- Marlborough's group debt burden will rise, and its after-capital-account deficits widen, as it delivers a larger infrastructure program at both council and subsidiary level.
- We are consequently revising our outlook on Marlborough to negative from stable and affirming our 'AA+/A-1+' issuer credit ratings.
- Marlborough's strong management and New Zealand's excellent institutional settings continue to support the ratings.
- The weakening budgetary metrics are partly counterbalanced by the performance of a local economy that has proven resilient through the COVID-19 downturn.
On Nov. 30, 2021, S&P Global Ratings revised the outlook on its long-term ratings on Marlborough District Council, a New Zealand local government, to negative from stable. At the same time, we affirmed our 'AA+' long-term and 'A-1+' short-term issuer credit ratings on Marlborough.
The negative outlook reflects our view that the council's rising debt burden could weaken its credit metrics.
We could lower our ratings on Marlborough within the next two years if large after-capital-account deficits result in its total tax-supported debt rising beyond our forecasts, or debt-service coverage weakens.
We would also lower our ratings on Marlborough if we were to take similar action on the New Zealand sovereign.
We could revise our outlook on Marlborough to stable within the next two years if its budgetary performance, debt trajectory, or debt-service coverage were to exceed our base-case expectations.
The outlook revision reflects our view that Marlborough's rising group debt burden could weaken its credit metrics. We have updated and extended our forecasts for Marlborough through fiscal 2024 (ending June 30, 2024) following the release of its triennial 10-year long-term plan in June 2021 and recent information on other major initiatives, such as the proposed Waitohi-Picton Ferry Precinct redevelopment project. We expect Marlborough to post wider after-capital-account deficits during the next few years as capital expenditure (capex) at the council and subsidiary levels grows.
Our 'AA+/A-1+' ratings on Marlborough remain underpinned by its robust financial management and the country's excellent institutional settings. New Zealand has been relatively successful in containing the local spread of the coronavirus to date, allowing most parts of its economy to rebound strongly.
Our base case excludes the potential effect of the Crown government's proposed "three waters" reforms. The reform program, as currently envisaged, could see responsibility for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater assets taken away from councils and amalgamated into four new regional water service entities from mid-2024. The reforms are still under development.
Capex, including at Port Marlborough, to drive borrowing higher; access to New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency enhances liquidity
We expect Marlborough to post moderate after-capital-account deficits during the next two years after a recent stretch of surpluses. The recent 2021-2031 long-term plan budgets for annual capex at the core council level of about NZ$69 million to NZ$79 million during the next three years, a material step-up from the NZ$31 million delivered in fiscal 2020. Average property rates will increase by a slightly larger-than-usual 5.1%-6.4% per year, excluding the effect of growth in the ratepayer base, over the same timeframe. Like many of its domestic peers, the direct financial effect of COVID-19 restrictions has been marginal.
We see capital investment rising at the subsidiary level, too. The largest project on the horizon is the Waitohi-Picton Ferry Precinct redevelopment, which will drive the group deficit to exceed 20% in fiscal 2024. The project is a partnership between KiwiRail, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Port Marlborough New Zealand Ltd. (PMNZ), and the council. We understand that PMNZ will contribute to the project by borrowing via the council. Construction will occur over fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Once complete, the upgraded Picton Harbor will support two new, enlarged Interislander ferries that connect New Zealand's north and south islands. PMNZ will earn a commercial rate of return on its investment, and the project may support long-run economic prospects as the new ferries should boast significantly larger passenger and rail freight capacity.
The council owns 100% of Marlborough District Council Holdings Ltd. (MDCHL), which in turn is the sole owner of PMNZ and Marlborough Airport Ltd. The council also provides NZ$70 million of uncalled capital to MDCHL. Our financial metrics incorporate all the group's revenues and expenses, and our debt metrics include all its debt, including funds that are borrowed by the council and advanced to MDCHL and its subsidiaries.
Operating surpluses are likely to remain strong, averaging about 22% of operating revenues during fiscal years 2020 to 2024. We believe that Marlborough has a high degree of short-run fiscal flexibility compared with domestic and international peers. Its largest single source of revenue is property rates, which can be readily adjusted from year to year and are relatively stable through economic cycles. Unlike international peers, New Zealand councils generally receive little by way of intergovernmental transfers. Marlborough's ability to delay or reschedule nonessential capital spending is further evidence of its flexibility. In New Zealand, most health and social welfare responsibilities fall on the Crown government (i.e., the New Zealand sovereign) rather than on councils.
To finance its group capital investment program, we forecast that Marlborough's tax-supported debt burden, as a proportion of operating revenues, will rise to 112% by the end of fiscal 2024, up from 68% at the end of fiscal 2020. This debt ratio remains among the lowest of all rated New Zealand councils and has historically been a key credit strength. Marlborough's group borrowings at the end of fiscal 2021 stood at NZ$109 million, just 3x its annual cash operating surplus.
If the "three waters" reforms proceed, it is possible that Marlborough will offload a significant proportion of its debt (and related water assets and revenues) to one of the proposed water service entities. This could improve its group debt burden. It isn't yet clear if the reforms will be enacted in their current form, or when they may take effect. The reform program faces hurdles in the form of resistance from many council sector representatives and the national opposition party.
Marlborough's liquidity is midrange. We estimate that total free cash--inclusive of term deposits, discounted financial assets, and access to a NZ$20 million undrawn standby facility with Westpac--is sufficient to cover about 88% of debt maturities and interest payments during the next 12 months. This ratio is likely to drop below 80% as the after-capital-account deficit widens. We expect Marlborough's debt-servicing needs to include NZ$10 million of term debt maturing in April 2022; NZ$30.2 million in short-dated commercial paper, which is regularly rolled over; and about NZ$4 million in annual interest expenses.
In addition to its internal liquidity, we consider that the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) provides Marlborough with strong access to a well-established source of external liquidity. In our view, LGFA benefits from an extremely high likelihood of extraordinary central government support, and it has helped councils to both lengthen their maturity profiles and reduce borrowing costs.
Marlborough's quantifiable contingent liabilities are small. Although the council lies within the highest earthquake risk zone in New Zealand, its insurance coverage is adequate. Most above-ground assets are insured commercially, and underground assets are insured through a cost-sharing arrangement between the Local Authority Protection Programme and the Crown. Marlborough is one of 65 local authorities that are joint-and-several guarantors of LGFA's borrowings. We consider the likelihood of this guarantee being activated to be remote.
Strongly performing economy, robust financial management, and New Zealand's excellent institutional framework support Marlborough's creditworthiness
Marlborough, like most of New Zealand, emerged from a brief lockdown in August 2021. Since mid-2020, New Zealand has been relatively successful in suppressing the coronavirus across most parts of the country, allowing its economy to rebound strongly. We recently revised up our GDP growth projections for New Zealand to 5.4% for calendar 2021 (see "Economic Outlook Asia-Pacific Q4 2021: Growth Slows On COVID-19 And Rising China Uncertainty," published Sept. 27, 2021). In October 2021, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand lifted its policy rate for the first time in seven years, signaling the start of a tightening cycle.
We expect Marlborough's local economy to continue to perform soundly. Local real GDP grew an estimated 4.5% in the year to September 2021. District GDP per capita is a little higher than the national average of US$46,200. Marlborough produces about 80% of New Zealand's total wine output and has relative strengths in agriculture, viticulture, and associated manufacturing industries. Its population was about 50,200 in 2020. The district has the highest proportion of elderly people in New Zealand, with about 23% of the local population aged over 65. These demographics could pressure the council's ability to raise revenues over the longer term.
Marlborough's fiscal processes are credible and well established, with the council preparing 10-year long-term plans every three years, annual plans in the intervening years, and audited annual reports, in line with New Zealand requirements. The council's treasury management policies set prudent limits on external borrowing and interest rate risk, and all borrowing is in local currency. Like all New Zealand councils, Marlborough is governed by an elected group of councilors, led by a mayor. The councilors delegate day-to-day management to a full-time chief executive. The next triennial elections are scheduled for October 2022.
The institutional framework within which New Zealand local governments operate is a key factor supporting Marlborough's credit profile. We believe this framework to be one of the strongest and most predictable globally. It promotes a robust management culture, fiscal discipline, and high levels of transparency and disclosure.
|--Year ended June 30--|
|Operating balance (% of operating revenues)||20.8||23.6||20.2||22.5||25.1|
|Balance after capital accounts||4||(3)||(16)||(21)||(53)|
|Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenues)||2.6||(1.7)||(8.6)||(11.3)||(28.4)|
|Balance after borrowings||5||4||0||0||0|
|Tax-supported debt (outstanding at year-end)||101||109||125||146||199|
|Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenues)||68.4||70.1||78.9||85.1||112.4|
|Interest (% of operating revenues)||2.6||2.3||2.6||2.8||3.7|
|National GDP per capita (single units)||62,711||66,472||69,155||72,556||75,518|
|The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as well as international sources, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer. bc--Base case reflects S&P Global Ratings' expectations of the most likely scenario. N/A--Not applicable. N.A.--Not available. N.M.--Not meaningful.|
Ratings Score Snapshot
|Rating Score Snapshot|
|Key Rating Factors|
|Standalone credit profile||aa+|
|Issuer credit rating||AA+|
|Note: S&P Global Ratings bases its ratings on non-U.S. local and regional governments (LRGs) on the six main rating factors in this table. In the "Methodology For Rating Local And Regional Governments Outside Of The U.S.," published on July 15, 2019, we explain the steps we follow to derive the global scale foreign currency rating on each LRG. The institutional framework is assessed on a six-point scale: 1 is the strongest and 6 the weakest score. Our assessments of economy, financial management, budgetary performance, liquidity, and debt burden are on a five-point scale, with 1 being the strongest score and 5 the weakest.|
Key Sovereign Statistics
Sovereign Risk Indicators. An interactive version is available at http://www.spratings.com/sri.
- General Criteria: Environmental, Social, And Governance Principles In Credit Ratings, Oct. 10, 2021
- Criteria | Governments | International Public Finance: Methodology For Rating Local And Regional Governments Outside Of The U.S., July 15, 2019
- General Criteria: Methodology For Linking Long-Term And Short-Term Ratings, April 7, 2017
- Criteria | Governments | International Public Finance: Methodology: Rating Non-U.S. Local And Regional Governments Higher Than The Sovereign, Dec. 15, 2014
- General Criteria: Principles Of Credit Ratings, Feb. 16, 2011
- Local And Regional Governments Outlook 2022: Long-Term Challenges Resurface As The Pandemic Eases, Nov. 18, 2021
- Institutional Framework Assessments For International Local And Regional Governments, Nov. 4, 2021
- Global Ratings List: International Public Finance Entities 2021, Oct. 13, 2021
- Economic Outlook Asia-Pacific Q4 2021: Growth Slows On COVID-19 And Rising China Uncertainty, Sept. 27, 2021
- Default, Transition, and Recovery: 2020 Annual International Public Finance Default And Rating Transition Study, Sept. 15, 2021
- Comparative Statistics: Asia-Pacific Local And Regional Government Risk Indicators, Sept. 1, 2021
- Non-U.S. Local Governments: To What Extent Did Sovereign Support Offset The Pandemic Downdraft? July 19, 2021
- Local And Regional Governments Midyear Outlook 2021: Sovereign Support And Market Access Anchor Credit Quality, July 15, 2021
- New Zealand Councils' Infrastructure Spending Could Erode Rating Headroom, April 12, 2021
- Local Government Debt 2021: Infrastructure Needs Will Boost Borrowing In Developed Markets, March 25, 2021
- Local Government Debt 2021: Global Borrowing To Hit $2.25 Trillion, March 25, 2021
- Public Finance System Overview: New Zealand's Institutional Framework For Local And Regional Governments, Oct. 28, 2020
- Ratings History List: Asia-Pacific Local And Regional Government Ratings Since 1975, May 29, 2020
In accordance with our relevant policies and procedures, the Rating Committee was composed of analysts that are qualified to vote in the committee, with sufficient experience to convey the appropriate level of knowledge and understanding of the methodology applicable (see 'Related Criteria And Research'). At the onset of the committee, the chair confirmed that the information provided to the Rating Committee by the primary analyst had been distributed in a timely manner and was sufficient for Committee members to make an informed decision.
After the primary analyst gave opening remarks and explained the recommendation, the Committee discussed key rating factors and critical issues in accordance with the relevant criteria. Qualitative and quantitative risk factors were considered and discussed, looking at track-record and forecasts.
The committee's assessment of the key rating factors is reflected in the Ratings Score Snapshot above.
The chair ensured every voting member was given the opportunity to articulate his/her opinion. The chair or designee reviewed the draft report to ensure consistency with the Committee decision. The views and the decision of the rating committee are summarized in the above rationale and outlook. The weighting of all rating factors is described in the methodology used in this rating action (see 'Related Criteria And Research').
|Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Action|
Marlborough District Council
|Issuer Credit Rating||AA+/Negative/A-1+||AA+/Stable/A-1+|
Certain terms used in this report, particularly certain adjectives used to express our view on rating relevant factors, have specific meanings ascribed to them in our criteria, and should therefore be read in conjunction with such criteria. Please see Ratings Criteria at www.standardandpoors.com for further information. Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.capitaliq.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on S&P Global Ratings' public website at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column.
|Primary Credit Analyst:||Martin J Foo, Melbourne + 61 3 9631 2016;|
|Secondary Contact:||Sharad Jain, Melbourne + 61 3 9631 2077;|
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.