AFFIRMS A1 RATING AND REVISES OUTLOOK TO NEGATIVE ON CITY'S OUTSTANDING GO DEBT
New York, December 22, 2011 -- Moody's Rating
Issue: General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series
2012A; Rating: A1; Sale Amount: $3,300,000;
Expected Sale Date: 2-6-2012; Rating Description:
General Obligation
Issue: General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2012B;
Rating: A1; Sale Amount: $3,390,000;
Expected Sale Date: 2-6-2012; Rating Description:
General Obligation
Opinion
Moody's Investors Service has assigned an A1 rating and negative outlook
to the City of Burlington's (IA) $3.3 million General Obligation
Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2012A, and $3.4
million General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2012B.
Concurrently, we have affirmed the A1 rating and have revised the
outlook to negative on the city's outstanding general obligation
debt. Post sale, the city will have $39.3 million
in outstanding general obligation debt.
SUMMARY RATINGS RATIONALE
Debt service payments are secured by the city's unlimited taxing authority.
Proceeds from the 2012A series will fund capital projects, primarily
the replacement of the city's Cascade Bridge. Proceeds from
the 2012B series will current refund the city's outstanding General
Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2001C and Series 2002
for expected interest savings of 7.4% of the refunded par.
The A1 rating reflects the city's limited financial flexibility as represented
by thin General Fund reserves and narrow government-wide cash position;
relatively stable economy located along the Mississippi River in southeast
Iowa (Aaa/stable outlook); and manageable debt burden.
The negative outlook reflects the city's very limited cash position
in both governmental and enterprise funds with no concrete plans to build
up cash reserves to adequate levels. The negative outlook additionally
reflects long outstanding interfund advances, namely advances from
the sewer fund to other enterprise funds, with no specific plans
for repayment. The city's limited cash position and the outstanding
advances to several funds indicate that the city currently has limited
cushion to protect against future budgetary stressors.
STRENGTHS
- Relatively stable economy and presence as a manufacturing and
trade center for the surrounding area
- Annual growth in full value has continued despite the broader
economic downturn of recent years
CHALLENGES
- Limited liquidity government-wide with no concrete plans
to improve liquidity to adequate levels
-Socio-economic indices lag state and national medians and
have declined relative to those medians in recent decades
Outlook
The negative outlook reflects our expectation that, given the city's
lack of concrete plans to build up cash reserves to adequate levels ,
it will continue to hold limited cash in both governmental and enterprise
funds. The negative outlook additionally reflects long outstanding
interfund advances, namely advances from the sewer fund to other
enterprise funds, with no specific plans for repayment. Continued
operating losses in the enterprise funds may lead to further reliance
on the sewer fund to support their cash needs, limiting the sewer
fund's ability to respond to unexpected budgetary variances or capital
needs of the system and potentially negatively impacting the General Fund
if the sewer enterprise is no longer able to make its PILOT payments in
full.
WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING -- UP (or removal of the negative outlook)
-Substantial growth in government-wide reserves and cash
balances, bolstering financial flexibility and liquidity
-Ongoing diversification of the economy including an improved socioeconomic
profile
WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING - DOWN
-Deterioration of already narrow General Fund reserves and liquidity
-Failure to restore liquidity and flexibility through the build-up
of cash reserves government-wide
-Weakening of the local economy as evidenced by valuation declines,
increased unemployment, and/or deterioration of the city's
socio-economic profile
PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGY USED
The principal methodology used in this rating was General Obligation Bonds
Issued by U.S. Local Governments published in October 2009.
Please see the Credit Policy page on www.moodys.com for
a copy of this methodology.
REGULATORY DISCLOSURES
Although this credit rating has been issued in a non-EU country
which has not been recognized as endorsable at this date, this credit
rating is deemed "EU qualified by extension" and may still
be used by financial institutions for regulatory purposes until 31 January
2012. ESMA may extend the use of credit ratings for regulatory
purposes in the European Community for three additional months,
until 30 April 2012, if ESMA decides that exceptional circumstances
arise that may imply potential market disruption or financial instability.
Further information on the EU endorsement status and on the Moody's
office that has issued a particular Credit Rating is available on www.moodys.com.
For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt,
this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation
to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series
or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program for which the ratings
are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody's
rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider,
this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation
to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular
rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the
support provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings,
this announcement provides relevant regulatory disclosures in relation
to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive
rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt,
in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed
prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would
have affected the rating. For further information please see the
ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.
Information sources used to prepare the rating are the following:
parties involved in the ratings, parties not involved in the ratings,
and public information.
Moody's considers the quality of information available on the rated
entity, obligation or credit satisfactory for the purposes of issuing
a rating.
Moody's adopts all necessary measures so that the information it
uses in assigning a rating is of sufficient quality and from sources Moody's
considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent
third-party sources. However, Moody's is not
an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate
information received in the rating process.
The GMO - PFG Ratings News
UNKNOWN
Public Finance Group
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653
Emily Robare
Analyst
Public Finance Group
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653
Releasing Office:
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653
MOODY'S ASSIGNS A1 RATING AND NEGATIVE OUTLOOK TO CITY OF BURLINGTON (IA) $3.3 MILLION GO CORPORATE PURPOSE BONDS, SERIES 2012A, AND $3.4 MILLION GO REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2012B