any unfunded liabilityassociated with former employees of the districts must be made up by contributions from employersremaining in the pool. We see a similar trend emerging in Pennsylvania as growth in charter schools shifcovered payroll away from school districts. Historically, employer contributions have been well belowactuarial requirements, resulting in rapidly growing employer pension costs to shore up employee cost-sharing plans. While the state and school districts struggle to absorb rising contribution requirements,employee benefits are unlikely to be reduced.
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/California-Public-Employees-Retirement-System-credit-rating-806775338https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/California-Public-Employees-Retirement-System-credit-rating-806775338https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Buena-Vista-School-District-MI-credit-rating-600032792https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Buena-Vista-School-District-MI-credit-rating-600032792https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Buena-Vista-School-District-MI-credit-rating-600032792https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Inkster-School-District-MI-credit-rating-600031544https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Inkster-School-District-MI-credit-rating-600031544https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Inkster-School-District-MI-credit-rating-600031544https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Inkster-School-District-MI-credit-rating-600031544https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Buena-Vista-School-District-MI-credit-rating-600032792https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/California-Public-Employees-Retirement-System-credit-rating-806775338


14/18


General Obligation Spotlight: Alabama Alabama Constitution Limits Full Faith and Credit Pledge; State Legislature Must Approve Property TIncreases

Jefferson Countys (Caa3, review for upgrade) emergence from bankruptcy in late 2013 has spurred interin general obligation (GO) bondholder protections in Alabama. GO debt issued by local governments is the form of limited tax bonds or warrants. While these instruments carry an irrevocable full faith and crpledge that applies to all of a local governments available financial resources, they do not include an expromise to raise property taxes or other revenues. Moreover, the Alabama Constitution has strict limitation local property tax rates and closely regulates other local revenue sources.

The difference between Alabama GO bonds and warrants is that bonds require voter approval. Both carrthe same security pledge (see Exhibit 1).

EXHIBIT 1

Alabama General Obligation Pledge

Bonds WarrantsFull Faith and Credit Yes Yes

Statutory Lien No No

Ad Valorem Tax (State Legislature & Voter Approval Requirements) Yes Yes

Voter Approval Required to Issue Yes No

The Alabama Constitution limits the rate and dollar amount of an ad valorem tax levy for each class ofproperty. Property taxes are limited to a certain percentage of a propertys value based on the fair andreasonable market value, and most jurisdictions levy taxes at the maximum rate. Under Amendment 373the Alabama constitution, an Alabama local government can increase the maximum rate if the proposal ivetted through public hearings, and if approved by a public referendum and the state legislature. Theserequirements create significant barriers to increasing property tax rates.

Beyond property taxes, other Alabama local government revenues that are legally available to pay GO dservice can include sales and use taxes, occupational and business license taxes, permit fees, court fines fees, lease taxes and revenues from operation of government-owned enterprises. Sales tax revenues are osignificant revenue source for many municipalities. Paying bonds from these revenues is consistent withfaith and credit pledge, though none of these revenues are specifically pledged as security for bonds or

warrants. Hence, there is no statutory lien on these revenues.

While local governments have latitude to raise rates for non-property taxes, these taxes must be levied inaccordance with state law. A prime example of the risk of noncompliance is the state supreme courtsinvalidation of Jefferson Countys occupational and business license taxes in 2011. The loss of these majrevenue sources (approximately 30% of total county General Fund revenues) was a primary driver for

Jefferson Countys bankruptcy filing in 2011.

Despite limitations on revenue-raising, local governments have significant authority to cut expenditures help mitigate budget pressures. Alabama is a right-to-work state, and municipalities have a long history ocutting services and workforces to balance budgets.

Alabama has an unusually high rate of municipal bankruptcies, although most have occurred in small citand towns. Over the past 25 years through 2013, seven of the 44 municipal bankruptcies have been in

Alabama (see Exhibit 2).

arah JensenAssociate Analyst

[email protected]
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Jefferson-County-of-AL-credit-rating-423811https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Jefferson-County-of-AL-credit-rating-423811https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Jefferson-County-of-AL-credit-rating-423811


15/18


EXHIBIT 2

Notable Municipal Bankruptcy Filings1991 City of Lipscomb

1992 Town of North Courtland

1996 Greene County

1999 City of Prichard (also filed in 2009)

2004 Town of Millport

2011 Jefferson County

DEFINITION OF THE MONTH Automatic Stay: A legal action that goes into effect immediately upon a bankruptcy filing and relieves adebtor from its debt service obligations. Creditors often suffer defaults as a result. The automatic stayremains in effect until the case is dismissed or concludes through the confirmation of a plan and discharg

Bonds backed by a pledge of special revenues are exempt from the automatic stay. Special revenues argenerated by a specific project or system. They are, generally, water, sewer and electric utility revenuesderived from specific projects, as well as property and sales taxes dedicated to specific projects. Specialrevenues do not include general property or sales taxes.

In the Detroit, Stockton, Vallejo and Sierra Kings bankruptcy cases, the cities continued making debt serpayments on special revenue bonds after initiating Chapter 9 proceedings. For Jefferson Countys case,special revenues were not sufficient to cover debt service, so sewer warrant-holders received partial payafter a court ruled that obligations were supported by a special revenue pledge of the sewer system.

OTHER CONTACTSGreg Lipitz, VP-Senior Credit Officer, +1.212.553.7782, [email protected] Naomi Richman, Managing Director, +1.212.553.0014, [email protected]

Jack Dorer, Managing Director, +1.212.553.1332, [email protected] Alfred Medioli, VP-Senior Credit Officer, +1.212.553.4173, [email protected] Genevieve Nolan, AVP-Analyst, +1.312.706.9957, [email protected]

ASSOCIATE ANALYSTSSarah Jensen, Associate Analyst, +1.214.979.6846, [email protected] Michael Alter, Associate Analyst, +1.212.553.4180, [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


16/18


RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

Philadelphia School District: Fiscal Stabilization Requires Support of All Major Stakeholders Moodys underlying rating (Ba2 negative) on the Philadelphia School Districts $3.4 billion of long-termgeneral obligation and GO-backed lease revenue bonds reflects the districts high poverty, sizeable debtburden and history of uneven financial management. The districts fiscal difficulties have recently intensdue to slow growth in state and local revenues, enrollment losses to charter schools and reduced federalfunding. The enhanced ratings (Aa3 stable) on the districts GO and lease revenue bonds remain unaffecby the districts credit stress, given ample amounts of interceptable state aid to cover annual debt service
http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM162147http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM162147http://www.moodys.com/viewresearchdoc.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM162147


17/18


RATING CHANGE HIGHLIGHTS

California Department of Water Resources Power Supply Bonds Placed Under Review for Upgrade,Rating Aa3Dec. 20 We placed under review for upgrade the Aa3 rating on the California Department of WaterResources power supply revenue bonds, totaling approximately $6.6 billion. As power contracts expire,operating risk decreases, while the power bonds continue to benefit from the California Public UtilitiesCommissions supportive cost recovery, with the CPUC approving annual rate filings.

Mercy Medical Center's (IA) Outlook Revised to Negative, A2 Rating Affirmed Jan. 6 As we affirmed the A2 rating on the revenue bonds of Mercy Medical Center, issued through theIowa Finance Authority and City of Cedar Rapids, we revised the outlook to negative from stable, affect$118 million. The outlook change was driven by significant deterioration in Mercycare Service Corporatand Related Organizations (MSC's) operating margins in fiscal year 2013, with challenges continuing int

interim fiscal year 2014. The affirmation reflects MSC maintaining strong balance sheet ratios, its locatia quality service area, and the track record of good operating results it had prior to fiscal year 2013.

Greenville Utilities Commissions (NC) Revenue Bonds Upgraded to Aa3 from A1, Outlook StableDec. 30 We upgraded the rating on Greenville Utilities Commission's $115 million in revenue bonds to

Aa3 from A1. The upgrade factors in the diverse combined utility revenue stream of the system, which ipledged to the bondholders, particularly the strength of the electric revenues. The rating further reflectscontinued stability in the commission's financial operations, growth in the service area, with stabilityanchored by the presence of institutions and a manageable debt burden with rapid retirement. The outloostable.

Bon Secours Health System, Inc.'s Outlook to Positive, A3 Rating Affirmed

Dec. 27 As we affirmed the A3 rating on the bonds of Bon Secours Health System Inc. (headquarteredMaryland), totaling $790 million, we changed the outlook to positive from stable because we expect thatoperating margins in 2014 will continue at their 2012 and 2013 levels, higher than the historical levels. Wexpect solid cash flow and growth in unrestricted investments to improve BSHSIs risk profile. The A3 rcontinues to reflect BSHSIs size and cash flow diversity as a $3.3 billion multistate healthcare system.

Broward County Seaport Enterprise Port Facilities Outlook Revised to Positive, A2 Rating AffirmedDec. 26 As we affirmed the A2 rating on Broward County's Seaport Enterprise (FL) Port Facilities revbonds, totaling $224 million, we revised the outlook to positive from stable. We expect the port to havestable revenue growth, supported by cruise operations, container traffic, petroleum distribution, while a lshare of its revenues are under long-term contracts. Other credit supports include the ports minimumannual revenue guarantees and demonstrated state and federal support for the port's expansion plan.

Bard College Downgraded to Ba1 from Baa1, Outlook Revised to NegativeDec. 19 We downgraded the rating on Bard College to Ba1 from Baa1 and revised the outlook to negataffecting $135 million. The colleges liquidity is exceedingly thin, with operating lines of credit fully dradown, cash and investments outside of sizeable investments held in trust declining materially, and weakecash flow. The negative outlook considers the possibility that the college's liquidity will not materiallyimprove and could breach loan covenants. It also reflects a growing reliance on lines of credit to financeoperations and capital needs in advance of the receipt of pledge payments. The college has an entrepreneoperating model that continues to grow its expense base and exposure to philanthropy.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-places-California-Department-of-Water-Resources-Power-Supply-bonds--RU_901609569https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-places-California-Department-of-Water-Resources-Power-Supply-bonds--RU_901609569https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-places-California-Department-of-Water-Resources-Power-Supply-bonds--RU_901609569https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-places-California-Department-of-Water-Resources-Power-Supply-bonds--RU_901609569https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Mercy-Medical-Centers-IA-outlook-to-negative-A2--RU_901637386https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Mercy-Medical-Centers-IA-outlook-to-negative-A2--RU_901637386https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Mercy-Medical-Centers-IA-outlook-to-negative-A2--RU_901637386https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-upgrades-Greenville-Utilities-Commission-NCs-115M-of-debt-to--RU_901599397https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-upgrades-Greenville-Utilities-Commission-NCs-115M-of-debt-to--RU_901599397https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-upgrades-Greenville-Utilities-Commission-NCs-115M-of-debt-to--RU_901599397https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Bon-Secours-Health-System-Incs-outlook-to-positive--RU_901604992https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Bon-Secours-Health-System-Incs-outlook-to-positive--RU_901604992https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Bon-Secours-Health-System-Incs-outlook-to-positive--RU_901604992https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-to-positive-the-outlook-on-Broward-County-Seaport--RU_901626448https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-to-positive-the-outlook-on-Broward-County-Seaport--RU_901626448https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-to-positive-the-outlook-on-Broward-County-Seaport--RU_901626448https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Bard-College-NY-to-Ba1-from-Baa1-outlook--RU_901628474https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Bard-College-NY-to-Ba1-from-Baa1-outlook--RU_901628474https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Bard-College-NY-to-Ba1-from-Baa1-outlook--RU_901628474https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Bard-College-NY-to-Ba1-from-Baa1-outlook--RU_901628474https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Bard-College-NY-to-Ba1-from-Baa1-outlook--RU_901628474https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-to-positive-the-outlook-on-Broward-County-Seaport--RU_901626448https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-to-positive-the-outlook-on-Broward-County-Seaport--RU_901626448https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Bon-Secours-Health-System-Incs-outlook-to-positive--RU_901604992https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Bon-Secours-Health-System-Incs-outlook-to-positive--RU_901604992https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-upgrades-Greenville-Utilities-Commission-NCs-115M-of-debt-to--RU_901599397https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-upgrades-Greenville-Utilities-Commission-NCs-115M-of-debt-to--RU_901599397https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Mercy-Medical-Centers-IA-outlook-to-negative-A2--RU_901637386https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-revises-Mercy-Medical-Centers-IA-outlook-to-negative-A2--RU_901637386https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-places-California-Department-of-Water-Resources-Power-Supply-bonds--RU_901609569https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-places-California-Department-of-Water-Resources-Power-Supply-bonds--RU_901609569https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-places-California-Department-of-Water-Resources-Power-Supply-bonds--RU_901609569


18/18

MOODYS.CO

CREDIT RATINGS & ANALYSISMichel Madelain President and Chief Operating Officer

Michael RowanManaging Director, Global Public, Project &Infrastructure Finance

Gail SussmanManaging Director, US Public Finance

John Nelson

Director of Research, Global Public, Project,Infrastructure Finance

Christopher HolmesDirector of Research, US Public Finance

Local Government Ratings

Jack DorerManaging Director, US Public Finance

Naomi RichmanManaging Director, US Public Finance

State Government Ratings

Robert KurtterManaging Director, US Public Finance

Tim BlakeManaging Director, US Public Finance

Healthcare, Higher Education, Not-for-Profits

Kendra SmithManaging Director, US Public Finance

Housing

Kendra SmithManaging Director, US Public Finance

Public Infrastructure

Chee Mee HuManaging Director, Project Finance

EDITORIAL CONTENTCrystal CarrafielloSenior Vice President, Rating CommunicationsRobert CoxSenior Editor, Rating Communications

MARKETING & PRODUCT STRATEGY John WalterDirector, Senior Product StrategistSara Harris Assistant Director, Product Strategist

PRODUCTION Jason LeeVice President, Production

WEBSITEwww.moodys.com

CLIENT SERVICE DESKSNew York: 1.212.553.1653San Francisco: 1.415.274.1700

2014 Moodys Corporation, Moodys Investors Service, Inc., Moodys Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, MOODYS). All rights reserved.

CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. (MIS) AND ITS AFFILIATES ARE MOODYS CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CRENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED BY MOODYS (MOOPUBLICATIONS) MAY INCLUDE MOODYS CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBSECURITIES. MOODYS DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUEESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RVALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODYS OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODYS PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT ORFACT. MOODYS PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUMOODYS ANALYTICS, INC. CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODYS PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDAND MOODYS PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. NEITHER CREDITNOR MOODYS PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODYS ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS APUBLISHES MOODYS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY ANEVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.

MOODYS CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODYS PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS FOR RETAIL INVEMOODYS CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODYS PUBLICATIONS IN MAKING ANY INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTADVISER.

ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BEOTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUEN

PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODYS PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENTAll information contained herein is obtained by MOODYS from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as otherfactors, however, all information contained herein is provided AS IS without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a crating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODYS is not an auditor andcannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moodys Publications.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODYS and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, speconsequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even ifMOODYS or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limito: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODYS

To the extent permitted by law, MOODYS and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses ordamages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, bylaw cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODYS or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or supplierarising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.

NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OOTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODYS IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.

MIS, a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moodys Corporation (MCO), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds,debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MIS have, pr ior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MIS for appraisal and rating services rendered by it feesranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000. MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MISs ratings and rating processes. Informationregarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC anownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading Shareholder Relations Corporate Governance Director and ShareholderAffiliation Policy.

For Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODYS affiliate, Moodys Investors Service Pty Limited AB003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moodys Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to wholesale cliewithin the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODYS that you are, or are accessing thedocument as a representative of, a wholesale client and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to retail clientswithin the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODYS credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securitieof the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail clients. It would be dangerous for retail clients to make any investment decision based on MOODYS credit rating. If in doubt should contact your financial or other professional adviser.
http://www.moodys.com/http://www.moodys.com/http://www.moodys.com/http://www.moodys.com/http://www.moodys.com/

Documents

Weekly Credit Outlook for Public Finance - January 9, 2014