| 1001 |
Livingston · Public Weak at the gate
|
Merced |
296 |
1,169 |
10
|
42 |
23.4% |
13.8% |
7.8 |
2.7 |
124 |
29 |
| 1002 |
Oakland · Public Demand hides churn
|
Alameda |
225 |
1,166 |
10
|
56 |
17.3% |
18.2% |
6.2 |
— |
127 |
22 |
| 1003 |
Petaluma · Private
|
Sonoma |
41 |
172 |
10
|
112 |
8.7% |
— |
— |
— |
46 |
4 |
| 1004 |
Gilroy · Public Demand hides churn
|
Santa Clara |
400 |
1,618 |
10
|
40 |
24.2% |
12.8% |
6.5 |
0.8 |
161 |
39 |
| 1005 |
Baldwin Park · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
226 |
1,260 |
10
|
54 |
17.9% |
31.8% |
9.7 |
1.3 |
123 |
22 |
| 1006 |
Ontario · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
452 |
1,994 |
10
|
50 |
19.6% |
9.1% |
9.7 |
1.6 |
225 |
44 |
| 1007 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
El Dorado |
310 |
1,135 |
10
|
34 |
28.3% |
26.7% |
4.5 |
— |
106 |
30 |
| 1008 |
Glendale · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
549 |
2,066 |
10
|
61 |
15.8% |
30.2% |
9.1 |
2.2 |
335 |
53 |
| 1009 |
Sacramento · Public Demand problem
|
Sacramento |
427 |
1,535 |
10
|
48 |
20.0% |
17.1% |
5.4 |
0.9 |
205 |
41 |
| 1010 |
Oakland · Public Compounding decline
|
Alameda |
73 |
270 |
10
|
59 |
16.3% |
— |
— |
— |
43 |
7 |
| 1011 |
Vallejo · Private
|
Solano |
73 |
320 |
10
|
111 |
8.6% |
42.9% |
4.1 |
— |
81 |
7 |
| 1012 |
Rancho Mirage · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
313 |
1,401 |
10
|
59 |
16.3% |
26.7% |
9.6 |
1.0 |
184 |
30 |
| 1013 |
San Jose · Public Mid-year churn
|
Santa Clara |
94 |
405 |
10
|
73 |
13.0% |
— |
3.2 |
— |
69 |
9 |
| 1014 |
El Centro · Public Tracking
|
Imperial |
460 |
2,006 |
10
|
42 |
22.9% |
20.4% |
8.3 |
1.1 |
192 |
44 |
| 1015 |
Perris · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
136 |
1,031 |
10
|
79 |
12.0% |
— |
7.3 |
— |
108 |
13 |
| 1016 |
La Habra · Public Tracking
|
Orange |
471 |
1,881 |
10
|
55 |
17.4% |
— |
7.4 |
1.7 |
258 |
45 |
| 1017 |
Bakersfield · Public Demand problem
|
Kern |
471 |
2,048 |
10
|
33 |
29.2% |
15.6% |
8.1 |
1.3 |
154 |
45 |
| 1018 |
Lake Elsinore · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
403 |
1,687 |
9
|
36 |
25.9% |
23.7% |
8.7 |
— |
147 |
38 |
| 1019 |
Manteca · Public Strong demand
|
San Joaquin |
509 |
1,907 |
9
|
33 |
28.9% |
16.7% |
6.7 |
1.6 |
166 |
48 |
| 1020 |
Rio Linda · Public
|
Sacramento |
329 |
1,594 |
9
|
38 |
24.6% |
32.3% |
4.0 |
— |
126 |
31 |
| 1021 |
Escalon · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
213 |
815 |
9
|
32 |
29.4% |
35.0% |
4.2 |
— |
68 |
20 |
| 1022 |
Bakersfield · Public Weak at the gate
|
Kern |
556 |
2,212 |
9
|
44 |
21.5% |
34.6% |
7.5 |
— |
242 |
52 |
| 1023 |
Carmichael · Private
|
Sacramento |
43 |
388 |
9
|
21 |
44.4% |
— |
— |
— |
9 |
4 |
| 1024 |
Adelanto · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Bernardino |
551 |
2,247 |
9
|
47 |
19.6% |
21.6% |
8.0 |
1.1 |
260 |
51 |
| 1025 |
Norco · Public Strong demand
|
Riverside |
486 |
2,032 |
9
|
37 |
25.3% |
20.0% |
8.2 |
0.8 |
178 |
45 |
| 1026 |
Hesperia · Public Strong demand
|
San Bernardino |
487 |
2,098 |
9
|
39 |
23.8% |
40.0% |
8.2 |
0.6 |
189 |
45 |
| 1027 |
Anaheim · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
401 |
1,608 |
9
|
57 |
16.2% |
13.5% |
8.5 |
1.2 |
229 |
37 |
| 1028 |
Upper Lake · Public Watch — engagement
|
Lake |
65 |
307 |
9
|
75 |
12.2% |
— |
9.2 |
— |
49 |
6 |
| 1029 |
Bakersfield · Public Both ends slipping
|
Kern |
466 |
2,159 |
9
|
32 |
28.9% |
— |
7.7 |
1.5 |
149 |
43 |
| 1030 |
Napa · Public Tracking
|
Napa |
434 |
1,642 |
9
|
38 |
23.9% |
12.5% |
7.1 |
2.3 |
167 |
40 |
| 1031 |
Woodlake · Public Strong demand
|
Tulare |
152 |
646 |
9
|
22 |
42.4% |
— |
7.2 |
— |
33 |
14 |
| 1032 |
Oakdale · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
370 |
1,563 |
9
|
23 |
40.5% |
29.4% |
5.7 |
— |
84 |
34 |
| 1033 |
· Public Best in class
|
Monterey |
153 |
721 |
9
|
39 |
23.3% |
— |
6.5 |
2.0 |
60 |
14 |
| 1034 |
Modesto · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
504 |
2,192 |
9
|
26 |
35.1% |
17.4% |
6.3 |
1.8 |
131 |
46 |
| 1035 |
Hemet · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
551 |
2,414 |
9
|
38 |
24.0% |
24.0% |
8.5 |
0.7 |
208 |
50 |
| 1036 |
La Mesa · Public Tracking
|
San Diego |
563 |
2,172 |
9
|
42 |
21.7% |
31.4% |
8.0 |
1.9 |
235 |
51 |
| 1037 |
Acton · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
89 |
394 |
9
|
38 |
23.5% |
— |
9.0 |
— |
34 |
8 |
| 1038 |
Arbuckle · Public Demand problem
|
Colusa |
124 |
463 |
9
|
37 |
23.9% |
27.3% |
3.2 |
— |
46 |
11 |
| 1039 |
North Hollywood · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
113 |
558 |
9
|
109 |
8.1% |
— |
8.8 |
— |
123 |
10 |
| 1040 |
Nipomo · Public Strong demand
|
San Luis Obispo |
192 |
819 |
9
|
27 |
33.3% |
— |
6.8 |
— |
51 |
17 |
| 1041 |
· Public Strong demand
|
San Diego |
635 |
2,331 |
9
|
57 |
15.5% |
33.9% |
7.4 |
1.3 |
362 |
56 |
| 1042 |
Antelope · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
320 |
1,312 |
9
|
42 |
20.7% |
42.9% |
5.0 |
— |
135 |
28 |
| 1043 |
Dixon · Public Weak at the gate
|
Solano |
242 |
990 |
9
|
54 |
16.0% |
14.3% |
5.0 |
— |
131 |
21 |
| 1044 |
Clovis · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
751 |
2,779 |
9
|
26 |
32.8% |
27.7% |
6.7 |
0.8 |
198 |
65 |
| 1045 |
Dos Palos · Public Material decline
|
Merced |
151 |
639 |
9
|
36 |
23.6% |
23.1% |
4.0 |
— |
55 |
13 |
| 1046 |
Victorville · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Bernardino |
535 |
2,255 |
9
|
34 |
25.4% |
15.2% |
7.8 |
1.5 |
181 |
46 |
| 1047 |
Lancaster · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
675 |
2,631 |
9
|
31 |
28.2% |
24.1% |
7.0 |
1.2 |
206 |
58 |
| 1048 |
Vacaville · Public Best in class
|
Solano |
409 |
1,671 |
9
|
41 |
21.0% |
40.0% |
4.7 |
0.7 |
167 |
35 |
| 1049 |
Ramona · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
328 |
1,404 |
9
|
39 |
21.9% |
14.3% |
5.8 |
— |
128 |
28 |
| 1050 |
Atascadero · Public Demand problem
|
San Luis Obispo |
293 |
1,157 |
9
|
34 |
25.0% |
— |
5.5 |
— |
100 |
25 |
| 1051 |
Bakersfield · Public Sharp downturn
|
Kern |
529 |
2,098 |
9
|
32 |
26.8% |
28.9% |
6.0 |
— |
168 |
45 |
| 1052 |
San Bernardino · Public Both ends slipping
|
San Bernardino |
306 |
1,440 |
8
|
36 |
23.4% |
— |
6.2 |
— |
111 |
26 |
| 1053 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
95 |
438 |
8
|
83 |
10.1% |
— |
8.4 |
— |
79 |
8 |
| 1054 |
Bakersfield · Public Both ends slipping
|
Kern |
598 |
2,331 |
8
|
32 |
25.8% |
6.0% |
6.9 |
1.5 |
194 |
50 |
| 1055 |
Stockton · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Joaquin |
72 |
1,186 |
8
|
56 |
15.0% |
— |
— |
— |
40 |
6 |
| 1056 |
Los Angeles · Public Tracking
|
Los Angeles |
84 |
477 |
8
|
130 |
6.4% |
— |
4.8 |
— |
109 |
7 |
| 1057 |
Fremont · Public Compounding decline
|
Alameda |
72 |
394 |
8
|
57 |
14.6% |
— |
4.2 |
— |
41 |
6 |
| 1058 |
Stockton · Public
|
San Joaquin |
576 |
2,355 |
8
|
32 |
25.9% |
14.6% |
4.9 |
— |
185 |
48 |
| 1059 |
· Public Weak at the gate
|
San Diego |
204 |
780 |
8
|
48 |
17.4% |
41.2% |
8.3 |
— |
98 |
17 |
| 1060 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
168 |
654 |
8
|
57 |
14.6% |
21.4% |
8.3 |
— |
96 |
14 |
| 1061 |
Sacramento · Public Demand hides churn
|
Sacramento |
433 |
1,682 |
8
|
39 |
21.1% |
38.9% |
4.2 |
— |
171 |
36 |
| 1062 |
Chico · Public
|
Butte |
482 |
1,978 |
8
|
34 |
24.1% |
20.0% |
4.8 |
0.6 |
166 |
40 |
| 1063 |
Santa Ana · Public Demand hides churn
|
Orange |
500 |
1,519 |
8
|
37 |
22.4% |
17.1% |
7.4 |
0.8 |
183 |
41 |
| 1064 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
183 |
723 |
8
|
66 |
12.5% |
26.7% |
8.2 |
— |
120 |
15 |
| 1065 |
Redding · Public Holding share
|
Shasta |
281 |
1,268 |
8
|
37 |
22.3% |
30.4% |
4.6 |
— |
103 |
23 |
| 1066 |
Los Banos · Public Demand problem
|
Merced |
443 |
1,725 |
8
|
36 |
22.4% |
11.1% |
6.1 |
0.9 |
161 |
36 |
| 1067 |
Calipatria · Public Sharp downturn
|
Imperial |
74 |
345 |
8
|
46 |
17.6% |
— |
8.1 |
— |
34 |
6 |
| 1068 |
San Diego · Private
|
San Diego |
37 |
436 |
8
|
86 |
9.4% |
100.0% |
8.1 |
— |
32 |
3 |
| 1069 |
Lodi · Public Material decline
|
San Joaquin |
481 |
2,058 |
8
|
32 |
25.7% |
15.4% |
4.8 |
0.8 |
152 |
39 |
| 1070 |
Santa Rosa · Public Compounding decline
|
Sonoma |
346 |
1,553 |
8
|
50 |
16.1% |
32.1% |
4.0 |
— |
174 |
28 |
| 1071 |
San Jose · Public Both ends slipping
|
Santa Clara |
225 |
862 |
8
|
24 |
34.0% |
— |
4.4 |
3.1 |
53 |
18 |
| 1072 |
Bakersfield · Public Best in class
|
Kern |
656 |
2,530 |
8
|
31 |
25.6% |
5.8% |
6.1 |
0.6 |
203 |
52 |
| 1073 |
San Jose · Public Both ends slipping
|
Santa Clara |
177 |
874 |
8
|
25 |
31.1% |
— |
6.2 |
— |
45 |
14 |
| 1074 |
Riverside · Private
|
Riverside |
89 |
685 |
8
|
69 |
11.5% |
— |
7.9 |
— |
61 |
7 |
| 1075 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
446 |
1,543 |
8
|
37 |
21.3% |
34.3% |
7.0 |
0.9 |
164 |
35 |
| 1076 |
Rancho Cordova · Public Strong demand
|
Sacramento |
435 |
1,944 |
8
|
35 |
22.5% |
32.4% |
4.6 |
0.9 |
151 |
34 |
| 1077 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Kern |
525 |
2,324 |
8
|
26 |
30.6% |
31.7% |
6.3 |
0.6 |
134 |
41 |
| 1078 |
Santa Rosa · Public Demand hides churn
|
Sonoma |
334 |
1,434 |
8
|
32 |
24.5% |
30.8% |
4.5 |
— |
106 |
26 |
| 1079 |
Rohnert Park · Public Strong demand
|
Sonoma |
425 |
1,755 |
8
|
36 |
21.6% |
21.2% |
4.7 |
— |
153 |
33 |
| 1080 |
Santee · Public Strong demand
|
San Diego |
425 |
1,621 |
8
|
39 |
19.8% |
27.3% |
6.6 |
2.1 |
167 |
33 |
| 1081 |
Littlerock · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
374 |
1,507 |
8
|
25 |
30.9% |
— |
6.2 |
— |
94 |
29 |
| 1082 |
Kerman · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
350 |
1,493 |
8
|
21 |
37.5% |
11.1% |
5.1 |
0.9 |
72 |
27 |
| 1083 |
Phelan · Public Demand problem
|
San Bernardino |
467 |
2,163 |
8
|
33 |
23.5% |
11.1% |
6.6 |
1.3 |
153 |
36 |
| 1084 |
Bloomington · Public Material decline
|
San Bernardino |
416 |
1,794 |
8
|
50 |
15.2% |
— |
6.7 |
— |
210 |
32 |
| 1085 |
Fair Oaks · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
365 |
1,548 |
8
|
37 |
20.9% |
17.9% |
4.7 |
— |
134 |
28 |
| 1086 |
· Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
502 |
1,952 |
8
|
43 |
17.8% |
28.9% |
6.2 |
1.6 |
214 |
38 |
| 1087 |
Ventura · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
371 |
1,585 |
8
|
43 |
17.7% |
14.3% |
5.7 |
— |
158 |
28 |
| 1088 |
Fresno · Public Compounding decline
|
Fresno |
398 |
1,741 |
8
|
24 |
30.9% |
13.3% |
5.3 |
0.8 |
97 |
30 |
| 1089 |
Bonsall · Public Watch — engagement
|
San Diego |
93 |
342 |
8
|
62 |
12.1% |
— |
4.3 |
— |
58 |
7 |
| 1090 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Fresno |
93 |
367 |
8
|
13 |
58.3% |
— |
3.2 |
— |
12 |
7 |
| 1091 |
Lancaster · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
638 |
2,688 |
8
|
34 |
22.3% |
16.7% |
6.9 |
1.1 |
215 |
48 |
| 1092 |
Hanford · Public Tracking
|
Kings |
346 |
1,498 |
8
|
22 |
34.7% |
15.4% |
5.2 |
— |
75 |
26 |
| 1093 |
Hayward · Public Mid-year churn
|
Alameda |
346 |
1,580 |
8
|
46 |
16.2% |
38.5% |
4.0 |
— |
160 |
26 |
| 1094 |
El Cajon · Public Mid-year churn
|
San Diego |
440 |
1,701 |
8
|
35 |
21.3% |
12.1% |
7.5 |
1.8 |
155 |
33 |
| 1095 |
San Francisco · Private
|
San Francisco |
40 |
320 |
8
|
188 |
4.0% |
— |
— |
— |
75 |
3 |
| 1096 |
Stockton · Public Compounding decline
|
San Joaquin |
482 |
2,021 |
7
|
28 |
26.9% |
22.2% |
4.6 |
— |
134 |
36 |
| 1097 |
Esparto · Public Compounding decline
|
Yolo |
67 |
287 |
7
|
37 |
20.0% |
60.0% |
— |
— |
25 |
5 |
| 1098 |
Manteca · Public Best in class
|
San Joaquin |
403 |
1,670 |
7
|
36 |
20.7% |
20.0% |
5.0 |
— |
145 |
30 |
| 1099 |
· Public Tracking
|
Plumas |
54 |
310 |
7
|
30 |
25.0% |
— |
— |
— |
16 |
4 |
| 1100 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Contra Costa |
203 |
740 |
7
|
34 |
22.1% |
46.7% |
3.9 |
2.0 |
68 |
15 |