Edgar Filing: MFS CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND

MFS CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND N-CSR

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF

REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number 811-09537

MFS CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

Kristin V. Collins

Massachusetts Financial Services Company

111 Huntington Avenue

Boston, Massachusetts 02199

(Name and address of agents for service)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 954-5000

Date of fiscal year end: November 30

Date of reporting period: November 30, 2015

ITEM 1.

REPORTS TO STOCKHOLDERS.

ANNUAL REPORT

November 30, 2015

LOGO

MFS® CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND

LOGO

CCA-ANN

MFS® CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND

NYSE MKT Symbol: CCA


Letter from the Chairman			1
Portfolio composition			2
Management review			4
Performance summary			7
Portfolio managers’ profiles			9
Dividend reinvestment and cash purchase plan			10
Portfolio of investments			11
Statement of assets and liabilities			21
Statement of operations			22
Statements of changes in net assets			23
Statement of cash flows			24
Financial highlights			25
Notes to financial statements			27
Report of independent registered public accounting firm			37
Results of shareholder meetings			38
Trustees and officers			39
Board review of investment advisory agreement			44
Proxy voting policies and information			48
Quarterly portfolio disclosure			48
Further information			48
Federal tax information			48
MFS^® privacy notice			49
Contact information back cover

NOT FDIC INSURED • MAY LOSE VALUE • NO BANK GUARANTEE

LOGO

LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN

Dear Shareholders:

A disparity in the pace of economic growth between the United States and much of the rest of the world has led to a divergence in central bank policies.

The U.S. economy continues its modest recovery, fed by strengthening labor and housing markets. Confident consumers are spending, even as corporations post smaller profits, held back by the strong U.S. dollar, diminished demand for exports, and the significant drop in energy and other commodity prices. Accordingly, the U.S. Federal Reserve has signaled a desire to gradually transition from the stimulative low interest rate environment of recent years.

In contrast, central banks in China, Japan and Europe are seeking new ways to revive their respective economies. China’s slowing

growth has had a global impact, particularly for commodity-exporting nations. Japan’s government plans to shift its focus to a more worker-driven, bottom-up stimulus after limited success in promoting exports through a weaker yen. And the European Central Bank appears determined to prevent deflation by extending its quantitative easing program.

As markets have become more focused on short-term trends in recent years, we believe it’s important for investors to lengthen their investment time horizon. At MFS®, we don’t trade on headlines or trends; we invest for the long term.

We believe that this approach, coupled with the professional guidance of a financial advisor, will help you reach your investment goals.

Respectfully,

LOGO

Robert J. Manning

Chairman

MFS Investment Management

January 15, 2016

The opinions expressed in this letter are subject to change and may not be relied upon for investment advice. No forecasts can be guaranteed.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION

Portfolio structure (i)(j)

LOGO


Top five industries (i)
General Obligations – Schools			30.0%
Healthcare Revenue – Hospitals			24.5%
Water & Sewer Utility Revenue			18.4%
Tax Assessment			12.9%
State & Local Agencies			11.7%


Composition including fixed income credit quality (a)(i)
AAA			2.1%
AA			66.3%
A			68.8%
BBB			11.0%
BB			1.8%
B			4.4%
CC			1.4%
Not Rated (j)			3.4%
Cash & Cash Equivalents			(67.7)%
Other			8.5%

Portfolio facts (i)
Average Duration (d)			11.2
Average Effective Maturity (m)			15.9 yrs.

Jurisdiction (i)
California			161.5%
Puerto Rico			3.6%
New York			1.6%
Guam			1.0%
U.S. Treasury Securities (j)			(8.5)%

(a)

For all securities other than those specifically described below, ratings are assigned to underlying securities utilizing ratings from Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s rating agencies and applying the following hierarchy: If all three agencies provide a rating, the middle rating (after dropping the highest and lowest ratings) is assigned; if two of the three agencies rate a security, the lower of the two is assigned. Ratings are shown in the S&P and Fitch scale (e.g., AAA). Securities rated BBB or higher are considered investment grade. All ratings are subject to change. Not Rated includes fixed income securities, including fixed income futures contracts, which have not been rated by any rating agency. The fund may not hold all of these instruments. The fund is not rated by these agencies.

(d)

Duration is a measure of how much a bond’s price is likely to fluctuate with general changes in interest rates, e.g., if rates rise 1.00%, a bond with a 5-year duration is likely to lose about 5.00% of its value due to the interest rate move. This calculation is based on net assets applicable to common shares as of 11/30/15.

Portfolio Composition – continued

(i)

For purposes of this presentation, the components include the value of securities, and reflect the impact of the equivalent exposure of derivative positions, if any. These amounts may be negative from time to time. Equivalent exposure is a calculated amount that translates the derivative position into a reasonable approximation of the amount of the underlying asset that the portfolio would have to hold at a given point in time to have the same price sensitivity that results from the portfolio’s ownership of the derivative contract. When dealing with derivatives, equivalent exposure is a more representative measure of the potential impact of a position on portfolio performance than value. The bond component will include any accrued interest amounts.

(j)	For the purpose of managing the fund’s duration, the fund holds short treasury futures with a bond equivalent exposure of (8.5)%, which reduce the fund’s interest rate exposure but not its credit exposure.

(m)

In determining an instrument’s effective maturity for purposes of calculating the fund’s dollar-weighted average effective maturity, MFS uses the instrument’s stated maturity or, if applicable, an earlier date on which MFS believes it is probable that a maturity-shortening device (such as a put, pre-refunding or prepayment) will cause the instrument to be repaid. Such an earlier date can be substantially shorter than the instrument’s stated maturity. This calculation is based on gross assets, which consists of net assets applicable to common shares plus the value of preferred shares, as of 11/30/15.

From time to time Cash & Cash Equivalents may be negative due to the aggregate liquidation value of variable rate municipal term preferred shares and/or timing of cash receipts.

Where the fund holds convertible bonds, these are treated as part of the equity portion of the portfolio.

Cash & Cash Equivalents includes any cash, investments in money market funds, short-term securities, and other assets less liabilities. Please see the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for additional information related to the fund’s cash position and other assets and liabilities.

Other includes currency derivatives and/or any offsets to derivative positions.

Percentages are based on net assets applicable to common shares as of 11/30/15.

The portfolio is actively managed and current holdings may be different.

MANAGEMENT REVIEW

Summary of Results

MFS California Municipal Fund (“fund”) is a closed-end fund. The fund’s investment objective is to seek high current income exempt from federal income tax and California personal income tax, but may also consider capital appreciation. The fund invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets, including assets attributable to preferred shares and borrowings for investment purposes, in debt securities the interest on which in the opinion of issuer counsel (or other reputable authority) is exempt from federal regular income tax and California personal income tax.

For the twelve months ended November 30, 2015, shares of the MFS California Municipal Fund provided a total return of 6.28%, at net asset value and a total return of 13.45%, at market value. This compares with a return of 3.10% for the fund’s benchmark, the Barclays Municipal Bond Index.

The performance commentary below is based on the net asset value performance of the fund which reflects the performance of the underlying pool of assets held by the fund. The total return at market value represents the return earned by owners of the shares of the fund which are traded publicly on the exchange.

Market Environment

Sluggish global growth weighed on both developed and emerging market (“EM”) economies during the reporting period. EM economies have been particularly lackluster. While the US Federal Reserve (“Fed”) appears ready to tighten monetary conditions, other large developed economies continued to embrace accommodative monetary policies. Policy missteps by the Chinese government roiled global markets over the summer, beginning with the uncoordinated response to the stock market’s boom and bust and then the confusing decision to devalue the renminbi in August. China subsequently ramped up a wide range of monetary and fiscal measures to stimulate the economy and bolster sentiment. Its economy appeared to stabilize late in the period. Also at the end of the period, the Chinese renminbi was granted reserve currency status by the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), which announced its inclusion in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights currency basket effective October 1, 2016.

During the second half of the reporting period, the US faced an earnings recession caused primarily by the sharp decline in the prices of oil and other commodities. Earnings contractions were concentrated primarily in the energy, materials and industrial sectors. An additional headwind for earnings was the sharp rise in the US dollar over the period. Exports were crimped by the dollar’s strength and falling demand in emerging markets. Consumer spending held up well during the period amid a modest increase in real wages and a tailwind from falling gasoline prices. Demand for autos reached near-record territory late in the period. In emerging markets, two key factors weighed on economies and asset prices: 1) weaker Chinese growth, which drove the decline in commodity prices and 2) prospects for higher US interest rates. Structural factors like floating exchange rates and fiscal buffers partially offset these cyclical headwinds.

Management Review – continued

US Treasury yields finished the period at 2.21%, about the same level as the beginning of the period (2.24%), but that masked significant volatility in yields during the year, with 10-Year US Treasury yields reaching a low of 1.64% early in 2015 amid declining oil prices and lower inflation, as well as the Quantitative Easing implementation by the European Central Bank. Subsequently, 10-Year US Treasury yields rebounded to as high as 2.49% in June as oil prices rose, payroll growth remained steady and the Fed signaled its intent to begin normalizing policy. However, concerns about weaker global growth, especially out of China and other emerging markets, caused 10-Year US Treasury yields to subsequently decline to 2.21% on November 30, 2015.

Municipal bonds generally produced positive returns for the 12-months ended November 30, 2015, helped by limited new issuance and continued strong demand for municipal bonds. While Puerto Rico made headlines during the summer after indicating that it could not service its outstanding debt, the municipal market generally shrugged off the news. However, markets appeared to have been concerned about underfunded public employee pension systems and other benefits promised to public employees, and the political difficulties in enacting reform. Nowhere did these challenges appear more acute than in the underfunded pensions of both the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, where burgeoning budget deficits attracted increased market and rating agency attention. This demonstrated that the market differentiated between those issuers who have taken steps toward fiscal sustainability and those with ongoing budget and pension challenges.

Factors Affecting Performance

Relative to the Barclays Municipal Bond Index, strong security selection in bonds rated^(r) “A”, “B” and “AA” contributed to performance. Positive bond selection in the credit enhanced and tobacco sectors also benefited relative performance. The fund’s longer duration^(d) stance relative to the benchmark further supported relative returns.

The fund employs leverage which has been created through the issuance of variable rate municipal term preferred shares. To the extent that investments are purchased through the use of leverage, the fund’s net asset value will increase or decrease at a greater rate than a comparable unleveraged fund. During the reporting period, the fund’s leverage positively impacted performance.

During the reporting period, there were no factors that materially hindered performance relative to the Barclays Municipal Bond Index.

Respectfully,


Michael Dawson		Geoffrey Schechter
Portfolio Manager		Portfolio Manager

(d)	Duration is a measure of how much a bond’s price is likely to fluctuate with general changes in interest rates, e.g., if rates rise 1.00%, a bond with a 5-year duration is likely to lose about 5.00% of its value.

(r)

Bonds rated “BBB”, “Baa”, or higher are considered investment grade; bonds rated “BB”, “Ba”, or below are considered non-investment grade. The source for bond quality ratings is Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, Inc. and are applied using the following hierarchy: If all three agencies provide a rating, the middle rating (after dropping the highest and lowest ratings) is assigned; if two of the three agencies rate a security, the lower

Management Review – continued

of the two is assigned. Ratings are shown in the S&P and Fitch scale (e.g., AAA). For securities which are not rated by any of the three agencies, the security is considered Not Rated.

The views expressed in this report are those of the portfolio managers only through the end of the period of the report as stated on the cover and do not necessarily reflect the views of MFS or any other person in the MFS organization. These views are subject to change at any time based on market or other conditions, and MFS disclaims any responsibility to update such views. These views may not be relied upon as investment advice or an indication of trading intent on behalf of any MFS portfolio. References to specific securities are not recommendations of such securities, and may not be representative of any MFS portfolio’s current or future investments.

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY THROUGH 11/30/15

The following chart presents the fund’s historical performance in comparison to its benchmark(s). Investment return and principal value will fluctuate, and shares, when sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost; current performance may be lower or higher than quoted. The performance shown does not reflect the deduction of taxes, if any, that a shareholder would pay on fund distributions or the sale of fund shares. Performance data shown represents past performance and is no guarantee of future results.

Price Summary for MFS California Municipal Fund

Date

Price

Year Ended 11/30/15

Net Asset Value

11/30/15

$12.63

11/30/14

$12.55

NYSE MKT Price

11/30/15

$11.72

4/28/15

(high) (t)

$11.80

8/25/15

(low) (t)

$10.72

11/30/14

$10.91

Total Returns vs Benchmark



Year Ended 11/30/15	MFS California Municipal Fund at
	NYSE MKT Price (r)	13.45%
	Net Asset Value (r)	6.28%
	Barclays Municipal Bond Index (f)	3.10%

(f)	Source: FactSet Research Systems Inc.

(r)	Includes reinvestment of dividends and capital gain distributions.

(t)	For the period December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015.

Benchmark Definition

Barclays Municipal Bond Index – a market capitalization-weighted index that measures the performance of the tax-exempt bond market.

It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Notes to Performance Summary

The fund’s shares may trade at a discount or premium to net asset value. When fund shares trade at a premium, buyers pay more than the net asset value underlying fund shares, and shares purchased at a premium would receive less than the amount paid for them in the event of the fund’s liquidation.

Performance Summary – continued

The fund’s monthly distributions may include a return of capital to shareholders to the extent that distributions are in excess of the fund’s net investment income and net capital gains, determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations. Distributions that are treated for federal income tax purposes as a return of capital will reduce each shareholder’s basis in his or her shares and, to the extent the return of capital exceeds such basis, will be treated as gain to the shareholder from a sale of shares. Returns of shareholder capital have the effect of reducing the fund’s assets and increasing the fund’s expense ratio.

Net asset values and performance results based on net asset value do not include adjustments made for financial reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and may differ from amounts reported in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities or the Financial Highlights.

From time to time the fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements, without which performance would be lower.

In accordance with Section 23(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the fund hereby gives notice that it may from time to time repurchase common and/or preferred shares of the fund in the open market at the option of the Board of Trustees and on such terms as the Trustees shall determine.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ PROFILES


Portfolio Manager	Primary Role	Since	Title and Five Year History
Michael Dawson	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment management area of MFS since 1998.

Geoffrey Schechter	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment management area of MFS since 1993.

DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT AND CASH PURCHASE PLAN

The fund offers a Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) that allows common shareholders to reinvest either all of the distributions paid by the fund or only the long-term capital gains. Generally, purchases are made at the market price unless that price exceeds the net asset value (the shares are trading at a premium). If the shares are trading at a premium, purchases will be made at a price of either the net asset value or 95% of the market price, whichever is greater. You can also buy shares on a quarterly basis in any amount $100 and over. The Plan Agent will purchase shares under the Cash Purchase Plan on the 15th of January, April, July, and October or shortly thereafter.

If shares are registered in your own name, new shareholders will automatically participate in the Plan, unless you have indicated that you do not wish to participate. If your shares are in the name of a brokerage firm, bank, or other nominee, you can ask the firm or nominee to participate in the Plan on your behalf. If the nominee does not offer the Plan, you may wish to request that your shares be re-registered in your own name so that you can participate. There is no service charge to reinvest distributions, nor are there brokerage charges for shares issued directly by the fund. However, when shares are bought on the NYSE MKT or otherwise on the open market, each participant pays a pro rata share of the transaction expenses, including commissions. Dividends and capital gains distributions are taxable whether received in cash or reinvested in additional shares – the automatic reinvestment of distributions does not relieve you of any income tax that may be payable (or required to be withheld) on the distributions.

If your shares are held directly with the Plan Agent, you may withdraw from the Plan at any time by going to the Plan Agent’s website at www.computershare.com/investor, by calling 1-800-637-2304 any business day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time or by writing to the Plan Agent at P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078. Please have available the name of the fund and your account number. For certain types of registrations, such as corporate accounts, instructions must be submitted in writing. Please call for additional details. When you withdraw from the Plan, you can receive the value of the reinvested shares in one of three ways: your full shares will be held in your account, the Plan Agent will sell your shares and send the proceeds to you, or you may transfer your full shares to your investment professional who can hold or sell them. Additionally, the Plan Agent will sell your fractional shares and send the proceeds to you.

If you have any questions or for further information or a copy of the Plan, contact the Plan Agent Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the Transfer Agent for the fund) at 1-800-637-2304, at the Plan Agent’s website at www.computershare.com/investor, or by writing to the Plan Agent at P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078.

PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS

11/30/15

The Portfolio of Investments is a complete list of all securities owned by your fund. It is categorized by broad-based asset classes.


Municipal Bonds - 165.8%
Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Airport Revenue - 9.0%
Los Angeles, CA, Department of Airports Rev. (Los Angeles International), “C”, BHAC, 5.25%, 5/15/38 (Prerefunded 5/15/18)	$	750,000	$	829,450
Orange County, CA, Airport Rev., “A”, 5%, 7/01/31		190,000		211,723
San Diego County, CA, Regional Airport Authority Rev., “A”, 5%, 7/01/21		500,000		580,650
San Diego County, CA, Regional Airport Authority Rev., “A”, 5%, 7/01/43		500,000		558,755
San Francisco, CA, City & County Airports Commission, International Airport Rev., “A”, 5%, 5/01/30		285,000		321,420
San Francisco, CA, City & County Airports Commission, International Airport Rev., “A”, 5%, 5/01/31		150,000		168,420
San Jose, CA, Airport Rev., “A-2”, 5.25%, 3/01/34		440,000		503,936

			$	3,174,354
General Obligations - General Purpose - 8.8%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, “A”, NATL, 5.5%, 7/01/20	$	160,000	$	162,907
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority Rev., “H”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/17		70,000		71,175
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority Rev., “H”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/18		50,000		50,670
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority Rev., “M-2”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/35 (Put Date 7/01/17)		25,000		25,182
State of California, AMBAC, 6%, 2/01/17		1,000,000		1,064,640
State of California, 5.25%, 4/01/35		455,000		527,309
State of California, 5.5%, 3/01/40		630,000		728,362
State of California, 5.25%, 11/01/40		415,000		483,600

			$	3,113,845
General Obligations - Schools - 29.7%
Alhambra, CA, Unified School District, “B”, ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 8/01/28	$	500,000	$	561,045
Banning, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2006), “B”, ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 8/01/33		500,000		545,630
Beaumont, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, “C”, AGM, 0%, 8/01/40		955,000		332,407
Beaumont, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, “C”, AGM, 0%, 8/01/44		1,000,000		291,570
Chabot-Las Positas, CA, Community College (Election of 2004), “B”, AMBAC, 5%, 8/01/30		60,000		61,723

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
General Obligations - Schools - continued
Folsom Cordova, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2012), “A”, 5%, 10/01/38	$	535,000	$	604,422
Lake Tahoe, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, AGM, 0%, 8/01/45		515,000		293,071
Mendocino Lake, CA, Community College District Rev. (Election of 2006), Capital Appreciation, “B”, AGM, 0%, 8/01/32		330,000		171,085
Montebello, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2004), “A-1”, ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 8/01/34		355,000		395,917
Mount San Antonio, CA, Community College District Rev. (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, 0%, 8/01/43		855,000		614,873
Napa Valley, CA, Unified School District, 5%, 8/01/20		225,000		263,133
Oakland, CA, Unified School District Rev., AGM, 5%, 8/01/28		170,000		198,555
Oakland, CA, Unified School District Rev., AGM, 5%, 8/01/30		170,000		196,340
Pittsburg, CA, Unified School District, “B”, AGM, 5.5%, 8/01/34		500,000		554,415
Pomona, CA, Unified School District, “A”, NATL, 6.55%, 8/01/29		1,000,000		1,314,400
San Diego, CA, Community College (Election of 2002), 5.25%, 8/01/33		125,000		142,261
San Diego, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, “G”, 0%, 7/01/34		265,000		115,585
San Joaquin, CA, Delta Community College District (Election of 2004), Capital Appreciation, “B”, AGM, 0%, 8/01/18		400,000		385,020
San Jose, CA, Evergreen Community College District (Election of 2010), “A”, 5%, 8/01/41		265,000		303,091
Santee, CA, School District (Election of 2006), Capital Appreciation, “D”, ASSD GTY, 0%, 8/01/43		765,000		238,948
Vallejo City, CA, Unified School District, “A”, NATL, 5.9%, 8/01/25		500,000		599,335
Victor, CA, Elementary School District (Election of 2008), “A”, ASSD GTY, 5.125%, 8/01/34		500,000		564,275
Washington, CA, Yolo County Unified School District (New High School Project), 5%, 8/01/21		450,000		475,947
West Contra Costa, CA, Unified School District, “A”, NATL, 5.7%, 2/01/23		500,000		618,860
West Covina, CA, Unified School District, “A”, NATL, 5.8%, 2/01/21		500,000		601,775

			$	10,443,683
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - 24.1%
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Sharp Healthcare), 6.25%, 8/01/39	$	505,000	$	585,800
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Sharp Healthcare), “A”, 5%, 8/01/26		110,000		126,058
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center), 5%, 11/15/34		235,000		235,536
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Memorial Health Services), “A”, 5%, 10/01/33		295,000		327,456

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - continued
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Scripps Health), “A”, 5%, 11/15/32	$	525,000	$	594,437
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Scripps Health), “A”, 5%, 11/15/40		255,000		284,254
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Sutter Health), “B”, 5.875%, 8/15/31		500,000		600,330
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/29		35,000		38,597
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/28		45,000		49,847
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/44		85,000		91,785
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/30		15,000		16,493
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/35		65,000		70,903
California Municipal Finance Authority, COP (Community Hospitals of Central California), 5.25%, 2/01/27 (Prerefunded 2/01/17)		105,000		110,679
California Municipal Finance Authority, COP (Community Hospitals of Central California), 5.25%, 2/01/27		145,000		150,461
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Adventist), ASSD GTY, 5%, 3/01/37		495,000		523,111
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Catholic Healthcare West), “K”, ASSD GTY, 5.5%, 7/01/41		1,000,000		1,055,000
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Enloe Medical Center), “A”, CALHF, 5.5%, 8/15/23		500,000		557,845
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Kaiser Permanente), “A”, 5%, 4/01/42		455,000		507,416
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Loma Linda University Medical Center), “A”, 5.5%, 12/01/54		350,000		370,363
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital), 5.25%, 11/01/30		260,000		294,572
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Sutter Health), “A”, 5%, 8/15/32		610,000		687,952
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Trinity Health Corp.), 5%, 12/01/41		450,000		498,060
Santa Clara County, CA, Financing Authority Rev. (El Camino Hospital), AMBAC, 5.125%, 2/01/41		400,000		429,240
Upland, CA, COP (San Antonio Community Hospital), 6.375%, 1/01/32		250,000		289,518

			$	8,495,713
Healthcare Revenue - Long Term Care - 3.9%
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Episcopal Senior Communities), 6.125%, 7/01/41	$	150,000	$	169,736

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Long Term Care - continued
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Eskaton Properties, Inc.), 5%, 11/15/35	$	230,000	$	242,176
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (899 Charleston Project), “A”, 5.25%, 11/01/44		295,000		300,136
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Episcopal Communities & Services for Seniors Obligated Group), 5%, 5/15/47		315,000		336,212
Los Angeles County, CA, Regional Financing Authority Rev. (Montecedro Inc. Project), “A”, CALHF, 5%, 11/15/44		300,000		338,832

			$	1,387,092
Industrial Revenue - Other - 1.6%
Liberty, NY, Development Corp. Rev. (Goldman Sachs Headquarters), 5.25%, 10/01/35	$	485,000	$	577,814

Miscellaneous Revenue - Other - 4.8%
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Jackson Lab), 5%, 7/01/37	$	400,000	$	444,448
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Rev. (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Obligated Group), “A”, 5%, 11/01/30		235,000		271,669
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Rev. (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Obligated Group), “A”, 5%, 11/01/34		170,000		193,676
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Rev. (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Obligated Group), “A”, 5%, 11/01/35		170,000		193,419
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Rev. (Walt Disney Family Museum), 5.25%, 2/01/33		160,000		172,539
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Buck Institute for Research on Aging), AGM, 5%, 11/15/44		385,000		430,330

			$	1,706,081
Port Revenue - 4.2%
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, California Rev., “A”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/28	$	305,000	$	360,135
Port of Oakland, CA, Rev., “P”, 5%, 5/01/33		1,000,000		1,113,500

			$	1,473,635
Sales & Excise Tax Revenue - 1.2%
California Economic Recovery, “A”, 5%, 7/01/20 (Prerefunded 7/01/19)	$	250,000	$	284,663
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Sales Tax Rev., “C”, 5%, 8/01/40		50,000		30,695

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Sales & Excise Tax Revenue - continued
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Sales Tax Rev., “C”, 5.25%, 8/01/40	$	165,000	$	102,112

			$	417,470
Secondary Schools - 1.5%
California School Finance Authority, School Facility Rev. (Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools Projects), “A”, 5%, 7/01/30	$	255,000	$	268,688
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, School Facility Rev. (Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools), “A”, 6.375%, 7/01/47		230,000		250,327

			$	519,015
Single Family Housing - State - 3.2%
California Housing Finance Agency Rev. (Home Mortgage), “E”, 4.75%, 2/01/30	$	305,000	$	307,538
California Housing Finance Agency Rev. (Home Mortgage), “K”, 5.3%, 8/01/23		175,000		179,606
California Housing Finance Agency Rev. (Home Mortgage), “L”, 5.45%, 8/01/33		555,000		591,097
California Housing Finance Agency Rev. (Home Mortgage), “L”, FNMA, 5.5%, 8/01/38		40,000		40,694

			$	1,118,935
State & Agency - Other - 1.4%
Sacramento County, CA, Public Facilities Project, COP, AMBAC, 4.75%, 10/01/27	$	500,000	$	500,435

State & Local Agencies - 11.7%
California Public Works Board Lease Rev. (Judicial Council Projects), “A”, 5%, 3/01/28	$	380,000	$	445,630
California Public Works Board Lease Rev. (New Stockton Courthouse), “B”, 5%, 10/01/33		275,000		318,791
Los Angeles County, CA, Schools Regionalized Business Service Corp., Pooled Financing, Capital Appreciation, “A”, AMBAC, 0%, 8/01/18		2,020,000		1,915,485
Los Angeles County, CA, Schools Regionalized Business Service Corp., Pooled Financing, Capital Appreciation, “A”, AMBAC, 0%, 8/01/23		1,220,000		984,028
Los Angeles, CA, Municipal Improvement Corp. Lease Rev., “B”, ASSD GTY, 5.5%, 4/01/30		390,000		437,658

			$	4,101,592
Tax - Other - 0.5%
Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority, Hotel Occupancy Tax Rev., “A”, AMBAC, 5%, 7/01/31	$	55,000	$	48,967
Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Special Tax Rev., “C”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/24		75,000		72,816

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Tax - Other - continued
Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Special Tax Rev., “C”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/26	$	65,000	$	62,525

			$	184,308
Tax Assessment - 12.7%
Fontana, CA, Public Finance Authority, Tax Allocation Rev. (Sub Lien North Fontana Redevelopment), “A”, AMBAC, 5%, 10/01/29	$	1,000,000	$	1,001,620
Huntington Park, CA, Public Financing Authority Rev., “A”, AGM, 5.25%, 9/01/19		500,000		507,060
Irvine, CA, Limited Obligation Improvement (Reassessment District #12-1), 4%, 9/02/22		115,000		129,330
Irvine, CA, Limited Obligation Improvement (Reassessment District #12-1), 5%, 9/02/23		60,000		70,133
North Natomas, CA, Community Facilities District Special Tax, “4-E”, 5.25%, 9/01/33		160,000		180,248
Riverside County, CA, Jurupa Valley Redevelopment Project Rev., “B”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/30		465,000		534,285
Riverside County, CA, Jurupa Valley Redevelopment Project Rev., “B”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/31		225,000		257,708
Riverside County, CA, Redevelopment Agency, Tax Allocation, “A”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/34		295,000		335,819
San Diego, CA, Redevelopment Agency, Tax Allocation (Centre City), “A”, AMBAC, 5.25%, 9/01/25		500,000		507,240
San Dieguito, CA, Public Facilities Authority, “A”, AMBAC, 5%, 8/01/32		500,000		540,340
San Francisco, CA, City & County Redevelopment Successor Agency, Community Facilities District No. 6 (Mission Bay South Public Improvements), “A”, 5%, 8/01/33		130,000		141,363
San Francisco, CA, City & County Redevelopment Successor Agency, Tax Allocation (Mission Bay South Public Improvements), “A”, 5%, 8/01/43		250,000		274,293

			$	4,479,439
Tobacco - 4.3%
Golden State, CA, Tobacco Securitization Corp., Tobacco Settlement Rev., “A-1”, 5.125%, 6/01/47	$	1,000,000	$	845,900
Golden State, CA, Tobacco Securitization Corp., Tobacco Settlement Rev., “A-1”, 5.75%, 6/01/47		715,000		657,864

			$	1,503,764
Toll Roads - 1.0%
Riverside County, CA, Transportation Commission, Toll Rev., “A”, 5.75%, 6/01/44	$	320,000	$	364,208

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Transportation - Special Tax - 2.5%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority Rev., “D”, AGM, 5%, 7/01/32	$	40,000	$	39,378
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority, Highway Rev., “Y”, AGM, 5.5%, 7/01/36 (Prerefunded 7/01/16)		450,000		463,419
San Francisco, CA, Municipal Transportation Agency Rev., “B”, 5%, 3/01/37		335,000		379,455

			$	882,252
Universities - Colleges - 8.5%
California Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Chapman University), 5%, 4/01/28	$	170,000	$	199,580
California Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Dominican University of California), 5%, 12/01/25		120,000		124,201
California Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (University of San Francisco), 6.125%, 10/01/30		285,000		349,048
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Azusa Pacific University Project), “B”, 5%, 4/01/35		345,000		373,318
California Public Works Board Lease Rev. (The Regents of the University of California), 5%, 12/01/28 (Prerefunded 12/01/21)		375,000		452,123
California State University Rev., “A”, 5%, 11/01/24		370,000		434,672
California State University Rev., “A”, 5%, 11/01/30		680,000		811,546
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Lancer Plaza Project), 5.875%, 11/01/43		230,000		236,134

			$	2,980,622
Universities - Dormitories - 0.1%
California Municipal Finance Authority, Student Housing Rev. (Bowles Hall Foundation) “A”, 5%, 6/01/35	$	25,000	$	27,542

Utilities - Cogeneration - 0.7%
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Water Furnishing Rev. (Poseidon Resources Desalination Project), 5%, 11/21/45	$	150,000	$	158,561
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Water Furnishing Rev. (San Diego County Water Desalination Project Pipeline), 5%, 11/21/45		75,000		77,000

			$	235,561
Utilities - Municipal Owned - 9.3%
California Department of Water Resources, Power Supply Rev., “L”, 5%, 5/01/19	$	805,000	$	914,432
Guam Power Authority Rev., “A”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/39		50,000		57,126
Guam Power Authority Rev., “A”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/44		55,000		62,475
Northern California Power Agency, Capital Facilities Rev., “A”, 5.25%, 8/01/24		390,000		437,915

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Utilities - Municipal Owned - continued
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “DDD”, AGM, 3.625%, 7/01/23	$	10,000	$	9,326
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “DDD”, AGM, 3.65%, 7/01/24		55,000		50,190
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “SS”, ASSD GTY, 4.375%, 7/01/30		5,000		4,582
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “UU”, ASSD GTY, 4.25%, 7/01/27		40,000		37,218
Sacramento, CA, Municipal Utility District Rev., “U”, AGM, 5%, 8/15/19		750,000		831,758
Sacramento, CA, Municipal Utility District Rev., “X”, 5%, 8/15/25		370,000		437,669
Vernon, CA, Electric System Rev., “A”, 5.5%, 8/01/41		370,000		418,355

			$	3,261,046
Utilities - Other - 2.9%
California M-S-R Energy Authority Gas Rev., “A”, 6.5%, 11/01/39	$	245,000	$	330,419
Southern California Public Power Authority (Natural Gas Project No. 1), “A”, 5%, 11/01/33		585,000		676,447

			$	1,006,866
Water & Sewer Utility Revenue - 18.2%
Atwater, CA, Public Financing Authority Wastewater Rev., ASSD GTY, 5%, 5/01/34	$	500,000	$	530,920
California Department of Water Resources Rev. (Central Valley Project Water System), “AE”, 5%, 12/01/28 (Prerefunded 6/01/18)		480,000		528,677
California Department of Water Resources Rev. (Central Valley Project Water System), “AE”, 5%, 12/01/28		20,000		22,022
California Department of Water Resources Rev. (Central Valley Project Water System), “AM”, 5%, 12/01/24		500,000		610,120
Chino Basin, CA, Regional Financing Authority Rev. (Inland Empire Utilities Agency), “A”, AMBAC, 5%, 11/01/38		1,000,000		1,063,210
Escondido, CA, Joint Powers Financing Authority Rev. (Water System Financing), 5%, 9/01/41		460,000		518,328
Guam Waterworks Authority Rev. (Water and Wastewater System), “A”, 5%, 7/01/29		105,000		117,044
Guam Waterworks Authority Rev. (Water and Wastewater System), “A”, 5%, 7/01/35		105,000		115,202
Madera, CA, Financing Authority, Irrigation Rev., 6.5%, 1/01/40 (Prerefunded 1/01/20)		440,000		534,085
Norco, CA, Financing Authority, Enterprise Rev., AGM, 5.625%, 10/01/39		215,000		242,004
Oxnard, CA, Financing Authority, Wastewater Rev., AGM, 5%, 6/01/30		340,000		387,688
Oxnard, CA, Financing Authority, Wastewater Rev., AGM, 5%, 6/01/31		85,000		96,379

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Water & Sewer Utility Revenue - continued
Sonoma County, CA, Water Agency Rev., “A”, AGM, 5%, 7/01/36 (Prerefunded 7/01/16)	$	600,000	$	616,464
Soquel Creek, CA, Water District, COP, 5%, 3/01/43		370,000		412,280
Tulare, CA, Sewer Rev., AGM, 5%, 11/15/31		350,000		409,542
Tulare, CA, Sewer Rev., AGM, 5%, 11/15/35		170,000		196,858

			$	6,400,823
Total Municipal Bonds (Identified Cost, $54,136,317)			$	58,356,095

Money Market Funds - 0.7%
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio, 0.14%, at Cost and Net Asset Value (v)		242,008	$	242,008
Total Investments (Identified Cost, $54,378,325)			$	58,598,103

Other Assets, Less Liabilities - 2.9%				1,028,199
VMTPS, at liquidation value (issued by the fund) - (69.4)%				(24,425,000	)
Net assets applicable to common shares - 100.0%			$	35,201,302

(v)	Underlying affiliated fund that is available only to investment companies managed by MFS. The rate quoted for the MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio is the annualized seven-day yield of the fund at period end.

The following abbreviations are used in this report and are defined:

COP

Certificate of Participation

VMTPS

Variable Rate Municipal Term Preferred Shares


Insurers
AGM		Assured Guaranty Municipal
AMBAC		AMBAC Indemnity Corp.
ASSD GTY		Assured Guaranty Insurance Co.
BHAC		Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corp.
CALHF		California Health Facility Construction Loan Insurance Program
FNMA		Federal National Mortgage Assn.
NATL		National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.

Portfolio of Investments – continued

Derivative Contracts at 11/30/15

Futures Contracts at 11/30/15


Description	Currency		Contracts		Value	Expiration Date		Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Liability Derivatives
*Interest Rate Futures*
U.S. Treasury Note 10 yr (Short)		USD		20	$2,528,750		March - 2016		$(483	)
U.S. Treasury Bond 30 yr (Short)		USD		3	462,000		March - 2016		(1,018	)

									$(1,501	)

At November 30, 2015, the fund had cash collateral of $37,200 to cover any commitments for certain derivative contracts. Cash collateral is comprised of “Deposits with brokers” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

At 11/30/15

This statement represents your fund’s balance sheet, which details the assets and liabilities comprising the total value of the fund.


Assets
Investments
Non-affiliated issuers, at value (identified cost, $54,136,317)	$58,356,095
Underlying affiliated funds, at cost and value	242,008
Total investments, at value (identified cost, $54,378,325)	$58,598,103
Deposits with brokers	37,200
Receivables for
Daily variation margin on open futures contracts	781
Investments sold	385,000
Interest	688,366
Deferred VMTPS offering costs	13,407
Receivable from investment adviser	8,174
Other assets	1,247
Total assets	$59,732,278
Liabilities
Payables for
Distributions on common shares	$370
Interest expense	25,285
Payable to affiliates
Transfer agent and dividend disbursing costs	61
Payable for independent Trustees’ compensation	7
Accrued expenses and other liabilities	80,253
VMTPS, at liquidation value	24,425,000
Total liabilities	$24,530,976
Net assets applicable to common shares	$35,201,302
Net assets consist of
Paid-in capital - common shares	$39,496,875
Unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments	4,218,277
Accumulated net realized gain (loss) on investments	(8,576,814	)
Undistributed net investment income	62,964
Net assets applicable to common shares	$35,201,302
VMTPS, at liquidation value (977 shares of Series 2016/9 issued and outstanding at $25,000 per share)	24,425,000
Net assets including VMTPS	$59,626,302
Common shares of beneficial interest issued and outstanding	2,786,238
Net asset value per common share (net assets of $35,201,302 / 2,786,238 shares of beneficial interest outstanding)	$12.63

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

Year ended 11/30/15

This statement describes how much your fund earned in investment income and accrued in expenses. It also describes any gains and/or losses generated by fund operations.


Net investment income
Income
Interest	$2,678,137
Dividends from underlying affiliated funds	970
Total investment income	$2,679,107
Expenses
Management fee	$386,442
Transfer agent and dividend disbursing costs	5,901
Administrative services fee	18,993
Independent Trustees’ compensation	10,218
Stock exchange fee	15,002
Custodian fee	10,749
Shareholder communications	16,608
Audit and tax fees	78,659
Legal fees	9,229
Amortization of VMTPS offering costs	16,819
Interest expense	314,125
Miscellaneous	52,668
Total expenses	$935,413
Fees paid indirectly	(3	)
Reduction of expenses by investment adviser	(128,696	)
Net expenses	$806,714
Net investment income	$1,872,393
Realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments
Realized gain (loss) (identified cost basis)
Investments	$54,325
Futures contracts	(66,789	)
Net realized gain (loss) on investments	$(12,464	)
Change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)
Investments	$72,475
Futures contracts	24,521
Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments	$96,996
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments	$84,532
Change in net assets from operations	$1,956,925

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS

These statements describe the increases and/or decreases in net assets resulting from operations, any distributions, and any shareholder transactions.


	Years ended 11/30
	2015			2014
Change in net assets
From operations
Net investment income		$1,872,393			$1,790,843
Net realized gain (loss) on investments		(12,464	)		(258,819	)
Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments		96,996			3,627,711
Change in net assets from operations		$1,956,925			$5,159,735
Distributions declared to common shareholders
From net investment income		$(1,724,681	)		$(1,744,185	)
Total change in net assets		$232,244			$3,415,550
Net assets applicable to common shares
At beginning of period		34,969,058			31,553,508
At end of period (including undistributed net investment income of $62,964 and $41,988, respectively)		$35,201,302			$34,969,058

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

Year ended 11/30/15

This statement provides a summary of cash flows from investment activity for the fund.


Cash flows from operating activities:
Change in net assets from operations	$1,956,925
Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets from operations to net cash provided by operating activities:
Purchase of investment securities	(6,915,313	)
Proceeds from disposition of investment securities	6,311,032
Payments for futures contracts	(66,789	)
Proceeds from disposition of short-term investments, net	626,565
Realized gain/loss on investments	(54,325	)
Realized gain/loss on futures contracts	66,789
Unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investments	(72,475	)
Net amortization/accretion of income	(153,238	)
Amortization of VMTPS offering costs	16,819
Decrease in interest receivable	27,583
Decrease in accrued expenses and other liabilities	(333	)
Increase in receivable from investment adviser	(3,159	)
Increase in receivable for daily variation margin on open futures contracts	(781	)
Decrease in payable for daily variation margin on open futures contracts	(8,750	)
Increase in deposits with brokers	(5,400	)
Decrease in other assets	3
Decrease in payable for interest expense	(733	)
Net cash provided by operating activities	$1,724,420
Cash flows from financing activities:
Cash distributions paid on common shares	(1,724,420	)
Net cash used by financing activities	$(1,724,420	)
Cash:
Beginning of period	$—
End of period	$—

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:

Cash paid during the year ended November 30, 2015 for interest was $314,858.

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The financial highlights table is intended to help you understand the fund’s financial performance for the past 5 years. Certain information reflects financial results for a single fund share. The total returns in the table represent the rate by which an investor would have earned (or lost) on an investment in the fund share class (assuming reinvestment of all distributions) held for the entire period.


Common Shares	Years ended 11/30
	2015			2014			2013			2012			2011
Net asset value, beginning of period		$12.55			$11.32			$13.03			$10.71			$10.48
Income (loss) from investment operations
Net investment income (d)		$0.67			$0.64			$0.66			$0.70			$0.79
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.03			1.22			(1.75	)		1.92			0.26
Distributions declared to shareholders of ARPS		—			—			—			(0.02	)		(0.03	)
Total from investment operations		$0.70			$1.86			$(1.09	)		$2.60			$1.02
Less distributions declared to shareholders
From net investment income		$(0.62	)		$(0.63	)		$(0.62	)		$(0.72	)		$(0.79	)
Net increase resulting from tender and repurchase of ARPS		$—			$—			$—			$0.44			$—
Net asset value, end of period (x)		$12.63			$12.55			$11.32			$13.03			$10.71
Market value, end of period		$11.72			$10.91			$9.76			$12.71			$10.99
Total return at market value (%) (p)		13.45			18.45			(18.83	)		22.84			10.44
Total return at net asset value (%) (j)(r)(s)(x)		6.28			17.48			(8.17	)		29.22	(y)		10.40
Ratios (%) (to average net assets applicable to common shares) and Supplemental data:
Expenses before expense reductions (f)(p)		2.67			2.75			2.70			2.40			2.01
Expenses after expense reductions (f)(p)		2.30			2.38			2.42			1.94			1.49
Net investment income (p)		5.34			5.32			5.47			5.88			7.78
Portfolio turnover		11			17			12			19			40
Net assets at end of period (000 omitted)		$35,201			$34,969			$31,554			$36,309			$29,845
Supplemental Ratios (%):
Ratio of expenses to average net assets applicable to common shares after expense reductions and excluding interest expense and fees (f)(l)(p)		1.41			1.43			1.43			1.40			N/A
Ratio of expenses to average net assets applicable to common shares, ARPS, and VMTPS after expense reductions and excluding interest expense and fees (f)(l)(p)		0.83			0.83			0.83			0.81			0.80
Net investment income available to common shares		5.34			5.32			5.47			5.73			7.51

Financial Highlights – continued


	Years ended 11/30
	2015		2014		2013		2012		2011
Senior Securities:
ARPS		—		—		—		—		978
VMTPS		977		977		977		977		—
Total preferred shares outstanding		977		977		977		977		978
Asset coverage per preferred share (k)		$61,030		$60,792		$57,296		$62,164		$55,516
Involuntary liquidation preference per preferred share (m)		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000
Average market value per preferred share (m)(u)		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000

(d)	Per share data is based on average shares outstanding.

(f)	Ratios do not reflect reductions from fees paid indirectly, if applicable.

(j)	Total return at net asset value is calculated using the net asset value of the fund, not the publicly traded price and therefore may be different than the total return at market value.

(k)	Calculated by subtracting the fund’s total liabilities (not including liquidation preference of ARPS and VMTPS) from the fund’s total assets and dividing this number by the total number of preferred shares outstanding.

(l)

Interest expense and fees relate to payments made to the holders of the floating rate certificates from trust assets and interest expense paid to shareholders of VMTPS. For the year ended November 30, 2012, the expense ratio also excludes fees and expenses related to the tender and repurchase of the fund’s ARPS.

(m)	Amount excludes accrued unpaid distributions on ARPS and accrued interest on VMTPS.

(p)	For the years ended November 30, 2011 through November 30, 2012, the ratio excludes dividend payments on ARPS.

(r)	Certain expenses have been reduced without which performance would have been lower.

(s)	From time to time the fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements, without which performance would be lower.

(u)	Average market value represents the approximate fair value of each of the fund’s ARPS and VMTPS.

(x)	The net asset values and total returns at net asset value have been calculated on net assets which include adjustments made in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles required at period end for financial reporting purposes.

(y)

Included in the total return at net asset value for the year ended November 30, 2012 is the impact of the tender and repurchase by the fund of a portion of its ARPS at 95% of the ARPS’ per share liquidation preference. Had this transaction not occurred, the total return at net asset value for the year ended November 30, 2012 would have been lower by 3.34%.

See Notes to Financial Statements

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1) Business and Organization

MFS California Municipal Fund (the fund) is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, as a diversified closed-end management investment company.

The fund is an investment company and accordingly follows the investment company accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946 Financial Services – Investment Companies.

(2) Significant Accounting Policies

General – The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of increases and decreases in net assets from operations during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated subsequent events occurring after the date of the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities through the date that the financial statements were issued. The fund invests primarily in municipal instruments. The value of municipal instruments can be affected by changes in their actual or perceived credit quality. The credit quality of municipal instruments can be affected by, among other things, the financial condition of the issuer or guarantor, the issuer’s future borrowing plans and sources of revenue, the economic feasibility of the revenue bond project or general borrowing purpose, political or economic developments in the region where the instrument is issued and the liquidity of the security. Municipal instruments generally trade in the over-the-counter market. Municipal instruments backed by current and anticipated revenues from a specific project or specific assets can be negatively affected by the discontinuance of the taxation supporting the projects or assets or the inability to collect revenues for the project or from the assets. If the Internal Revenue Service determines an issuer of a municipal instrument has not complied with the applicable tax requirements, interest from the security could become taxable, the security could decline in value, and distributions made by the fund could be taxable to shareholders.

In April 2015, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2015-03, Interest – Imputation of Interest (Topic 835-30) – Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs (“ASU 2015-03”). For entities that issue debt which is carried at an amount other than fair value, ASU 2015-03 changes the accounting for debt issuance costs. Although still evaluating the potential impacts of ASU 2015-03, management expects that the effects of the fund’s adoption will be limited to the reclassification of any unamortized debt issuance costs on the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities and the modification of related accounting policy financial statement disclosures. ASU 2015-03 will first be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015, and interim periods within those annual periods.

Balance Sheet Offsetting – The fund’s accounting policy with respect to balance sheet offsetting is that, absent an event of default by the counterparty or a termination

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

of the agreement, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreement does not result in an offset of reported amounts of financial assets and financial liabilities in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities across transactions between the fund and the applicable counterparty. The fund’s right to setoff may be restricted or prohibited by the bankruptcy or insolvency laws of the particular jurisdiction to which a specific master netting agreement counterparty is subject. Balance sheet offsetting disclosures, to the extent applicable to the fund, have been included in the fund’s Significant Accounting Policies note under the captions for each of the fund’s in-scope financial instruments and transactions.

Investment Valuations – Debt instruments and floating rate loans, including restricted debt instruments, are generally valued at an evaluated or composite bid as provided by a third-party pricing service. Short-term instruments with a maturity at issuance of 60 days or less may be valued at amortized cost, which approximates market value. Futures contracts are generally valued at last posted settlement price as provided by a third-party pricing service on the market on which they are primarily traded. Futures contracts for which there were no trades that day for a particular position are generally valued at the closing bid quotation as provided by a third-party pricing service on the market on which such futures contracts are primarily traded. Open-end investment companies are generally valued at net asset value per share. Securities and other assets generally valued on the basis of information from a third-party pricing service may also be valued at a broker/dealer bid quotation. Values obtained from third-party pricing services can utilize both transaction data and market information such as yield, quality, coupon rate, maturity, type of issue, trading characteristics, and other market data.

The Board of Trustees has delegated primary responsibility for determining or causing to be determined the value of the fund’s investments (including any fair valuation) to the adviser pursuant to valuation policies and procedures approved by the Board. If the adviser determines that reliable market quotations are not readily available, investments are valued at fair value as determined in good faith by the adviser in accordance with such procedures under the oversight of the Board of Trustees. Under the fund’s valuation policies and procedures, market quotations are not considered to be readily available for most types of debt instruments and floating rate loans and many types of derivatives. These investments are generally valued at fair value based on information from third-party pricing services. In addition, investments may be valued at fair value if the adviser determines that an investment’s value has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the exchange or market on which the investment is principally traded (such as foreign exchange or market) and prior to the determination of the fund’s net asset value, or after the halting of trading of a specific security where trading does not resume prior to the close of the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded. The adviser generally relies on third-party pricing services or other information (such as the correlation with price movements of similar securities in the same or other markets; the type, cost and investment characteristics of the security; the business and financial condition of the issuer; and trading and other market data) to assist in determining whether to fair value and at what value to fair value an investment. The value of an investment for purposes of calculating the fund’s net asset value can differ depending on the source and method used to determine

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

value. When fair valuation is used, the value of an investment used to determine the fund’s net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same investment. There can be no assurance that the fund could obtain the fair value assigned to an investment if it were to sell the investment at the same time at which the fund determines its net asset value per share.

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s assets or liabilities. These inputs are categorized into three broad levels. In certain cases, the inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, an investment’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The fund’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and considers factors specific to the investment. Level 1 includes unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 includes other significant observable market-based inputs (including quoted prices for similar securities, interest rates, prepayment speed, and credit risk). Level 3 includes unobservable inputs, which may include the adviser’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments. Other financial instruments are derivative instruments not reflected in total investments, such as futures contracts. The following is a summary of the levels used as of November 30, 2015 in valuing the fund’s assets or liabilities:


Investments at Value	Level 1			Level 2		Level 3		Total
Municipal Bonds		$—			$58,356,095		$—		$58,356,095
Mutual Funds		242,008			—		—		242,008
Total Investments		$242,008			$58,356,095		$—		$58,598,103

Other Financial Instruments
Futures Contracts		$(1,501	)		$—		$—		$(1,501	)

For further information regarding security characteristics, see the Portfolio of Investments.

Derivatives – The fund uses derivatives for different purposes, primarily to increase or decrease exposure to a particular market or segment of the market, or security, to increase or decrease interest rate exposure, or as alternatives to direct investments. Derivatives are used for hedging or non-hedging purposes. While hedging can reduce or eliminate losses, it can also reduce or eliminate gains. When the fund uses derivatives as an investment to increase market exposure, or for hedging purposes, gains and losses from derivative instruments may be substantially greater than the derivative’s original cost.

The derivative instruments used by the fund were futures contracts. The fund’s period end derivatives, as presented in the Portfolio of Investments and the associated Derivative Contract tables, generally are indicative of the volume of its derivative activity during the period.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the fair value, on a gross basis, of the asset and liability components of derivatives held by the fund at November 30, 2015 as reported in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities:


		Fair Value (a)
Risk	Derivative Contracts	Liability Derivatives
Interest Rate	Interest Rate Futures		$(1,501)

(a)	The value of futures contracts includes cumulative appreciation (depreciation) as reported in the fund’s Portfolio of Investments. Only the current day variation margin for futures contracts is separately reported within the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the realized gain (loss) on derivatives held by the fund for the year ended November 30, 2015 as reported in the Statement of Operations:


Risk	Futures Contracts
Interest Rate		$(66,789	)

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on derivatives held by the fund for the year ended November 30, 2015 as reported in the Statement of Operations:


Risk	Futures Contracts
Interest Rate		$24,521

Derivative counterparty credit risk is managed through formal evaluation of the creditworthiness of all potential counterparties. On certain, but not all, uncleared derivatives, the fund attempts to reduce its exposure to counterparty credit risk whenever possible by entering into an ISDA Master Agreement on a bilateral basis. The ISDA Master Agreement gives each party to the agreement the right to terminate all transactions traded under such agreement if there is a certain deterioration in the credit quality of the other party. Upon an event of default or a termination of the ISDA Master Agreement, the non-defaulting party has the right to close out all transactions traded under such agreement and to net amounts owed under each transaction to one net amount payable by one party to the other. This right to close out and net payments across all transactions traded under the ISDA Master Agreement could result in a reduction of the fund’s credit risk to such counterparty equal to any amounts payable by the fund under the applicable transactions, if any.

Collateral and margin requirements differ by type of derivative. Margin requirements are set by the clearing broker and the clearing house for cleared derivatives (e.g., futures contracts, cleared swaps, and exchange-traded options) while collateral terms are contract specific for uncleared derivatives (e.g., forward foreign currency exchange contracts, uncleared swap agreements, and uncleared options). For derivatives traded under an ISDA Master Agreement, which contains a collateral support annex, the collateral requirements are netted across all transactions traded under such agreement and one amount is posted from one party to the other to collateralize such obligations. Cash that has been segregated to cover the fund’s collateral or margin obligations under derivative contracts, if any, will be reported separately in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities as “Restricted cash” or “Deposits with brokers.” Securities pledged as collateral or margin for the same purpose, if any, are noted in the Portfolio of Investments.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Futures Contracts – The fund entered into futures contracts which may be used to hedge against or obtain broad market exposure, interest rate exposure, or to manage duration. A futures contract represents a commitment for the future purchase or sale of an asset at a specified price on a specified date.

Upon entering into a futures contract, the fund is required to deposit with the broker, either in cash or securities, an initial margin in an amount equal to a certain percentage of the notional amount of the contract. Subsequent payments (variation margin) are made or received by the fund each day, depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the contract, and are recorded for financial statement purposes as unrealized gain or loss by the fund until the contract is closed or expires at which point the gain or loss on futures contracts is realized.

The fund bears the risk of interest rates or securities prices moving unexpectedly, in which case, the fund may not achieve the anticipated benefits of the futures contracts and may realize a loss. While futures contracts may present less counterparty risk to the fund since the contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse guarantees payments to the broker, there is still counterparty credit risk due to the insolvency of the broker. The fund’s maximum risk of loss due to counterparty credit risk is equal to the margin posted by the fund to the broker plus any gains or minus any losses on the outstanding futures contracts.

Statement of Cash Flows – Information on financial transactions which have been settled through the receipt or disbursement of cash is presented in the Statement of Cash Flows. The cash amount shown in the Statement of Cash Flows is the amount included within the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities and includes cash on hand at its custodian bank and does not include any short term investments.

Indemnifications – Under the fund’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the fund. Additionally, in the normal course of business, the fund enters into agreements with service providers that may contain indemnification clauses. The fund’s maximum exposure under these agreements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against the fund that have not yet occurred.

Investment Transactions and Income – Investment transactions are recorded on the trade date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. All premium and discount is amortized or accreted for financial statement purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Interest payments received in additional securities are recorded on the ex-interest date in an amount equal to the value of the security on such date.

The fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements. Any proceeds received from litigation involving portfolio holdings are reflected in the Statement of Operations in realized gain/loss if the security has been disposed of by the fund or in unrealized gain/loss if the security is still held by the fund. Any other proceeds from litigation not related to portfolio holdings are reflected as other income in the Statement of Operations.

Fees Paid Indirectly – Prior to October 1, 2015, the fund’s custody fee could be reduced by a credit earned under an arrangement that measured the value of

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

U.S. dollars deposited with the custodian by the fund. The amount of the credit, for the year ended November 30, 2015, is shown as a reduction of total expenses in the Statement of Operations.

Tax Matters and Distributions – The fund intends to qualify as a regulated investment company, as defined under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code, and to distribute all of its taxable and tax-exempt income, including realized capital gains. As a result, no provision for federal income tax is required. The fund’s federal tax returns, when filed, will remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for a three year period. Management has analyzed the fund’s tax positions taken on federal and state tax returns for all open tax years and does not believe that there are any uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability.

Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Income and capital gain distributions are determined in accordance with income tax regulations, which may differ from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Certain capital accounts in the financial statements are periodically adjusted for permanent differences in order to reflect their tax character. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or net asset value per share. Temporary differences which arise from recognizing certain items of income, expense, gain or loss in different periods for financial statement and tax purposes will reverse at some time in the future. Distributions in excess of net investment income or net realized gains are temporary overdistributions for financial statement purposes resulting from differences in the recognition or classification of income or distributions for financial statement and tax purposes.

Book/tax differences primarily relate to expiration of capital loss carryforwards, amortization and accretion of debt securities, and non-deductible expenses that result from the treatment of VMTPS as equity for tax purposes.

The tax character of distributions declared to shareholders for the last two fiscal years is as follows:


	11/30/15		11/30/14
Ordinary income (including any short-term capital gains)		$879		$917
Tax-exempt income		2,037,927		2,061,506
Total distributions		$2,038,806		$2,062,423

The federal tax cost and the tax basis components of distributable earnings were as follows:


As of 11/30/15
Cost of investments	$54,035,502
Gross appreciation	4,660,904
Gross depreciation	(98,303	)
Net unrealized appreciation (depreciation)	$4,562,601
Undistributed ordinary income	7,707
Undistributed tax-exempt income	80,912
Capital loss carryforwards	(8,921,138	)
Other temporary differences	(25,655	)

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized for fund fiscal years beginning after November 30, 2011 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses (“post-enactment losses”). Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses (“pre-enactment losses”). As a transition rule, the Act requires that all post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of November 30, 2015, the fund had capital loss carryforwards available to offset future realized gains as follows:


Pre-enactment losses which expire as follows:
11/30/16	$(4,230,528	)
11/30/17	(3,006,395	)
11/30/18	(696,235	)
11/30/19	(725,457	)
Total	$(8,658,615	)

Post-enactment losses which are characterized as follows:
Short-Term	$(262,523	)

(3) Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Adviser – The fund has an investment advisory agreement with MFS to provide overall investment management and related administrative services and facilities to the fund. The management fee is computed daily and paid monthly at an annual rate of 0.65% of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of the variable rate municipal term preferred shares).

The investment adviser has agreed in writing to pay a portion of the fund’s total annual operating expenses, excluding interest, taxes, extraordinary expenses, brokerage and transaction costs, and investment-related expenses, such that total fund operating expenses do not exceed 0.80% annually of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of the variable rate municipal term preferred shares). This written agreement will continue until modified by the fund’s Board of Trustees, but such agreement will continue at least until November 30, 2016. For the year ended November 30, 2015, this reduction amounted to $128,696, which is included in the reduction of total expenses in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agent – The fund engages Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“Computershare”) as the sole transfer agent for the fund’s common shares. MFS Service Center, Inc. (MFSC) monitors and supervises the activities of Computershare for an agreed upon fee approved by the Board of Trustees. For the year ended November 30, 2015, these fees paid to MFSC amounted to $117.

Administrator – MFS provides certain financial, legal, shareholder communications, compliance, and other administrative services to the fund. Under an administrative services agreement, the fund reimburses MFS the costs incurred to provide these services. The fund is charged an annual fixed amount of $17,500 plus a fee based on average daily net assets (including the value of the variable rate municipal term

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

preferred shares). The administrative services fee incurred for the year ended November 30, 2015 was equivalent to an annual effective rate of 0.0319% of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of the variable rate municipal term preferred shares).

Trustees’ and Officers’ Compensation – The fund pays compensation to independent Trustees in the form of a retainer, attendance fees, and additional compensation to Board and Committee chairpersons. The fund does not pay compensation directly to Trustees or officers of the fund who are also officers of the investment adviser, all of whom receive remuneration for their services to the fund from MFS. Certain officers and Trustees of the fund are officers or directors of MFS and MFSC.

Other – This fund and certain other funds managed by MFS (the funds) have entered into a service agreement (the ISO Agreement) which provides for payment of fees solely by the funds to Tarantino LLC in return for the provision of services of an Independent Senior Officer (ISO) for the funds. Frank L. Tarantino serves as the ISO and is an officer of the funds and the sole member of Tarantino LLC. The funds can terminate the ISO Agreement with Tarantino LLC at any time under the terms of the ISO Agreement. For the year ended November 30, 2015, the fee paid by the fund under this agreement was $140 and is included in “Miscellaneous” expense in the Statement of Operations. MFS has agreed to bear all expenses associated with office space, other administrative support, and supplies provided to the ISO.

The fund invests in the MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio which is managed by MFS and seeks current income consistent with preservation of capital and liquidity. Income earned on this investment is included in “Dividends from underlying affiliated funds” in the Statement of Operations. This money market fund does not pay a management fee to MFS.

(4) Portfolio Securities

For the year ended November 30, 2015, purchases and sales of investments, other than short-term obligations, aggregated $6,681,081 and $6,461,801, respectively.

(5) Shares of Beneficial Interest

The fund’s Declaration of Trust permits the Trustees to issue an unlimited number of full and fractional shares of beneficial interest. The fund reserves the right to repurchase shares of beneficial interest of the fund subject to Trustee approval. During the years ended November 30, 2015 and November 30, 2014, there were no transactions in fund shares.

(6) Line of Credit

The fund and certain other funds managed by MFS participate in a $1.25 billion unsecured committed line of credit, subject to a $1 billion sublimit, provided by a syndication of banks under a credit agreement. Borrowings may be made for temporary financing needs. Interest is charged to each fund, based on its borrowings, generally at a rate equal to the higher of the Overnight Federal Reserve funds rate or daily one month LIBOR plus an agreed upon spread. A commitment fee, based on the average daily, unused portion of the committed line of credit, is allocated among the participating funds at the end of each calendar quarter. In addition, the fund and other

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

funds managed by MFS have established unsecured uncommitted borrowing arrangements with certain banks for temporary financing needs. Interest is charged to each fund, based on its borrowings, at a rate equal to the Overnight Federal Reserve funds rate plus an agreed upon spread. For the year ended November 30, 2015, the fund’s commitment fee and interest expense were $114 and $0, respectively, and are included in “Miscellaneous” expense in the Statement of Operations.

(7) Transactions in Underlying Affiliated Funds-Affiliated Issuers

An affiliated issuer may be considered one in which the fund owns 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities, or a company which is under common control. For the purposes of this report, the fund assumes the following to be an affiliated issuer:


Underlying Affiliated Fund	Beginning Shares/Par Amount		Acquisitions Shares/Par Amount		Dispositions Shares/Par Amount			Ending Shares/Par Amount
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio		868,573		8,987,498		(9,614,063	)		242,008

Underlying Affiliated Fund	Realized Gain (Loss)		Capital Gain Distributions		Dividend Income			Ending Value
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio		$—		$—		$970			$242,008

(8) Preferred Shares

The fund has 977 shares issued and outstanding of Variable Rate Municipal Term Preferred Shares (VMTPS), series 2016/9. The outstanding VMTPS are redeemable at the option of the fund in whole or in part at the liquidation preference of $25,000 per share, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends, but generally solely for the purpose of decreasing the leverage of the fund. The VMTPS are subject to a mandatory term redemption date of September 30, 2016 unless extended through negotiation with the private investors. There is no assurance that the term of the VMTPS will be extended or that the VMTPS will be replaced with any other preferred shares or other form of leverage upon the redemption of the VMTPS. Six months prior to the term redemption date of the VMTPS, the fund is required to begin to segregate liquid assets with the fund’s custodian to fund the redemption. Dividends on the VMTPS are cumulative and are set weekly to a fixed spread against the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Municipal Swap Index. During the year ended November 30, 2015, the VMTPS dividend rates ranged from 1.26% to 1.36%. For the year ended November 30, 2015, the average dividend rate was 1.29%.

In the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities, the VMTPS aggregate liquidation preference is shown as a liability since they have a stated mandatory redemption date. Dividends paid to VMTPS are treated as interest expense and recorded as incurred. For the year ended November 30, 2015, interest expense related to VMTPS amounted to $314,125 and is included in “Interest expense” in the Statement of Operations. Costs directly related to the issuance of the VMTPS are considered debt issuance costs which have been deferred and are being amortized into expense over the life of the VMTPS. The period-end carrying value for the VMTPS in the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities is its liquidation value which approximates its fair value and its fair value would be considered level 2 under the fair value hierarchy.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Under the terms of a purchase agreement between the fund and the investor in VMTPS, there are investment-related requirements that are in various respects more restrictive than those to which the fund is otherwise subject in accordance with its investment objectives and policies. In addition, the fund is subject to certain restrictions on its investments imposed by guidelines of the rating agencies that rate the ARPS and the VMTPS, which guidelines may be changed by the applicable rating agency, in its sole discretion, from time to time. These guidelines may impose asset coverage or portfolio composition requirements that are more stringent than those imposed on the fund by the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”). Such restrictions may limit the investment flexibility that might otherwise be pursued by the fund if the VMTPS were not outstanding.

The fund is required to maintain certain asset coverage with respect to the VMTPS as defined in the fund’s governing documents and the 1940 Act and, as such, is not permitted to declare common share dividends unless the fund’s VMTPS have a minimum asset coverage ratio of 200% after declaration of the common share dividends. With respect to the payment of dividends and as to the distribution of assets of the fund, VMTPS are senior in priority to the fund’s outstanding common shares. To the extent that investments are purchased by the fund with proceeds from the issuance of preferred shares, including VMTPS, the fund’s net asset value will increase or decrease at a greater rate than a comparable unleveraged fund. Changes in the value of the fund’s portfolio will be borne entirely by the common shareholders. It is possible that the fund will be required to sell assets at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so in order to redeem preferred shares to comply with asset coverage or other restrictions including those imposed by the rating agencies that rate the preferred shares. There is no assurance that the fund’s leveraging strategy will be successful.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders of MFS California Municipal Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of MFS California Municipal Fund (the Fund), including the portfolio of investments, as of November 30, 2015, and the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30, 2015, by correspondence with the custodian and others. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MFS California Municipal Fund at November 30, 2015, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

LOGO

Boston, Massachusetts

January 15, 2016

RESULTS OF SHAREHOLDER MEETING

(unaudited)

At the annual meeting of shareholders of MFS California Municipal Fund, which was held on October 1, 2015, the following actions were taken:

Item 1: To elect the following individuals as Trustees, elected by the holders of common and preferred shares together:


	Number of Shares
Nominee	For		Withheld Authority
Rober E. Butler		2,419,771.000		97,206.000
David H. Gunning		2,419,089.000		97,888.000
Robin A. Stelmach		2,419,771.000		97,206.000

Item 2: To elect the following individuals as Trustees, elected by the holders of preferred shares only:


	Number of Shares
Nominee	For		Withheld Authority
John P. Kavanaugh		977		0
Laurie J. Thomsen		977		0

TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS — IDENTIFICATION AND BACKGROUND

The Trustees and Officers of the Trust, as of January 1, 2016, are listed below, together with their principal occupations during the past five years. (Their titles may have varied during that period.) The address of each Trustee and Officer is 111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-7618.


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
INTERESTED TRUSTEES
Robert J. Manning^(k) (age 52)	Trustee	February 2004	2016	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Chairman, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Director	N/A
Robin A. Stelmach^(k) (age 54)	Trustee and President	January 2014	2018	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer	N/A
INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES
David H. Gunning (age 73)	Trustee and Chair of Trustees	January 2004	2018^(m)	Private investor	Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., Director; Development Alternatives, Inc., Director/Non-Executive Chairman
Steven E. Buller (age 64)	Trustee	February 2014	2017	Chairman, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council; Standing Advisory Group, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Member (until 2014); BlackRock, Inc. (investment management), Managing Director (until 2014), BlackRock Finco UK (investment management), Director (until 2014)	N/A
Robert E. Butler (age 74)	Trustee	January 2006	2018⁽ⁿ⁾	Consultant – investment company industry regulatory and compliance matters	N/A

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
Maureen R. Goldfarb (age 60)	Trustee	January 2009	2016	Private investor	N/A
William R. Gutow (age 74)	Trustee	December 1993	2017⁽ⁿ⁾	Private investor and real estate consultant; Capitol Entertainment Management Company (video franchise), Vice Chairman	Texas Donuts, Vice Chairman (until 2010)
Michael Hegarty (age 71)	Trustee	December 2004	2017	Private investor	Rouse Properties Inc., Director; Capmark Financial Group Inc., Director
John P. Kavanaugh (age 61)	Trustee	January 2009	2016	Private investor	N/A
Maryanne L. Roepke (age 59)	Trustee	May 2014	2016	American Century Investments (investment management), Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer (until 2014)	N/A
Laurie J. Thomsen (age 58)	Trustee	March 2005	2016	Private investor	The Travelers Companies, Director; Dycom Industries, Inc., Director
Robert W. Uek (age 74)	Trustee	January 2006	2017⁽ⁿ⁾	Consultant to investment company industry	N/A
OFFICERS
Christopher R. Bohane^(k) (age 41)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel	N/A
Kino Clark^(k) (age 47)	Assistant Treasurer	January 2012	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President	N/A
Kristin V. Collins^(k) (age 42)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	September 2015	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel	N/A

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
Thomas H. Connors^(k) (age 56)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	September 2012	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel; Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. (financial service provider), Director and Senior Counsel (until 2012)	N/A
Ethan D. Corey^(k) (age 52)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel	N/A
David L. DiLorenzo^(k) (age 47)	Treasurer	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President	N/A
Brian E. Langenfeld^(k) (age 42)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	June 2006	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel	N/A
Kenneth Paek^(k) (age 41)	Assistant Treasurer	February 2015	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President; Cohen & Steers, Vice President/Head of Fund Administration (until 2014)	N/A
Susan A. Pereira^(k) (age 45)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel	N/A
Kasey L. Phillips^(k) (age 45)	Assistant Treasurer	September 2012	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President; Wells Fargo Funds Management, LLC, Senior Vice President, Fund Treasurer (until 2012)	N/A

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
Mark N. Polebaum^(k) (age 63)	Secretary and Clerk	January 2006	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary	N/A
Matthew A. Stowe^(k) (age 41)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	October 2014	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel	N/A
Frank L. Tarantino (age 71)	Independent Senior Officer	June 2004	N/A	Tarantino LLC (provider of compliance services), Principal	N/A
Richard S. Weitzel^(k) (age 45)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	October 2007	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel	N/A
Martin J. Wolin^(k) (age 48)	Chief Compliance Officer	July 2015	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer (since July 2015); Mercer (financial service provider), Chief Risk and Compliance Officer, North America and Latin America (until June 2015)	N/A
James O. Yost^(k) (age 55)	Deputy Treasurer	September 1990	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President	N/A

(h)

Date first appointed to serve as Trustee/officer of an MFS Fund. Each Trustee has served continuously since appointment unless indicated otherwise. For the period from December 15, 2004 until February 22, 2005, Mr. Manning served as Advisory Trustee. Prior to January 2012, Messrs. DiLorenzo and Yost served as Assistant Treasurers of the Funds. Ms. Stelmach was appointed as President of the Funds as of October 1, 2014.

(j)	Directorships or trusteeships of companies required to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (i.e., “public companies”).

(k)

“Interested person” of the Trust within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (referred to as the 1940 Act), which is the principal federal law governing investment companies like the fund, as a result of a position with MFS. The address of MFS is 111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-7618.

Trustees and Officers – continued

(m)	With respect to Mr. Gunning, the Board had agreed to a one-year extension of his ability to serve as a Trustee from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, subject to Board approval for a second one-year extension for the 2017 calendar year pursuant to the retirement policy.

(n)	With respect to Messrs. Butler, Gutow and Uek, the Board has agreed to a one-year extension of each Trustee’s ability to serve as a Trustee from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 pursuant to the retirement policy.

The Trust holds annual shareholder meetings for the purpose of electing Trustees, and Trustees are elected for fixed terms. Two Trustees, each holding a term of one year, are elected annually by holders of the Trust’s preferred shares. The remaining Trustees are currently divided into three classes, each having a term of three years which term expires on the date of the third annual meeting following the election to office of the Trustee’s class. Each year the term of one class expires. Each Trustee and officer will serve until next elected or his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal.

Messrs. Buller, Butler, Kavanaugh, Uek and Ms. Roepke are members of the Fund’s Audit Committee.

Each of the Fund’s Trustees and officers holds comparable positions with certain other funds of which MFS or a subsidiary is the investment adviser or distributor, and, in the case of the officers, with certain affiliates of MFS. As of January 1, 2016, the Trustees served as board members of 137 funds within the MFS Family of Funds.


Investment Adviser		Custodian
Massachusetts Financial Services Company		State Street Bank and Trust Company
111 Huntington Avenue		1 Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02199-7618		Boston, MA 02111-2900
Portfolio Managers		Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Michael Dawson		Ernst & Young LLP
Geoffrey Schechter		200 Clarendon Street
		Boston, MA 02116

BOARD REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT

The Investment Company Act of 1940 requires that both the full Board of Trustees and a majority of the non-interested (“independent”) Trustees, voting separately, annually approve the continuation of the Fund’s investment advisory agreement with MFS. The Trustees consider matters bearing on the Fund and its advisory arrangements at their meetings throughout the year, including a review of performance data at each regular meeting. In addition, the independent Trustees met several times over the course of three months beginning in May and ending in July, 2015 (“contract review meetings”) for the specific purpose of considering whether to approve the continuation of the investment advisory agreement for the Fund and the other investment companies that the Board oversees (the “MFS Funds”). The independent Trustees were assisted in their evaluation of the Fund’s investment advisory agreement by independent legal counsel, from whom they received separate legal advice and with whom they met separately from MFS during various contract review meetings. The independent Trustees were also assisted in this process by the MFS Funds’ Independent Senior Officer, a senior officer appointed by and reporting to the independent Trustees.

In connection with their deliberations regarding the continuation of the investment advisory agreement, the Trustees, including the independent Trustees, considered such information and factors as they believed, in light of the legal advice furnished to them and their own business judgment, to be relevant. The investment advisory agreement for the Fund was considered separately, although the Trustees also took into account the common interests of all MFS Funds in their review. As described below, the Trustees considered the nature, quality, and extent of the various investment advisory, administrative, and shareholder services performed by MFS under the existing investment advisory agreement and other arrangements with the Fund.

In connection with their contract review meetings, the Trustees received and relied upon materials that included, among other items: (i) information provided by Lipper Inc., an independent third party, on the investment performance (based on net asset value) of the Fund for various time periods ended December 31, 2014 and the investment performance (based on net asset value) of a group of funds with substantially similar investment classifications/objectives (the “Lipper performance universe”), (ii) information provided by Lipper Inc. on the Fund’s advisory fees and other expenses and the advisory fees and other expenses of comparable funds identified by Lipper Inc. (the “Lipper expense group”), (iii) information provided by MFS on the advisory fees of comparable portfolios of other clients of MFS, including institutional separate accounts and other clients, (iv) information as to whether and to what extent applicable expense waivers, reimbursements or fee “breakpoints” are observed for the Fund, (v) information regarding MFS’ financial results and financial condition, including MFS’ and certain of its affiliates’ estimated profitability from services performed for the Fund and the MFS Funds as a whole, and compared to MFS’ institutional business, (vi) MFS’ views regarding the outlook for the mutual fund industry and the strategic business plans of MFS, (vii) descriptions of various functions performed by MFS for the Funds, such as compliance monitoring and portfolio trading practices, and (viii) information regarding the overall organization of MFS, including information about MFS’ senior management and other personnel providing investment

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

advisory, administrative and other services to the Fund and the other MFS Funds. The comparative performance, fee and expense information prepared and provided by Lipper Inc. was not independently verified and the independent Trustees did not independently verify any information provided to them by MFS.

The Trustees’ conclusion as to the continuation of the investment advisory agreement was based on a comprehensive consideration of all information provided to the Trustees and not the result of any single factor. Some of the factors that figured particularly in the Trustees’ deliberations are described below, although individual Trustees may have evaluated the information presented differently from one another, giving different weights to various factors. It is also important to recognize that the fee arrangements for the Fund and other MFS Funds are the result of years of review and discussion between the independent Trustees and MFS, that certain aspects of such arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and that the Trustees’ conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of these same arrangements during the course of the year and in prior years.

Based on information provided by Lipper Inc. and MFS, the Trustees reviewed the Fund’s total return investment performance as well as the performance of peer groups of funds over various time periods. The Trustees placed particular emphasis on the total return performance of the Fund’s common shares in comparison to the performance of funds in its Lipper performance universe over the three-year period ended December 31, 2014, which the Trustees believed was a long enough period to reflect differing market conditions. The total return performance of the Fund’s common shares ranked 4th out of a total of 18 funds in the Lipper performance universe for this three-year period (a ranking of first place out of the total number of funds in the performance universe indicating the best performer and a ranking of last place out of the total number of funds in the performance universe indicating the worst performer). The total return performance of the Fund’s common shares ranked 12th out of a total of 18 funds for the one-year period and 5th out of a total of 18 funds for the five-year period ended December 31, 2014. Given the size of the Lipper performance universe and information previously provided by MFS regarding differences between the Fund and other funds in its Lipper performance universe, the Trustees also reviewed the Fund’s performance in comparison to the Barclays Municipal Bond Index. The Fund out-performed the Barclays Municipal Bond Index for each of the one-, three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2014 (one-year: 19.3% total return for the Fund versus 9.1% total return for the benchmark; three-year: 10.6% total return for the Fund versus 4.3% total return for the benchmark; five-year: 10.0% total return for the Fund versus 5.2% total return for the benchmark). Because of the passage of time, these performance results may differ from the performance results for more recent periods, including those shown elsewhere in this report.

In the course of their deliberations, the Trustees took into account information provided by MFS in connection with the contract review meetings, as well as during investment review meetings conducted with portfolio management personnel during the course of the year regarding the Fund’s performance. After reviewing these and related factors, the Trustees concluded, within the context of their overall conclusions regarding the investment advisory agreement, that they were satisfied with MFS’ responses and efforts relating to investment performance.

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

In assessing the reasonableness of the Fund’s advisory fee, the Trustees considered, among other information, the Fund’s advisory fee and the total expense ratio of the Fund’s common shares as a percentage of average daily net assets (including the value of preferred shares) and the advisory fee and total expense ratios of peer groups of funds based on information provided by Lipper Inc. The Trustees considered that MFS currently observes an expense limitation for the Fund, which may not be changed without the Trustees’ approval. The Trustees also considered that, according to the Lipper data (which takes into account any fee reductions or expense limitations that were in effect during the Fund’s last fiscal year), the Fund’s effective advisory fee rate was lower than the Lipper expense group median and the Fund’s total expense ratio was higher than the Lipper expense group median.

The Trustees also considered the advisory fees charged by MFS to any institutional separate accounts advised by MFS (“separate accounts”) and unaffiliated investment companies for which MFS serves as subadviser (“subadvised funds”) that have comparable investment strategies to the Fund. In comparing these fees, the Trustees considered information provided by MFS as to the generally broader scope of services provided by MFS to the Fund, as well as the more extensive regulatory burdens imposed on MFS in managing the Fund, in comparison to separate accounts and subadvised funds.

The Trustees considered that, as a closed-end fund, the Fund is unlikely to experience meaningful asset growth. As a result, the Trustees did not view the potential for realization of economies of scale as the Fund’s assets grow to be a material factor in their deliberations. The Trustees noted that they would consider economies of scale in the future in the event the Fund experiences significant asset growth, such as through a material increase in the market value of the Fund’s portfolio securities.

The Trustees also considered information prepared by MFS relating to MFS’ costs and profits with respect to the Fund, the MFS Funds considered as a group, and other investment companies and accounts advised by MFS, as well as MFS’ methodologies used to determine and allocate its costs to the MFS Funds, the Fund and other accounts and products for purposes of estimating profitability.

After reviewing these and other factors described herein, the Trustees concluded, within the context of their overall conclusions regarding the investment advisory agreement, that the advisory fees charged to the Fund represent reasonable compensation in light of the services being provided by MFS to the Fund.

In addition, the Trustees considered MFS’ resources and related efforts to continue to retain, attract and motivate capable personnel to serve the Fund. The Trustees also considered current and developing conditions in the financial services industry, including the presence of large and well-capitalized companies which are spending, and appear to be prepared to continue to spend, substantial sums to engage personnel and to provide services to competing investment companies. In this regard, the Trustees also considered the financial resources of MFS and its ultimate parent, Sun Life Financial Inc. The Trustees also considered the advantages and possible disadvantages to the Fund of having an adviser that also serves other investment companies as well as other accounts.

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

The Trustees also considered the nature, quality, cost, and extent of administrative services provided to the Fund by MFS under agreements other than the investment advisory agreement. The Trustees also considered the nature, extent and quality of certain other services MFS performs or arranges for on the Fund’s behalf, which may include securities lending programs, directed expense payment programs, class action recovery programs, and MFS’ interaction with third-party service providers, principally custodians and sub-custodians. The Trustees concluded that the various non-advisory services provided by MFS and its affiliates on behalf of the Fund were satisfactory.

The Trustees also considered benefits to MFS from the use of the Fund’s portfolio brokerage commissions, if applicable, to pay for investment research and various other factors. Additionally, the Trustees considered so-called “fall-out benefits” to MFS such as reputational value derived from serving as investment manager to the Fund.

Based on their evaluation of factors that they deemed to be material, including those factors described above, the Board of Trustees, including the independent Trustees, concluded that the Fund’s investment advisory agreement with MFS should be continued for an additional one-year period, commencing August 1, 2015.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND INFORMATION

MFS votes proxies on behalf of the fund pursuant to proxy voting policies and procedures that are available without charge, upon request, by calling 1-800-225-2606, by visiting the Proxy Voting section of mfs.com or by visiting the SEC’s Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

Information regarding how the fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30 is available without charge by visiting the Proxy Voting section of mfs.com or by visiting the SEC’s Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO DISCLOSURE

The fund will file a complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. A shareholder can obtain the quarterly portfolio holdings report at mfs.com. The fund’s Form N-Q is also available on the EDGAR database on the Commission’s Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and may be reviewed and copied at the:

Public Reference Room

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE, Room 1580

Washington, D.C. 20549

Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330. Copies of the Fund’s Form N-Q also may be obtained, upon payment of a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following e-mail address: publicinfo@sec.gov or by writing the Public Reference Section at the above address.

FURTHER INFORMATION

From time to time, MFS may post important information about the fund or the MFS funds on the MFS web site (mfs.com). This information is available by visiting the “Market Commentary” and “Announcements” sub sections in the “Market Outlooks” section of mfs.com or by clicking on the fund’s name under “Closed-End Funds” in the “Products” section of mfs.com.

Additional information about the fund (e.g. performance, dividends and the fund’s price history) is also available by clicking on the fund’s name under “Closed-End Funds” in the “Products” section of mfs.com.

FEDERAL TAX INFORMATION (unaudited)

The fund will notify shareholders of amounts for use in preparing 2015 income tax forms in January 2016. The following information is provided pursuant to provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

Of the dividends paid from net investment income during the fiscal year, 99.96% is designated as exempt interest dividends for federal income tax purposes. If the fund has earned income on private activity bonds, a portion of the dividends paid may be considered a tax preference item for purposes of computing a shareholder’s alternative minimum tax.

rev. 3/11

FACTS

WHAT DOES MFS DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?


Why?		Financial companies choose how they share your personal information. Federal law gives consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal law also requires us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand what we do.

What?

The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service you have with us. This information can include:

• Social Security number and account balances

• Account transactions and transaction history

• Checking account information and wire transfer instructions

When you are no longer our customer, we continue to share your information as described in this notice.


How?		All financial companies need to share customers’ personal information to run their everyday business. In the section below, we list the reasons financial companies can share their customers’ personal information; the reasons MFS chooses to share; and whether you can limit this sharing.


Reasons we can share your personal information	Does MFS share?	Can you limit this sharing?
For our everyday business purposes – such as to process your transactions, maintain your account(s), respond to court orders and legal investigations, or report to credit bureaus	Yes	No
For our marketing purposes – to offer our products and services to you	No	We don’t share
For joint marketing with other financial companies	No	We don’t share
For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes – information about your transactions and experiences	No	We don’t share
For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes – information about your creditworthiness	No	We don’t share
For nonaffiliates to market to you	No	We don’t share


Questions?		Call 800-225-2606 or go to mfs.com.


Page 2


Who we are
Who is providing this notice?		MFS Funds, MFS Investment Management, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS Fund Distributors, Inc., MFS Heritage Trust Company, and MFS Service Center, Inc.


What we do
How does MFS protect my personal information?		To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include procedural, electronic, and physical safeguards for the protection of the personal information we collect about you.
How does MFS collect my personal information?		We collect your personal information, for example, when you • open an account or provide account information • direct us to buy securities or direct us to sell your securities • make a wire transfer We also collect your personal information from others, such as credit bureaus, affiliates and other companies.
Why can’t I limit all sharing?		Federal law gives you the right to limit only • sharing for affiliates’ everyday business purposes – information about your creditworthiness • affiliates from using your information to market to you • sharing for nonaffiliates to market to you State laws and individual companies may give you additional rights to limit sharing.


Definitions
Affiliates		Companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. • MFS does not share personal information with affiliates, except for everyday business purposes as described on page one of this notice.
Nonaffiliates		Companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. • MFS does not share with nonaffiliates so they can market to you.
Joint Marketing		A formal agreement between nonaffiliated financial companies that together market financial products or services to you. • MFS doesn’t jointly market.


Other important information
If you own an MFS product or receive an MFS service in the name of a third party such as a bank or broker-dealer, their privacy policy may apply to you instead of ours.

LOGO

CONTACT US

TRANSFER AGENT, REGISTRAR, AND

DIVIDEND DISBURSING AGENT

CALL

1-800-637-2304

9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time

WRITE

Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

P.O. Box 43078

Providence, RI 02940-3078

NYSE MKT Symbol: CCA

ITEM 2.

CODE OF ETHICS.

The Registrant has adopted a Code of Ethics pursuant to Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and as defined in Form N-CSR that applies to the Registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officer. During the period covered by this report, the Registrant has not amended any provision in its Code of Ethics (the “Code”) that relates to an element of the Code’s definition enumerated in paragraph (b) of Item 2 of this Form N-CSR. During the period covered by this report, the Registrant did not grant a waiver, including an implicit waiver, from any provision of the Code.

A copy of the Code of Ethics is filed as an exhibit to this Form N-CSR.

ITEM 3.

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.

Messrs. Robert E. Butler, John P. Kavanaugh and Robert W. Uek and Mses. Maryanne L. Roepke and Laurie J. Thomsen, members of the Audit Committee, have been determined by the Board of Trustees in their reasonable business judgment to meet the definition of “audit committee financial expert” as such term is defined in Form N-CSR. In addition, Messrs. Butler, Kavanaugh and Uek and Mses. Roepke and Thomsen are “independent” members of the Audit Committee (as such term has been defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission in regulations implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). The Securities and Exchange Commission has stated that the designation of a person as an audit committee financial expert pursuant to this Item 3 on the Form N-CSR does not impose on such a person any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than the duties, obligations or liability imposed on such person as a member of the Audit Committee and the Board of Trustees in the absence of such designation or identification. Effective January 1, 2016 Mr. Steven E. Buller became a member of the Audit Committee and has been determined by the Board of Trustees in their reasonable business judgment to meet the definition of “audit committee financial expert” as such term is defined in Form N-CSR. In addition Mr. Buller is an “independent” member of the Audit Committee (as such term has been defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission in regulations implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). Effective January 1, 2016, Ms. Laurie J. Thomsen is no longer a member of the Audit Committee.

ITEM 4.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.

Items 4(a) through 4(d) and 4(g):

The Board of Trustees has appointed Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”) to serve as independent accountants to the Registrant (hereinafter the “Registrant” or the “Fund”). The tables below set forth the audit fees billed to the Fund as well as fees for non-audit services provided to the Fund and/or to the Fund’s investment adviser, Massachusetts Financial Services Company (“MFS”), and to various entities either controlling, controlled by, or under common control with MFS that provide ongoing services to the Fund (“MFS Related Entities”).

For the fiscal years ended November 30, 2015 and 2014, audit fees billed to the Fund by E&Y were as follows:


	Audit Fees
	2015		2014
Fees billed by E&Y:
MFS California Municipal Fund		56,664		55,730

For the fiscal years ended November 30, 2015 and 2014, fees billed by E&Y for audit-related, tax and other services provided to the Fund and for audit-related, tax and other services provided to MFS and MFS Related Entities were as follows:

Audit-Related Fees¹

Tax Fees²

All Other Fees³

2015

2014

2015

2014

2015

2014

Fees billed by E&Y:

To MFS California Municipal Fund

11,027

10,843

9,953

9,787

1,002

Audit-Related Fees¹

Tax Fees²

All Other Fees³

2015

2014

2015

2014

2015

2014

Fees billed by E&Y:

To MFS and MFS Related Entities of MFS California Municipal Fund^*

1,120,675

99,446


	Aggregate Fees for Non-audit Services
	2015		2014
Fees Billed by E&Y:
To MFS California Municipal Fund, MFS and MFS Related Entities^#		1,493,103		95,630

^*	This amount reflects the fees billed to MFS and MFS Related Entities for non-audit services relating directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Fund (portions of which services also related to the operations and financial reporting of other funds within the MFS Funds complex).

#	This amount reflects the aggregate fees billed by E&Y for non-audit services rendered to the Fund and for non-audit services rendered to MFS and the MFS Related Entities.

The fees included under “Audit-Related Fees” are fees related to assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of financial statements, but not reported under ‘‘Audit Fees,’’ including accounting consultations, agreed-upon procedure reports, attestation reports, comfort letters and internal control reviews.

²	The fees included under “Tax Fees” are fees associated with tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning, including services relating to the filing or amendment of federal, state or local income tax returns, regulated investment company qualification reviews and tax distribution and analysis.

³	The fees included under “All Other Fees” are fees for products and services provided by E&Y other than those reported under “Audit Fees,” “Audit-Related Fees” and “Tax Fees,” including fees for services related to review of internal controls and review of Rule 38a-1 compliance program.

Item 4(e)(1):

Set forth below are the policies and procedures established by the Audit Committee of the Board of Trustees relating to the pre-approval of audit and non-audit related services:

To the extent required by applicable law, pre-approval by the Audit Committee of the Board is needed for all audit and permissible non-audit services rendered to the Fund and all permissible non-audit services rendered to MFS or MFS Related Entities if the services relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant. Pre-approval is currently on an engagement-by-engagement basis. In the event pre-approval of such services is necessary between regular meetings of the Audit Committee and it is not practical to wait to seek pre-approval at the next regular meeting of the Audit Committee, pre-approval of such services may be referred to the Chair of the Audit Committee for approval; provided that the Chair may not pre-approve any individual engagement for such services exceeding $50,000 or multiple engagements for such services in the aggregate exceeding $100,000 between such regular meetings of the Audit Committee. Any engagement pre-approved by the Chair between regular meetings of the Audit Committee shall be presented for ratification by the entire Audit Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

Item 4(e)(2):

None, or 0%, of the services relating to the Audit-Related Fees, Tax Fees and All Other Fees paid by the Fund and MFS and MFS Related Entities relating directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant disclosed above were approved by the audit committee pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X (which permits audit committee approval after the start of the engagement with respect to services other than audit, review or attest services, if certain conditions are satisfied).

Item 4(f): Not applicable.

Item 4(h): The Registrant’s Audit Committee has considered whether the provision by a Registrant’s independent registered public accounting firm of non-audit services to MFS and MFS Related Entities that were not pre-approved by the Committee (because such services were provided prior to the effectiveness of SEC rules requiring pre-approval or because such services did not relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant) was compatible with maintaining the independence of the independent registered public accounting firm as the Registrant’s principal auditors.

ITEM 5.

AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS.

The Registrant has an Audit Committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The members of the Audit Committee are Messrs. Robert E. Butler, John P. Kavanaugh, and Robert W. Uek and Mses. Maryanne L. Roepke and Laurie J. Thomsen. Effective January 1, 2016, Mr. Steven E. Buller became a member of the Audit Committee and Ms. Laurie J. Thomsen is no longer a member of the Audit Committee.

ITEM 6.

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS

A schedule of investments of the Registrant is included as part of the report to shareholders of the Registrant under Item 1 of this Form N-CSR.

ITEM 7.

DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

February 1, 2015

Massachusetts Financial Services Company, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS International (UK) Limited, MFS Heritage Trust Company, MFS Investment Management (Canada) Limited, MFS Investment Management Company (Lux) S.à r.l., MFS International Singapore Pte. Ltd., MFS Investment Management K.K., and MFS’ other subsidiaries that perform discretionary investment management activities (collectively, “MFS”) have adopted proxy voting policies and procedures, as set forth below (“MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures”), with respect to securities owned by the clients for which MFS serves as investment adviser and has the power to vote proxies, including the pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS (the “MFS Funds”). References to “clients” in these policies and procedures include the MFS Funds and other clients of MFS, such as funds organized offshore, sub-advised funds and separate account clients, to the extent these clients have delegated to MFS the responsibility to vote proxies on their behalf under the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures include:

Voting Guidelines;

Administrative Procedures;

Records Retention; and

Reports.

A.	*VOTING GUIDELINES*

1.	General Policy; Potential Conflicts of Interest

MFS’ policy is that proxy voting decisions are made in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in the interests of any other party or in MFS’ corporate interests, including interests such as the distribution of MFS Fund shares and institutional client relationships.

MFS reviews corporate governance issues and proxy voting matters that are presented for shareholder vote by either management or shareholders of public companies. Based on the overall principle that all votes cast by MFS on behalf of its clients must be in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of such clients, MFS has adopted proxy voting guidelines, set forth below, that govern how MFS generally will vote on specific matters presented for shareholder vote.

As a general matter, MFS votes consistently on similar proxy proposals across all shareholder meetings. However, some proxy proposals, such as certain excessive executive compensation, environmental, social and governance matters, are analyzed on a case-by-case basis in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the proposal. Therefore, MFS may vote similar proposals differently at different shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of the issuer or the terms of the proposal. In addition, MFS also reserves the right to override the guidelines with respect to a particular proxy proposal when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients.

MFS also generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client accounts, unless MFS has received explicit voting instructions to vote differently from a client for its own account. From time to time, MFS may also receive comments on the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from its clients. These comments are carefully considered by MFS when it reviews these guidelines and revises them as appropriate.

These policies and procedures are intended to address any potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that are likely to arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. If such potential material conflicts of interest do arise, MFS will analyze, document and report on such potential material conflicts of interest (see Sections B.2 and D below), and shall ultimately vote the relevant proxies in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of its clients. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring and reporting with respect to such potential material conflicts of interest.

MFS is also a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. In developing these guidelines, MFS considered environmental, social and corporate governance issues in light of MFS’ fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in the best long-term economic interest of its clients.

2.	MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues

Election of Directors

MFS believes that good governance should be based on a board with at least a simple majority of directors who are “independent” of management, and whose key committees (e.g., compensation, nominating, and audit committees) consist entirely of “independent” directors. While MFS generally supports the board’s nominees in uncontested or non-contentious elections, we will not support a nominee to a board of a U.S. issuer (or issuer listed on a U.S. exchange) if, as a result of such nominee being elected to the board, the board would consist of a simple majority of members who are not “independent” or, alternatively, the compensation, nominating (including instances in which the full board serves as the compensation or nominating committee) or audit committees would include members who are not “independent.”

MFS will also not support a nominee to a board if we can determine that he or she attended less than 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason stated in the proxy materials or other company communications. In addition, MFS may not support some or all nominees standing for re-election to a board if we can determine: (1) the board or its compensation committee has re-priced or exchanged underwater stock options since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval; (2) the board or relevant committee has not taken adequately responsive action to an issue that received majority support or opposition from shareholders; (3) the board has implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval since the last annual meeting and such poison pill is not on the subsequent shareholder meeting’s agenda, (including those related to net-operating loss carry-forwards); (4) the board or relevant committee has failed to adequately oversee risk by allowing the hedging and/or significant pledging of company shares by executives; or (5) there are governance concerns with a director or issuer.

MFS may not support certain board nominees of U.S. issuers under certain circumstances where MFS deems compensation to be egregious due to pay-for-performance issues and/or poor pay practices. Please see the section below titled “MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues—Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation” for further details.

MFS evaluates a contested or contentious election of directors on a case-by-case basis considering the long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry, management’s track record, the qualifications of all nominees, and an evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders.

Majority Voting and Director Elections

MFS votes for reasonably crafted proposals calling for directors to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast and/or the elimination of the plurality standard for electing directors (including binding resolutions requesting that the board amend the company’s bylaws), provided the proposal includes a carve-out for a plurality voting standard when there are more director nominees than board seats (e.g., contested elections) (“Majority Vote Proposals”).

Classified Boards

MFS generally supports proposals to declassify a board (i.e.; a board in which only one-third of board members is elected each year) for all issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies. MFS generally opposes proposals to classify a board for issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies.

Proxy Access

MFS believes that the ability of qualifying shareholders to nominate a certain number of directors on the company’s proxy statement (“Proxy Access”) may have corporate governance benefits. However, such potential benefits must be balanced by its potential misuse by shareholders. Therefore, we support Proxy Access proposals at U.S. issuers that establish an ownership criteria of 3% of the company held continuously for a period of 3 years. MFS analyzes all other proposals seeking Proxy Access on a case-by-case basis. In its analysis, MFS will consider the proposed ownership criteria for qualifying shareholders (such as ownership threshold and holding period) as well as the proponent’s rationale for seeking Proxy Access.

Stock Plans

MFS opposes stock option programs and restricted stock plans that provide unduly generous compensation for officers, directors or employees, or that could result in excessive dilution to other shareholders. As a general guideline, MFS votes against restricted stock, stock option, non-employee director, omnibus stock plans and any other stock plan if all such plans for a particular company involve potential dilution, in the aggregate, of more than 15%. However, MFS will also vote against stock plans that involve potential dilution, in aggregate, of more than 10% at U.S. issuers that are listed in the Standard and Poor’s 100 index as of December 31 of the previous year. In the cases where a stock plan amendment is seeking qualitative changes and not additional shares, MFS will vote its shares on a case-by-case basis.

MFS also opposes stock option programs that allow the board or the compensation committee to re-price underwater options or to automatically replenish shares without shareholder approval. MFS also votes against stock option programs for officers, employees or non-employee directors that do not require an investment by the optionee, that give “free rides” on the stock price, or that permit grants of stock options with an exercise price below fair market value on the date the options are granted. MFS will consider proposals to exchange existing options for newly issued options, restricted stock or cash on a case-by-case basis, taking into account certain factors, including, but not limited to, whether there is a reasonable value-for-value exchange and whether senior executives are excluded from participating in the exchange.

MFS supports the use of a broad-based employee stock purchase plans to increase company stock ownership by employees, provided that shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value and do not result in excessive dilution.

Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation

MFS believes that competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives. However, MFS also recognizes that certain executive compensation practices can be “excessive” and not in the best, long-term economic interest of a company’s shareholders. We believe that the election of an issuer’s board of directors (as outlined above), votes on stock plans (as outlined above) and advisory votes on pay (as outlined below) are typically the most effective mechanisms to express our view on a company’s compensation practices.

MFS generally opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set rigid restrictions on executive compensation as MFS believes that compensation committees should retain some flexibility to determine the appropriate pay package for executives. Although we support linking executive stock option grants to a company’s performance, MFS also opposes shareholder proposals that mandate a link of performance-based pay to a specific metric. MFS generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals that (i) require the issuer to adopt a policy to recover the portion of performance-based bonuses and awards paid to senior executives that were not earned based upon a significant negative restatement of earnings unless the company already has adopted a satisfactory policy on the matter, (ii) expressly prohibit the backdating of stock options, and (iii) prohibit the acceleration of vesting of equity awards upon a broad definition of a “change-in-control” (e.g.; single or modified single-trigger).

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

MFS will analyze advisory votes on executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. MFS will vote against an advisory vote on executive compensation if MFS determines that the issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices and will vote in favor of an advisory vote on executive compensation if MFS has not determined that the issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices. Examples of excessive executive compensation practices may include, but are not limited to, a pay-for-performance disconnect, employment contract terms such as guaranteed bonus provisions, unwarranted pension payouts, backdated stock options, overly generous hiring bonuses for chief executive officers, unnecessary perquisites, or the potential reimbursement of excise taxes to an executive in regards to a severance package. In cases where MFS (i) votes against consecutive advisory pay votes, or (ii) determines that a particularly egregious excessive executive compensation practice has occurred, then MFS may also vote against certain or all board nominees. MFS may also vote against certain or all board nominees if an advisory pay vote for a U.S. issuer is not on the agenda, or the company has not implemented the advisory vote frequency supported by a plurality/ majority of shareholders.

MFS generally supports proposals to include an advisory shareholder vote on an issuer’s executive compensation practices on an annual basis.

“Golden Parachutes”

From time to time, MFS may evaluate a separate, advisory vote on severance packages or “golden parachutes” to certain executives at the same time as a vote on a proposed merger or acquisition. MFS will support an advisory vote on a severance package on a on a case-by-case basis, and MFS may vote against the severance package regardless of whether MFS supports the proposed merger or acquisition.

Shareholders of companies may also submit proxy proposals that would require shareholder approval of severance packages for executive officers that exceed certain predetermined thresholds. MFS votes in favor of such shareholder proposals when they would require shareholder approval of any severance package for an executive officer that exceeds a certain multiple of such officer’s annual compensation that is not determined in MFS’ judgment to be excessive.

Anti-Takeover Measures

In general, MFS votes against any measure that inhibits capital appreciation in a stock, including proposals that protect management from action by shareholders. These types of proposals take many forms, ranging from “poison pills” and “shark repellents” to super-majority requirements.

MFS generally votes for proposals to rescind existing “poison pills” and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective “poison pills,” unless the company already has adopted a clearly satisfactory policy on the matter. MFS may consider the adoption of a prospective “poison pill” or the continuation of an existing “poison pill” if we can determine that the following two conditions are met: (1) the “poison pill” allows MFS clients to hold an aggregate position of up to 15% of a company’s total voting securities (and of any class of voting securities); and (2) either (a) the “poison pill” has a term of not longer than five years, provided that MFS will consider voting in favor of the “poison pill” if the term does not exceed seven years and the “poison pill” is linked to a business strategy or purpose that MFS believes is likely to result in greater value for shareholders; or (b) the terms of the “poison pill” allow MFS clients the opportunity to accept a fairly structured and attractively priced tender offer (e.g. a “chewable poison pill” that automatically dissolves in the event of an all cash, all shares tender offer at a premium price). MFS will also consider on a case-by-case basis proposals designed to prevent tenders which are disadvantageous to shareholders such as tenders at below market prices and tenders for substantially less than all shares of an issuer.

MFS will consider any poison pills designed to protect a company’s net-operating loss carryforwards on a case-by-case basis, weighing the accounting and tax benefits of such a pill against the risk of deterring future acquisition candidates.

Reincorporation and Reorganization Proposals

When presented with a proposal to reincorporate a company under the laws of a different state, or to effect some other type of corporate reorganization, MFS considers the underlying purpose and ultimate effect of such a proposal in determining whether or not to support such a measure. MFS generally votes with management in regards to these types of proposals, however, if MFS believes the proposal is in the best long-term economic interests of its clients, then MFS may vote against management (e.g. the intent or effect would be to create additional inappropriate impediments to possible acquisitions or takeovers).

Issuance of Stock

There are many legitimate reasons for the issuance of stock. Nevertheless, as noted above under “Stock Plans,” when a stock option plan (either individually or when aggregated with other plans of the same company) would substantially dilute the existing equity (e.g. by approximately 10-15% as described above), MFS generally votes against the plan. In addition, MFS typically votes against proposals where management is asking for authorization to issue common or preferred stock with no reason stated (a “blank check”) because the unexplained authorization could work as a potential anti-takeover device. MFS may also vote against the authorization or issuance of common or preferred stock if MFS determines that the requested authorization is excessive or not warranted.

Repurchase Programs

MFS supports proposals to institute share repurchase plans in which all shareholders have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis. Such plans may include a company acquiring its own shares on the open market, or a company making a tender offer to its own shareholders.

Cumulative Voting

MFS opposes proposals that seek to introduce cumulative voting and for proposals that seek to eliminate cumulative voting. In either case, MFS will consider whether cumulative voting is likely to enhance the interests of MFS’ clients as minority shareholders.

Written Consent and Special Meetings

The right to call a special meeting or act by written consent can be a powerful tool for shareholders. As such, MFS supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders who hold at least 10% of the issuer’s outstanding stock to call a special meeting. MFS also supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders to act by written consent.

Independent Auditors

MFS believes that the appointment of auditors for U.S. issuers is best left to the board of directors of the company and therefore supports the ratification of the board’s selection of an auditor for the company. Some shareholder groups have submitted proposals to limit the non-audit activities of a company’s audit firm or prohibit any non-audit services by a company’s auditors to that company. MFS opposes proposals recommending the prohibition or limitation of the performance of non-audit services by an auditor, and proposals recommending the removal of a company’s auditor due to the performance of non-audit work for the company by its auditor. MFS believes that the board, or its audit committee, should have the discretion to hire the company’s auditor for specific pieces of non-audit work in the limited situations permitted under current law.

Other Business

MFS generally votes against “other business” proposals as the content of any such matter is not known at the time of our vote.

Adjourn Shareholder Meeting

MFS generally supports proposals to adjourn a shareholder meeting if we support the other ballot items on the meeting’s agenda. MFS generally votes against proposals to adjourn a meeting if we do not support the other ballot items on the meeting’s agenda.

Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Issues

MFS believes that a company’s ESG practices may have an impact on the company’s long-term economic financial performance and will generally support proposals relating to ESG issues that MFS believes are in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders. For those ESG proposals for which a specific policy has not been adopted, MFS considers such ESG proposals on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it may vote similar proposals differently at various shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of such proposal.

MFS generally supports proposals that seek to remove governance structures that insulate management from shareholders (i.e., anti-takeover measures) or that seek to enhance shareholder rights. Many of these governance-related issues, including compensation issues, are outlined within the context of the above guidelines. In addition, MFS typically supports proposals that require an issuer to reimburse successful dissident shareholders (who are not seeking control of the company) for reasonable expenses that such dissident incurred in soliciting an alternative slate of director candidates. MFS also generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure around the company’s use of collateral in derivatives trading. MFS typically supports proposals for an independent board chairperson. However, we may not support such proposals if we determine there to be an appropriate and effective counter-balancing leadership structure in place (e.g.; a strong, independent lead director with an appropriate level of powers and duties). For any governance-related proposal for which an explicit guideline is not provided above, MFS will consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes that it is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.

MFS generally supports proposals that request disclosure on the impact of environmental issues on the company’s operations, sales, and capital investments. However, MFS may not support such proposals based on the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific proposal, including, but not limited to, whether (i) the proposal is unduly costly, restrictive, or burdensome, (ii) the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments, or (iii) the proposal seeks a level of disclosure that exceeds that provided by the company’s industry peers. MFS will analyze all other environmental proposals on a case-by-case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.

MFS will analyze social proposals on a case-by-case basis. MFS will support such proposals if MFS believes that such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders. Generally, MFS will support shareholder proposals that (i) seek to amend a company’s equal employment opportunity policy to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and (ii) request additional disclosure regarding a company’s political contributions (including trade organizations and lobbying activity) (unless the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that such contributions pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments).

The laws of various states or countries may regulate how the interests of certain clients subject to those laws (e.g. state pension plans) are voted with respect to social issues. Thus, it may be necessary to cast ballots differently for certain clients than MFS might normally do for other clients.

Foreign Issuers

MFS generally supports the election of a director nominee standing for re-election in uncontested or non-contentious elections unless it can be determined that (1) he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason given in the proxy materials; (2) since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has re-priced underwater stock options; or (3) since the last annual meeting, the board has either implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval or has not taken responsive action to a majority shareholder approved resolution recommending that the “poison pill” be rescinded. In such circumstances, we will vote against director nominee(s). Also, certain markets outside of the U.S. have adopted best practice guidelines relating to corporate governance matters (e.g. the United Kingdom’s Corporate Governance Code). Many of these guidelines operate on a “comply or explain” basis. As such, MFS will evaluate any explanations by companies relating to their compliance with a particular corporate governance guideline on a case-by-case basis and may vote against the board nominees or other relevant ballot item if such explanation is not satisfactory. In some circumstances, MFS may submit a vote to abstain from certain director nominees or the relevant ballot items if we have concerns with the nominee or ballot item, but do not believe these concerns rise to the level where a vote against is warranted.

MFS generally supports the election of auditors, but may determine to vote against the election of a statutory auditor in certain markets if MFS reasonably believes that the statutory auditor is not truly independent.

Some international markets have also adopted mandatory requirements for all companies to hold shareholder votes on executive compensation. MFS will vote against such proposals if MFS determines that a company’s executive compensation practices are excessive, considering such factors as the specific market’s best practices that seek to maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment and to create long-term shareholder value. We may alternatively submit an abstention vote on such proposals in circumstances where our executive compensation concerns are not as severe.

Many other items on foreign proxies involve repetitive, non-controversial matters that are mandated by local law. Accordingly, the items that are generally deemed routine and which do not require the exercise of judgment under these guidelines (and therefore voted with management) for foreign issuers include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) receiving financial statements or other reports from the board; (ii) approval of declarations of dividends; (iii) appointment of shareholders to sign board meeting minutes; (iv) discharge of management and supervisory boards; and (v) approval of share repurchase programs (absent any anti-takeover or other concerns). MFS will evaluate all other items on proxies for foreign companies in the context of the guidelines described above, but will generally vote against an item if there is not sufficient information disclosed in order to make an informed voting decision. For any ballot item where MFS wishes to express a more moderate level of concern than a vote of against, we will cast a vote to abstain.

In accordance with local law or business practices, some foreign companies or custodians prevent the sale of shares that have been voted for a certain period beginning prior to the shareholder meeting and ending on the day following the meeting (“share blocking”). Depending on the country in which a company is domiciled, the blocking period may begin a stated number of days prior or subsequent to the meeting (e.g. one, three or five days) or on a date established by the company. While practices vary, in many countries the block period can be continued for a longer period if the shareholder meeting is adjourned and postponed to a later date. Similarly, practices vary widely as to the ability of a shareholder to have the “block” restriction lifted early (e.g. in some countries shares generally can be “unblocked” up to two days prior to the meeting whereas in other countries the removal of the block appears to be discretionary with the issuer’s transfer agent). Due to these restrictions, MFS must balance the benefits to its clients of voting proxies against the potentially serious portfolio management consequences of a reduced flexibility to sell the underlying shares at the most advantageous time. For companies in countries with share blocking periods or in markets where some custodians may block shares, the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock regardless of changing conditions generally outweighs the advantages of voting at the shareholder meeting for routine items. Accordingly, MFS will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote that outweighs the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock.

From time to time, governments may impose economic sanctions which may prohibit us from transacting business with certain companies or individuals. These sanctions may also prohibit the voting of proxies at certain companies or on certain individuals. In such instances, MFS will not vote at certain companies or on certain individuals if it determines that doing so is in violation of the sanctions.

In limited circumstances, other market specific impediments to voting shares may limit our ability to cast votes, including, but not limited to, late delivery of proxy materials, untimely vote cut-off dates, power of attorney and share re-registration requirements, or any other unusual voting requirements. In these limited instances, MFS votes securities on a best efforts basis in the context of the guidelines described above.

B.	*ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES*

MFS Proxy Voting Committee

The administration of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures is overseen by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, which includes senior personnel from the MFS Legal and Global Investment Support Departments. The Proxy Voting Committee does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee:

Reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures at least annually and recommends any amendments considered to be necessary or advisable;

Determines whether any potential material conflict of interest exists with respect to instances in which MFS (i) seeks to override these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (ii) votes on ballot items not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (iii) evaluates an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors; or (iv) requests a vote recommendation from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); and

Considers special proxy issues as they may arise from time to time.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. Due to the client focus of our investment management business, we believe that the potential for actual material conflict of interest issues is small. Nonetheless, we have developed

precautions to assure that all proxy votes are cast in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders.¹ Other MFS internal policies require all MFS employees to avoid actual and potential conflicts of interests between personal activities and MFS’ client activities. If an employee (including investment professionals) identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any voting decision (including the ownership of securities in their individual portfolio), then that employee must recuse himself/herself from participating in the voting process. Any significant attempt by an employee of MFS or its subsidiaries to unduly influence MFS’ voting on a particular proxy matter should also be reported to the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

In cases where proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist. In cases where (i) MFS is considering overriding these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (ii) matters presented for vote are not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (iii) MFS evaluates a potentially excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors or advisory pay or severance package vote, (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); or (v) MFS evaluates a director nominee who also serves as a director of the MFS Funds (collectively, “Non-Standard Votes”); the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will follow these procedures:

Compare the name of the issuer of such proxy against a list of significant current (i) distributors of MFS Fund shares, and (ii) MFS institutional clients (the “MFS Significant Distributor and Client List”);

If the name of the issuer does not appear on the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, then no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist, and the proxy will be voted as otherwise determined by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee;

If the name of the issuer appears on the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will be apprised of that fact and each member of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will carefully evaluate the proposed vote in order to ensure that the proxy ultimately is voted in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS’ corporate interests; and

¹	For clarification purposes, note that MFS votes in what we believe to be the best, long-term economic interest of our clients entitled to vote at the shareholder meeting, regardless of whether other MFS clients hold “short” positions in the same issuer.

For all potential material conflicts of interest identified under clause (c) above, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will document: the name of the issuer, the issuer’s relationship to MFS, the analysis of the matters submitted for proxy vote, the votes as to be cast and the reasons why the MFS Proxy Voting Committee determined that the votes were cast in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS’ corporate interests. A copy of the foregoing documentation will be provided to MFS’ Conflicts Officer.

The members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee are responsible for creating and maintaining the MFS Significant Distributor and Client List, in consultation with MFS’ distribution and institutional business units. The MFS Significant Distributor and Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically, as appropriate.

If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by Sun Life Financial, Inc. or any of its affiliates (collectively “Sun Life”), MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client pursuant to the recommendations of Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc.’s (“ISS”) benchmark policy, or as required by law.

Except as described in the MFS Fund’s prospectus, from time to time, certain MFS Funds (the “top tier fund”) may own shares of other MFS Funds (the “underlying fund”). If an underlying fund submits a matter to a shareholder vote, the top tier fund will generally vote its shares in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the underlying fund. If there are no other shareholders in the underlying fund, the top tier fund will vote in what MFS believes to be in the top tier fund’s best long-term economic interest. If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by a pooled investment vehicle advised by MFS, MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the pooled investment vehicle.

Gathering Proxies

Most proxies received by MFS and its clients originate at Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”). Broadridge and other service providers, on behalf of custodians, send proxy related material to the record holders of the shares beneficially owned by MFS’ clients, usually to the client’s proxy voting administrator or, less commonly, to the client itself. This material will include proxy ballots reflecting the shareholdings of Funds and of clients on the record dates for such shareholder meetings, as well as proxy materials with the issuer’s explanation of the items to be voted upon.

MFS, on behalf of itself and certain of its clients (including the MFS Funds) has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm pursuant to which the proxy administration firm performs various proxy vote related administrative services such as vote processing and recordkeeping functions. Except as noted below, the proxy administration firm for MFS and its clients, including the MFS Funds, is ISS. The proxy administration firm for MFS Development Funds, LLC is Glass, Lewis & Co., Inc. (“Glass Lewis”; Glass Lewis and ISS are each hereinafter referred to as the “Proxy Administrator”).

The Proxy Administrator receives proxy statements and proxy ballots directly or indirectly from various custodians, logs these materials into its database and matches upcoming meetings with MFS Fund and client portfolio holdings, which are input into the Proxy Administrator’s system by an MFS holdings data-feed. Through the use of the Proxy Administrator system, ballots and proxy material summaries for all upcoming shareholders’ meetings are available on-line to certain MFS employees and members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

It is the responsibility of the Proxy Administrator and MFS to monitor the receipt of ballots. When proxy ballots and materials for clients are received by the Proxy Administrator, they are input into the Proxy Administrator’s on-line system. The Proxy Administrator then reconciles a list of all MFS accounts that hold shares of a company’s stock and the number of shares held on the record date by these accounts with the Proxy Administrator’s list of any upcoming shareholder’s meeting of that company. If a proxy ballot has not been received, the Proxy Administrator contacts the custodian requesting the reason as to why a ballot has not been received.

Analyzing Proxies

Proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The Proxy Administrator, at the prior direction of MFS, automatically votes all proxy matters that do not require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment with respect to these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures as determined by MFS. With respect to proxy matters that require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee considers and votes on those proxy matters. MFS also receives research and recommendations from the Proxy Administrator which it may take into account in deciding how to vote. MFS uses the research of ISS to identify (i) circumstances in which a board may have approved excessive executive compensation, (ii) environmental and social proposals that warrant further consideration or (iii) circumstances in which a non-U.S. company is not in compliance with local governance or compensation best practices. In those situations where the only MFS fund that is eligible to vote at a shareholder meeting has Glass Lewis as its Proxy Administrator, then we will utilize research from Glass Lewis to identify such issues. MFS analyzes such issues independently and does not necessarily vote with the ISS or Glass Lewis recommendations on these issues. MFS may also use other research tools in order to identify the circumstances described above. Representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee review, as appropriate, votes cast to ensure conformity with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

As a general matter, portfolio managers and investment analysts have little involvement in most votes taken by MFS. This is designed to promote consistency in the application of MFS’ voting guidelines, to promote consistency in voting on the same or similar issues (for the same or for multiple issuers) across all client accounts, and to minimize the potential that proxy solicitors, issuers, or third parties might attempt to exert inappropriate influence on the vote. In limited types of votes (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, capitalization matters, potentially excessive executive compensation issues, or shareholder proposals relating to environmental and social issues), a representative of MFS Proxy Voting Committee may consult with or seek recommendations from MFS portfolio managers or investment analysts.² However, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee would ultimately determine the manner in which all proxies are voted.

As noted above, MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients. Any such override of the guidelines shall be analyzed, documented and reported in accordance with the procedures set forth in these policies.

Voting Proxies

In accordance with its contract with MFS, the Proxy Administrator also generates a variety of reports for the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, and makes available on-line various other types of information so that the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or proxy team may review and monitor the votes cast by the Proxy Administrator on behalf of MFS’ clients.

For those markets that utilize a “record date” to determine which shareholders are eligible to vote, MFS generally will vote all eligible shares pursuant to these guidelines regardless of whether all (or a portion of) the shares held by our clients have been sold prior to the meeting date.

From time to time, due to travel schedules and other commitments, an appropriate portfolio manager or research analyst may not be available to provide a vote recommendation. If such a recommendation cannot be obtained within a reasonable time prior to the cut-off date of the shareholder meeting, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may determine to abstain from voting.

Securities Lending

From time to time, the MFS Funds or other pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS may participate in a securities lending program. In the event MFS or its agent receives timely notice of a shareholder meeting for a U.S. security, MFS and its agent will attempt to recall any securities on loan before the meeting’s record date so that MFS will be entitled to vote these shares. However, there may be instances in which MFS is unable to timely recall securities on loan for a U.S. security, in which cases MFS will not be able to vote these shares. MFS will report to the appropriate board of the MFS Funds those instances in which MFS is not able to timely recall the loaned securities. MFS generally does not recall non-U.S. securities on loan because there may be insufficient advance notice of proxy materials, record dates, or vote cut-off dates to allow MFS to timely recall the shares in certain markets on an automated basis. As a result, non-U.S. securities that are on loan will not generally be voted. If MFS receives timely notice of what MFS determines to be an unusual, significant vote for a non-U.S. security whereas MFS shares are on loan, and determines that voting is in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders, then MFS will attempt to timely recall the loaned shares.

Engagement

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are available on www.mfs.com and may be accessed by both MFS’ clients and the companies in which MFS’ clients invest. From time to time, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial for representatives from the MFS Proxy Voting Committee to engage in a dialogue or written communication with a company or other shareholders regarding certain matters on the company’s proxy statement that are of concern to shareholders, including environmental, social and governance matters. A company or shareholder may also seek to engage with representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee in advance of the company’s formal proxy solicitation to review issues more generally or gauge support for certain contemplated proposals.

C.	*RECORDS RETENTION*

MFS will retain copies of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures in effect from time to time and will retain all proxy voting reports submitted to the Board of Trustees of the MFS Funds for the period required by applicable law. Proxy solicitation materials, including electronic versions of the proxy ballots completed by representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, together with their respective notes and comments, are maintained in an electronic format by the Proxy Administrator and are accessible on-line by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation, including records generated by the Proxy Administrator’s system as to proxies processed, including the dates when proxy ballots were received and submitted, and the votes on each company’s proxy issues, are retained as required by applicable law.

D.	*REPORTS*

U.S. Registered MFS Funds

MFS publicly discloses the proxy voting records of the U.S. registered MFS Funds on a quarterly basis. MFS will also report the results of its voting to the Board of Trustees of the U.S. registered MFS Funds. These reports will include: (i) a summary of how votes were cast (including advisory votes on pay and “golden parachutes”) ; (ii) a summary of votes against management’s recommendation; (iii) a review of situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the guidelines and the rationale therefore; (iv) a review of the procedures used by MFS to identify material conflicts of interest and any matters identified as a material conflict of interest; (v) a review of these policies and the guidelines; (vi) a review of our proxy engagement activity; (vii) a report and impact assessment of instances in which the recall of loaned securities of a U.S. issuer was unsuccessful; and (viii) as necessary or appropriate, any proposed modifications thereto to reflect new developments in corporate governance and other issues. Based on these reviews, the Trustees of the U.S. registered MFS Funds will consider possible modifications to these policies to the extent necessary or advisable.

Other MFS Clients

MFS may publicly disclose the proxy voting records of certain other clients (including certain MFS Funds) or the votes it casts with respect to certain matters as required by law. A report can also be printed by MFS for each client who has requested that MFS furnish a record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues which have been voted for the client during the year and the position taken with respect to each issue and, upon request, may identify situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

Except as described above, MFS generally will not divulge actual voting practices to any party other than the client or its representatives because we consider that information to be confidential and proprietary to the client. However, as noted above, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial to engage in a dialogue with a company regarding certain matters. During such dialogue with the company, MFS may disclose the vote it intends to cast in order to potentially effect positive change at a company in regards to environmental, social or governance issues.

ITEM 8.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

Portfolio Manager(s)

Information regarding the portfolio manager(s) of the MFS California Municipal Fund (the “Fund”) is set forth below. Each portfolio manager is primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund.


Portfolio Manager	Primary Role	Since	Title and Five Year History
Michael L. Dawson	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 1998.

Geoffrey L. Schechter	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 1993.

Compensation

Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed annually. As of December 31, 2014, portfolio manager total cash compensation is a combination of base salary and performance bonus:

Base Salary – Base salary represents a smaller percentage of portfolio manager total cash compensation than performance bonus.

Performance Bonus – Generally, the performance bonus represents more than a majority of portfolio manager total cash compensation.

The performance bonus is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors, generally with more weight given to the former and less weight given to the latter.

The quantitative portion is based on the pre-tax performance of assets managed by the portfolio manager over one-, three-, and five-year periods relative to peer group universes and/or indices (“benchmarks”). As of December 31, 2014, the following benchmarks were used to measure the following portfolio manager’s performance for the Fund:


Fund	Portfolio Manager	Benchmark(s)
MFS California Municipal Fund	Michael L. Dawson	Barclays Municipal Bond Index
MFS California Municipal Fund
	Geoffrey L. Schechter	Barclays Municipal Bond Index

Additional or different benchmarks, including versions of indices, custom indices, and linked indices that combine performance of different indices for different portions of the time period, may also be used. Primary weight is given to portfolio performance over a three-year time period with lesser consideration given to portfolio performance over one- and five-year periods (adjusted as appropriate if the portfolio manager has served for less than five years).

The qualitative portion is based on the results of an annual internal peer review process (conducted by other portfolio managers, analysts, and traders) and management’s assessment of overall portfolio manager contributions to investor relations and the investment process (distinct from fund and other account performance). This performance bonus may be in the form of cash and/or a deferred cash award, at the discretion of

management. A deferred cash award is issued for a cash value and becomes payable over a three-year vesting period if the portfolio manager remains in the continuous employ of MFS or its affiliates. During the vesting period, the value of the unfunded deferred cash award will fluctuate as though the portfolio manager had invested the cash value of the award in an MFS Fund(s) selected by the portfolio manager. A selected fund may be, but is not required to be, a fund that is managed by the portfolio manager.

Portfolio managers also typically benefit from the opportunity to participate in the MFS Equity Plan. Equity interests are awarded by management, on a discretionary basis, taking into account tenure at MFS, contribution to the investment process, and other factors.

Finally, portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans (including a defined contribution plan and health and other insurance plans) and programs available generally to other employees of MFS. The percentage such benefits represent of any portfolio manager’s compensation depends upon the length of the individual’s tenure at MFS and salary level, as well as other factors.

Ownership of Fund Shares

The following table shows the dollar range of equity securities of the Fund beneficially owned by the Fund’s portfolio manager(s) as of the Fund’s fiscal year ended November 30, 2015. The following dollar ranges apply:

N. None

A. $1 – $10,000

B. $10,001 – $50,000

C. $50,001 – $100,000

D. $100,001 – $500,000

E. $500,001 – $1,000,000

F. Over $1,000,000


Name of Portfolio Manager		Dollar Range of Equity Securities in Fund
Michael L. Dawson		N
Geoffrey L. Schechter		N

Other Accounts

In addition to the Fund, each portfolio manager of the Fund is named as a portfolio manager of certain other accounts managed or subadvised by MFS or an affiliate. The number and assets of these accounts were as follows as of November 30, 2015:

Registered Investment
Companies*

Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles

Other Accounts

Name

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

Michael L. Dawson

2.5 billion

N/A

Geoffrey L. Schechter

14.2 billion

543.9 million

N/A

*	Includes the Fund.

Advisory fees are not based upon performance of any of the accounts identified in the table above.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

MFS seeks to identify potential conflicts of interest resulting from a portfolio manager’s management of both the Fund and other accounts, and has adopted policies and procedures designed to address such potential conflicts.

The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) gives rise to conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives and strategies, benchmarks, time horizons and fees as a portfolio manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In certain instances there are securities which are suitable for the Fund’s portfolio as well as for accounts of MFS or its subsidiaries with similar investment objectives. The Fund’s trade allocation policies may give rise to conflicts of interest if the Fund’s orders do not get fully executed or are delayed in getting executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts of MFS or its subsidiaries. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely affect the value of the Fund’s investments. Investments selected for funds or accounts other than the Fund may outperform investments selected for the Fund.

When two or more clients are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security, the securities are allocated among clients in a manner believed by MFS to be fair and equitable to each. Allocations may be based on many factors and may not always be pro rata based on assets managed. The allocation methodology could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security as far as the Fund is concerned.

MFS and/or a portfolio manager may have a financial incentive to allocate favorable or limited opportunity investments or structure the timing of investments to favor accounts other than the Fund, for instance, those that pay a higher advisory fee and/or have a performance adjustment and/or include an investment by the portfolio manager.

ITEM 9.

PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS.

MFS California Municipal Fund


Period	(a) Total number of Shares Purchased		(b) Average Price Paid per Share		(c) Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs		(d) Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased under the Plans or Programs
12/01/14-12/31/14		0		N/A		0		278,623
1/01/15-1/31/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
2/01/15-2/28/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
3/01/15-3/31/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
4/01/15-4/30/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
5/01/15-5/31/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
6/01/15-6/30/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
7/01/15-7/31/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
8/01/15-8/31/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
9/1/15-9/30/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
10/1/15-10/31/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
11/1/15-11/30/15		0		N/A		0		278,623

*Total*		0				0

Note: The Board of Trustees approves procedures to repurchase shares annually. The notification to shareholders of the program is part of the semi-annual and annual reports sent to shareholders. These annual programs begin on March 1^st of each year. The programs conform to the conditions of Rule 10b-18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and limit the aggregate number of shares that may be purchased in each annual period (March 1 through the following February 28) to 10% of the Registrant’s outstanding shares as of the first day of the plan year (March 1). The aggregate number of shares available for purchase for the March 1, 2015 plan year is 278,623.

ITEM 10.

SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.

There were no material changes to the procedures by which shareholders may send recommendations to the Board for nominees to the Registrant’s Board since the Registrant last provided disclosure as to such procedures in response to the requirements of Item 407 (c)(2)(iv) of Regulation S-K or this Item.

ITEM 11.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

(a)

Based upon their evaluation of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”)) as conducted within 90 days of the filing date of this Form N-CSR, the registrant’s principal financial officer and principal executive officer have concluded that those disclosure controls and procedures provide reasonable assurance that the material information required to be disclosed by the registrant on this report is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.

(b)

There were no changes in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Act) that occurred during the second fiscal quarter covered by the report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 12.

EXHIBITS.

(a)	File the exhibits listed below as part of this form. Letter or number the exhibits in the sequence indicated.

(1)

Any code of ethics, or amendment thereto, that is the subject of the disclosure required by Item 2, to the extent that the registrant intends to satisfy the Item 2 requirements through filing of an exhibit: Code of Ethics attached hereto.

(2)

A separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2): Attached hereto.

(3)

Any written solicitation to purchase securities under Rule 23c-1 under the Act sent or given during the period covered by the report by or on behalf of the Registrant to 10 or more persons. Not applicable.

(b)

If the report is filed under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, provide the certifications required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2(b)), Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b) or 240.15d-14(b)) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350) as an exhibit. A certification furnished pursuant to this paragraph will not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference: Attached hereto.

Notice

A copy of the Agreement and Declaration of Trust, as amended, of the Registrant is on file with the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and notice is hereby given that this instrument is executed on behalf of the Registrant by an officer of the Registrant as an officer and not individually and the obligations of or arising out of this instrument are not binding upon any of the Trustees or shareholders individually, but are binding only upon the assets and property of the respective constituent series of the Registrant.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Registrant MFS CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND


By (Signature and Title)*		ROBIN A. STELMACH
		Robin A. Stelmach, President

Date: January 15, 2016

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By (Signature and Title)*

ROBIN A. STELMACH

Robin A. Stelmach, President

(Principal Executive Officer)

Date: January 15, 2016

By (Signature and Title)*

DAVID L. DILORENZO

David L. DiLorenzo, Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer

and Accounting Officer)

Date: January 15, 2016

*	Print name and title of each signing officer under his or her signature.