Fitch Rates Orange County School Board Corp, FL's $60MM COPs 'AA'; Outlook Stable

Transcription

1 Fitch Rates Orange County School Board Corp, FL's $60MM COPs 'AA'; Outlook Stable Fitch Ratings-New York-08 December 2017: Fitch Ratings has assigned a 'AA' rating to the following obligations issued by the Orange County School Board Corporation, Florida: --Approximately $60 million certificates of participation (COPs), series 2017C. The Orange County School District's Issuer Default Rating (IDR) is 'AA+'. The Rating Outlook is Stable. The COPs will be sold on a negotiated basis on or about Dec. 14. The proceeds will be used to advance refund the outstanding series 2014A COPs. SECURITY The COPs are payable by lease payments equal to debt service on the COPs to be made by the Orange County School Board, subject to annual appropriation, to the Orange County School Board Leasing Corporation under a master lease purchase agreement. In the event of non-appropriation the trustee may force the school board to surrender possession of all leased facilities under the master lease for disposition by sale or re-letting of its interest in such facilities. ANALYTICAL CONCLUSION The 'AA+' IDR reflects the district's superior financial strength combined with a relatively modest long-term liability load. Fiscal operations are supported by solid spending flexibility and high reserves. These features plus the district's strong growth prospects offset a very restrictive revenue-raising framework. The COPs rating is one notch below the IDR reflecting the slightly higher

2 degree of optionality associated with lease payments subject to appropriation. Economic Resource Base The district is coterminous with central Florida's Orange County (AAA/Stable). The county's population has experienced over 14% growth since 2010 to an estimated 1.3 million for The growing health and education sector of the county, underpinned by high-wage medical research and biotechnology, has broadened an economy that was traditionally based in tourism. Fitch expects the above-average growth rate of area employment to lift county income indicators, which are currently below national levels. Charter school enrollment is growing at a steady pace, although it is currently only 7% of the total student population. KEY RATING DRIVERS Revenue Framework: 'a' The school board has limited discretion over revenues, as per capita funding levels are set by the state. However, district revenues show steady, strong growth, due to solid enrollment increases and some growth in state per-pupil funding, both of which are expected to continue. Expenditure Framework: 'aa' The school board demonstrates strong flexibility to adjust spending to match revenue trends, most notably during the past recession. This flexibility is enhanced by the district's low carrying costs. Fitch expects spending to be generally in line with revenue growth over time. Long-Term Liability Burden: 'aaa' The long-term liability burden is relatively low, with most of the district's debt consisting of COPs. This burden is expected to remain stable given the district's ability to fund a sizable capital program largely on a pay-as-you-go basis, limited debt plans and an adequately funded pension system. Operating Performance: 'aaa' The district's spending flexibility and ability to secure additional revenues through voter referendum have enabled it to maintain high reserve levels even with the challenges experienced during the Great Recession. Fitch

3 expects district management to continue such policies during future downturns. RATING SENSITIVITIES FINANCIAL RESILIENCE: The district's financial resilience, supported by solid reserve funding, is a principal consideration in the 'AA+' IDR. Reserves provide a sound level of financial flexibility in the event of state school funding changes. CREDIT PROFILE The district operates 195 schools with pre-k through 12 enrollment totaling over 200,000 in the school year. Robust population growth has resulted in corresponding rise in enrollment in the district. The leisure and hospitality sector is a major component of the local economy, making up about 20% of total area employment. Disney is the leading employer with about 74,000 or more than 10% of the total county workforce while Universal Orlando reports 19,000 employees. Both corporations continue to make substantial investments in their parks. The county has experienced positive job growth for six straight years and unemployment rates are below the state and national benchmarks. Fitch believes that the underlying economic characteristics point to favorable prospects for continued tax base, employment and enrollment growth. Revenue Framework Common to Florida school districts, revenues are derived almost entirely from a combination of property taxes and state aid. The state establishes statewide per-student revenues under the Florida Educational Finance Program (FEFP) equalized per-student funding formula. Overall funding for each district in any year is determined by enrollment. The state then determines the level of property taxes to be levied within the district and provides the remainder of funding. Typically, the larger a district's tax base, the higher proportion of revenues sourced from property taxes. In fiscal 2017, state revenues accounted for 52% of total district general fund revenues while property taxes accounted for 47%.

4 Historical growth has exceeded the pace of both inflation and national GDP due in large part to solid enrollment growth as revenues are distributed on a per pupil basis. Prospects for future revenue expansion are favorable due to projected increases in student enrollment driven by robust population growth. Florida FEFP funding levels have lagged the rate of growth in state general fund revenues in recent years, with the district's fiscal 2017 FEFP per student allocation rising 1% over fiscal 2016 allocations. The district has no independent legal ability to raise revenues outside of some minor fees. The risk associated with the district's limited revenueraising ability is offset by the recognition of K-12 education as a fundamental state responsibility and the strong foundation of state support for education funding. The district gained an additional 3,000 new students (1% of total enrollment) from Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. District officials indicate a majority of new students have enrolled in its traditional schools which may result in an adjustment to the FEFP funding. Fitch believes the recent influx of students will be temporary and may partially reverse as storm damage is repaired. Expenditure Framework About two-thirds of the district's spending is instruction-related with the most important components being teacher salaries and benefits. The pace of spending growth generally matched revenue trends. Spending trends going forward are expected to be in line with revenue growth as increased spending demands fueled by enrollment growth are funded by corresponding revenue expansion. The district's fixed carrying costs for debt, pensions and OPEB benefits are modest at 7% for fiscal 2017 affording it significant spending flexibility. Management reduced instructional staff by over 1,100 or 10% between fiscals 2008 and 2010 in order to curtail expenditures. Since then, the district has steadily added back teaching personnel, which now exceed prerecession levels. State class size requirements can affect personnel decisions although the penalties for non-compliance are modest. The district is currently meeting its minimum class size mandates.

5 Long-Term Liability Burden Fitch estimates the district's total long-term liabilities, including overall debt and the unfunded pension liability, at 9% of personal income. Direct debt consists primarily of COPs issued under the master lease structure. About two-thirds of the total burden is attributable to debt of overlapping of underlying jurisdictions, particularly the county and the city of Orlando (AAA/Stable). Almost half of the overlapping debt consists of bonds payable from the tourist development taxes (hotel taxes) which are mostly paid by visitors. Neither the county nor the city has plans for substantial new debt. The district's variable-rate debt makes up about 10% of its debt portfolio. Fitch considers this position manageable due to the district's strong liquidity and history of market access and the low level of carrying costs. All of the positions are hedged and despite a negative valuation of $33 million as of November 2017, the district is not exposed to collateral posting. Given the limited debt plans of the district and overlapping jurisdictions, debt levels are expected to remain relatively stable. Capital improvements are funded from a combination of existing reserves in the capital projects fund, proceeds from the voter-approved capital outlay sales tax (renewed through 2025), property taxes and impact fees. Florida passed legislation in July 2017 (HB7069) that requires districts to allocate a portion of the capital outlay millage on a per student basis to support eligible charter school capital projects. According to district officials, the amount estimated to be shared with the charter schools is less than $4 million, which Fitch believes will have a nominal impact on the district. The district, along with 13 other school boards, filed a lawsuit in October 2017 to challenge the constitutionality of HB The district participates in the adequately funded Florida Retirement System (FRS). FRS reported an asset to liability ratio of 85%, or an estimated 70% when adjusted by Fitch to assume a 6% rate of return (as of the June 30, 2016 measurement date). Operating Performance

6 The district proved exceptionally resilient during the severe downturn in Florida beginning in 2007, reporting positive general fund results throughout the recession despite a fall-off in state per student funding levels. The strong results were primarily attributable to the district's spending flexibility - general fund spending fell by 16% between fiscals 2008 and and rapid revenue escalation since fiscal Voter-approved discretionary revenues have enhanced revenues. Management secured an additional discretionary 1 mill for operations which was renewed by voters in fiscal 2014 for four years. The 1 mill provides over $100 million in supplemental operating funds annually and is set to expire in fiscal District officials plan to seek voter approval to extend it for another four years. In a moderate economic downturn, Fitch expects the district to respond to a decline in revenues similarly as in the past by taking actions to reduce spending in order to rebalance operations while maintaining a high level of financial flexibility. The district incurred general fund deficits in fiscals 2014 and 2015 that were driven primarily by non-recurring employee bonuses and the upfront payment of the two-year salary increase negotiated for fiscal Despite the deficits, fiscal 2015 unrestricted general fund reserves represented a robust 22% of spending. Fiscal 2016 results reflect a $51 million surplus after transfers, as several scheduled projects were postponed, boosting the reserve position to 25%. Unaudited results for fiscal 2017 report an approximate $12 million use of reserves, reflecting the timing of projects and non-recurring spending. Unrestricted general fund reserves are estimated at 23% of total spending for fiscal 2017, which was in line with prior fiscal year results. The district's fiscal 2018 adopted general fund budget is 2% higher than the fiscal 2017 budget, reflecting a continued rise in instructional and support costs, including increased staffing for its six new schools, and an expanded digital curriculum. The budget also incorporates a modest increase in FEFP funding and a reduced millage rate (7.470) and is balanced with the use of reserves. The district typically budgets conservatively and expects better than budget revenue and expenditure performance to result in a lower draw. Fitch

7 believes the district will continue to maintain solid reserve levels, consistent with past performance. The district did not experience significant damage related to Hurricane Irma. District officials estimate the costs of debris clean-up and repairs at $12 million, to be funded with general fund reserves, and expect to recover the costs through FEMA reimbursements. Contact: Primary Analyst Grace Wong Director Fitch Ratings, Inc. 33 Whitehall Street New York, NY Secondary Analyst Michael Rinaldi Senior Director Committee Chairperson Laura Porter Managing Director Date of Relevant Rating Committee: July 21, 2017 In addition to the sources of information identified in Fitch's applicable criteria specified below, this action was informed by information from Lumesis and InvestorTools.

8 Media Relations: Sandro Scenga, New York, Tel: , Additional information is available on Applicable Criteria U.S. Public Finance Tax-Supported Rating Criteria (pub. 31 May 2017) ( Additional Disclosures Solicitation Status ( Endorsement Policy ( ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: ( IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEB SITE AT ( PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA, AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE, AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE CODE OF CONDUCT SECTION OF THIS SITE. DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS RELEVANT INTERESTS ARE AVAILABLE AT ( FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH WEBSITE. Copyright 2017 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its

9 subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY Telephone: , (212) Fax: (212) Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch s factual investigation and the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third- party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch s ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward-looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed. The information in this report is provided as is without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report

10 or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers. For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no ) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only.

11 Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001 Solicitation Status Fitch Ratings was paid to determine each credit rating announced in this Rating Action Commentary (RAC) by the obligatory being rated or the issuer, underwriter, depositor, or sponsor of the security or money market instrument being rated, except for the following: Endorsement Policy - Fitch's approach to ratings endorsement so that ratings produced outside the EU may be used by regulated entities within the EU for regulatory purposes, pursuant to the terms of the EU Regulation with respect to credit rating agencies, can be found on the EU Regulatory Disclosures ( page. The endorsement status of all International ratings is provided within the entity summary page for each rated entity and in the transaction detail pages for all structured finance transactions on the Fitch website. These disclosures are updated on a daily basis.