1. education
2. school

NEW ISSUE — FULL BOOK-ENTRY
RATINGS: Moody’s: “Aa2”; S&P: “AA”
(See “MISCELLANEOUS – Ratings” herein)
In the opinion of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, California (“Bond Counsel”), under existing
statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, and assuming the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants
and requirements described herein, interest (and original issue discount) on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax
purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and
corporations. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest (and original issue discount) on the Bonds is exempt from State of California personal
income tax. See “TAX MATTERS” herein with respect to tax consequences relating to the Bonds.
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Placer, Nevada and El Dorado Counties, California)
$20,000,000
Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A
(School Facilities Improvement District No. 1)
(Placer and Nevada Counties, California)
$19,500,000
Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A
(School Facilities Improvement District No. 2)
(Placer and El Dorado Counties, California)
Dated: Date of Delivery
Due: August 1, as shown on the inside cover
This cover page contains certain information for general reference only. It is not a summary of this issue. Investors must read the entire
Official Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an informed investment decision. Capitalized terms used on this cover page not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth herein.
The Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (Placer, Nevada Counties and El Dorado Counties, California) Election of 2014 General Obligation
Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement District No. 1) (Placer and Nevada Counties, California) (the “SFID No. 1 Bonds”), are being
issued by the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (the “District”). The SFID No. 1 Bonds were authorized at an election of the registered voters
within the School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 of the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (“Improvement District No. 1”) held on
November 4, 2014, at which 55% or more of the persons voting on the proposition voted to authorize the issuance and sale of not-to-exceed
$114,000,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds to finance the renovation, acquisition, construction, repair, and equipping of classrooms,
schools, sites, and facilities and costs related thereto, as approved by voters, for schools in Improvement District No. 1.
The SFID No. 1 Bonds are general obligations of the District payable solely from ad valorem property taxes. The Boards of Supervisors of
Placer County and Nevada County are empowered and obligated to annually levy ad valorem taxes upon all property within Improvement District
No. 1 subject to taxation by the District, without limitation as to rate or amount (except certain personal property which is taxable at limited rates),
for the payment of principal of and interest on the SFID No. 1 Bonds when due.
The Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (Placer, Nevada and El Dorado Counties, California) Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds,
Series A (School Facilities Improvement District No. 2) (Placer and El Dorado Counties, California (the “SFID No. 2 Bonds,” and, together with the
SFID No. 1 Bonds, the “Bonds”), are being issued by the District. The SFID No. 2 Bonds were authorized at an election of the registered voters
within the School Facilities Improvement District No. 2 of the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (“Improvement District No. 2”) held on
November 4, 2014, at which 55% or more of the persons voting on the proposition voted to authorize the issuance and sale of not-to-exceed
$62,000,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds to finance the renovation, acquisition, construction, repair, and equipping of classrooms,
schools, sites, and facilities and costs related thereto, as approved by voters, for schools in Improvement District No. 2.
The SFID No. 2 Bonds are general obligations of the District payable solely from ad valorem property taxes. The Boards of Supervisors of
Placer County and El Dorado County are empowered and obligated to annually levy ad valorem property taxes upon all property within the
boundaries of Improvement District No. 2 subject to taxation by the District, without limitation as to rate or amount (except certain personal property
which is taxable at limited rates), for the payment of principal of and interest on the SFID No. 2 Bonds when due.
The Bonds will be issued in book-entry form only, and will be initially issued and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The
Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”). Purchasers of the Bonds (the “Beneficial Owners”) will not receive certificates
representing their interests in the Bonds.
The Bonds will be issued as current interest bonds, such that interest thereon shall accrue from the date of delivery and be payable semiannually
on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2015. The Bonds are issuable in denominations of $5,000 principal amount or any
integral multiple thereof.
Payments of principal of and interest on the Bonds will be made by U.S. Bank National Association as Paying Agent (defined herein) to DTC
for subsequent disbursement to DTC Participants (defined herein) who will remit such payments to the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds.
The Bonds are subject to optional and mandatory redemption as further described herein.
MATURITY SCHEDULE
(See inside front cover)
The Bonds are being offered when, as and if issued and received by the Underwriters, subject to the approval of legality by Stradling Yocca
Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, California, Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel. The Bonds, in book-entry form,
will be available through the facilities of the Depository Trust Company in New York, New York, on or about March 31, 2015.
Dated: March 10, 2015
MATURITY SCHEDULE
$20,000,000
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Placer, Nevada and El Dorado Counties, California)
Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A
(School Facilities Improvement District No. 1)
(Placer and Nevada Counties, California)
Base CUSIP(1): 873884
Maturity
(August 1)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
$17,780,000 Serial Bonds
Principal
Interest
Amount
Rate
$4,415,000
4,355,000
4,505,000
3,885,000
50,000
60,000
65,000
75,000
80,000
90,000
95,000
105,000
4.000%
4.000
4.000
4.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.125
3.250
3.250
3.250
3.250
Yield
0.300%
0.620
1.020
1.300
3.050
3.100
3.150
3.200
3.280
3.350
3.400
3.450
CUSIP(1)
LY4
LZ1
MA5
MB3
MC1
MD9
ME7
MF4
MG2
MH0
MJ6
MK3
$685,000 – 3.500% Term Bonds due August 1, 2040; Yield: 3.580%; CUSIP(1): ML1
$780,000 – 3.500% Term Bonds due August 1, 2044; Yield: 3.650%; CUSIP(1): MM9
$755,000.00 – 3.625% Term Bonds due August 1, 2047; Yield: 3.700%; CUSIP(1): MN7
_______________________________________
$19,500,000
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Placer, Nevada and El Dorado Counties, California)
Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A
(School Facilities Improvement District No. 2)
(Placer and El Dorado Counties, California)
Base CUSIP(1): 873884
Maturity
(August 1)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2036
$7,010,000 Serial Bonds
Principal
Interest
Amount
Rate
Yield
$1,610,000
1,835,000
1,995,000
1,050,000
520,000
0.280%
0.600
1.020
1.250
3.543
4.000%
4.000
1.500
4.000
3.375
CUSIP(1)
MP2
MQ0
MR8
MS6
MV9
$415,000 – 3.125% Term Bonds due August 1, 2030; Yield: 3.292%; CUSIP(1): MT4
$1,630,000 – 3.375% Term Bonds due August 1, 2035; Yield: 3.513%; CUSIP(1): MU1
$2,880,000 – 3.500% Term Bonds due August 1, 2040; Yield: 3.621%; CUSIP(1): MW7
$7,565,000 – 4.000% Term Bonds due August 1, 2046; Yield: 3.770%; CUSIP(1): MX5
This Official Statement does not constitute an offering of any security other than the original
offering of the Bonds of the District. No dealer, broker, salesperson or other person has been authorized
by the District to give any information or to make any representations other than as contained in this
Official Statement, and if given or made, such other information or representation not so authorized
should not be relied upon as having been given or authorized by the District.
The issuance and sale of the Bonds have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, both as amended, in reliance upon exemptions provided thereunder
by Sections 3(a)2 and 3(a)12, respectively, for the issuance and sale of such municipal securities. This
Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy in any state in
which such offer or solicitation is not authorized or in which the person making such offer or solicitation
is not qualified to do so or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such offer or solicitation.
Certain information set forth herein has been obtained from sources outside of the District which
are believed to be reliable, but such information is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness, and is
not to be construed as a representation by the District. The information and expressions of opinions
herein are subject to change without notice and neither delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale
made hereunder shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in
the affairs of the District since the date hereof. This Official Statement is submitted in connection with
the sale of the Bonds referred to herein and may not be reproduced or used, in whole or in part, for any
other purpose.
When used in this Official Statement and in any continuing disclosure by the District in any press
release and in any oral statement made with the approval of an authorized officer of the District or any
other entity described or referenced in this Official Statement, the words or phrases “will likely result,”
“are expected to,” “will continue,” “is anticipated,” “estimate,” “project,” “forecast,” “expect,” “intend”
and similar expressions identify “forward looking statements” within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that
could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in such forward-looking
statements. Any forecast is subject to such uncertainties. Inevitably, some assumptions used to develop
the forecasts will not be realized and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, there
are likely to be differences between forecasts and actual results, and those differences may be material.
The Underwriters have provided the following sentence for inclusion in this Official Statement:
“The Underwriters have reviewed the information in this Official Statement in accordance with, and as
part of, its responsibilities to investors under the federal securities laws as applied to the facts and
circumstances of this transaction, but the Underwrites do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of
such information.”
IN CONNECTION WITH THIS OFFERING, THE UNDERWRITERS MAY OVERALLOT
OR EFFECT TRANSACTIONS WHICH STABILIZE OR MAINTAIN THE MARKET PRICE OF THE
BONDS AT A LEVEL ABOVE THAT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE PREVAIL IN THE OPEN
MARKET. SUCH STABILIZING, IF COMMENCED, MAY BE DISCONTINUED AT ANY TIME.
THE UNDERWRITERS MAY OFFER AND SELL THE BONDS TO CERTAIN DEALERS AND
DEALER BANKS AND BANKS ACTING AS AGENT AT PRICES LOWER THAN THE PUBLIC
OFFERING PRICES STATED ON THE INSIDE COVER PAGE HEREOF AND SAID PUBLIC
OFFERING PRICES MAY BE CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE UNDERWRITERS.
The District maintains a website. However, the information presented on the District’s website is
not incorporated into this Official Statement by any reference, and should not be relied upon in making
investment decisions with respect to the Bonds.
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Board of Education
Kim Szczurek, President
Randy Hill, Clerk
Dianna Driller, Member
Gaylan Larson, Member
Kirsten Livak, Member
District Administration
Dr. Robert Leri, Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer
Thomas Gemma, Executive Director, Administrative Services
Todd Rivera, Manager of Budget and Payroll
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth,
a Professional Corporation
San Francisco, California
Financial Advisor
Keygent, LLC
El Segundo, California
Paying Agent
U.S. Bank National Association
San Francisco, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
THE DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS .................................................................................................................................. 2
PURPOSE OF THE BONDS ............................................................................................................................................ 2
AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS ................................................................................................................ 2
SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS .................................................................................................................... 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS ..................................................................................................................................... 3
TAX MATTERS ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
OFFERING AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS .................................................................................................................. 4
BOND OWNER’S RISKS ............................................................................................................................................... 4
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE ......................................................................................................................................... 4
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 4
PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN THE OFFERING............................................................................................................ 5
OTHER INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................................ 5
THE BONDS ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 6
SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6
GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 7
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ 8
APPLICATION AND INVESTMENT OF BOND PROCEEDS................................................................................................ 9
REDEMPTION............................................................................................................................................................ 10
BOOK-ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................... 15
DISCONTINUATION OF BOOK-ENTRY ONLY SYSTEM; REGISTRATION,
PAYMENT AND TRANSFER OF BONDS ....................................................................................................................... 17
DEFEASANCE ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ................................................................................................ 19
TAX BASES FOR REPAYMENT OF BONDS ...................................................................................................... 20
AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXATION ......................................................................................................................... 20
ASSESSED VALUATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 21
ASSESSED VALUATION OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 ...................................................................................... 21
ASSESSED VALUATION OF IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 ...................................................................................... 26
APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS OF ASSESSED VALUATIONS ....................................................................................... 29
TAX LEVIES, COLLECTIONS AND DELINQUENCIES ................................................................................................... 30
ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF TAX APPORTIONMENT - “TEETER PLAN” ...................................................................... 30
TAX RATES .............................................................................................................................................................. 31
PRINCIPAL TAXPAYERS ............................................................................................................................................ 33
STATEMENT OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT ................................................................................................... 34
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFFECTING
DISTRICT REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................. 37
ARTICLE XIIIA OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ............................................................................................... 37
LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING ARTICLE XIIIA......................................................................................................... 38
UNITARY PROPERTY ................................................................................................................................................ 38
ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ............................................................................................... 38
PROPOSITION 26 ....................................................................................................................................................... 39
ARTICLE XIIIC AND ARTICLE XIIID OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION .............................................................. 40
PROPOSITIONS 98 AND 111....................................................................................................................................... 40
PROPOSITION 39 ....................................................................................................................................................... 42
PROPOSITION 1A AND PROPOSITION 22.................................................................................................................... 43
JARVIS VS. CONNELL.................................................................................................................................................. 43
PROPOSITION 30 ....................................................................................................................................................... 44
PROPOSITION 2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 44
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
FUTURE INITIATIVES ................................................................................................................................................ 46
THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS ...................................................................................................................... 46
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1................................................................................................................................ 46
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2................................................................................................................................ 46
DISTRICT FINANCIAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 47
STATE FUNDING OF EDUCATION .............................................................................................................................. 47
OTHER REVENUE SOURCES ...................................................................................................................................... 51
STATE DISSOLUTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ............................................................................................. 52
ACCOUNTING PRACTICES ......................................................................................................................................... 54
BUDGET PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................... 54
COMPARATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 57
STATE BUDGET MEASURES...................................................................................................................................... 58
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT .......................................................................................... 63
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
ADMINISTRATION .................................................................................................................................................... 63
AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE AND ENROLLMENT ................................................................................................ 64
CHARTER SCHOOLS.................................................................................................................................................. 65
LABOR RELATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 66
DISTRICT RETIREMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................. 66
OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS .................................................................................................................... 70
RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 71
DISTRICT DEBT STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................... 71
TAX MATTERS ........................................................................................................................................................ 75
LEGAL MATTERS .................................................................................................................................................. 76
LEGALITY FOR INVESTMENT IN CALIFORNIA ........................................................................................................... 76
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................... 77
NO LITIGATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 77
INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 77
LEGAL OPINION ....................................................................................................................................................... 78
MISCELLANEOUS .................................................................................................................................................. 78
RATINGS .................................................................................................................................................................. 78
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 78
UNDERWRITING ....................................................................................................................................................... 79
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:
LOCATION MAP OF THE DISTRICT AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS ................................................A-1
FORMS OF OPINIONS OF BOND COUNSEL FOR THE BONDS ............................................................. B-1
THE 2013-14 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE DISTRICT............................................... C-1
FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATES FOR THE BONDS ............................................D-1
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE THE COUNTIES OF PLACER, NEVADA AND EL
DORADO ..................................................................................................................................... E-1
PLACER COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL ............................................................................................ F-1
ii
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Placer, Nevada and El Dorado Counties, California)
$20,000,000
Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds,
Series A
(School Facilities Improvement District No. 1)
(Placer and Nevada Counties, California)
$19,500,000
Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds,
Series A
(School Facilities Improvement District No. 2)
(Placer and El Dorado Counties, California)
INTRODUCTION
This Official Statement, which includes the cover page, inside cover page and appendices hereto,
provides information in connection with the sale of the (i) Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (Placer,
Nevada and El Dorado Counties, California) Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A
(School Facilities Improvement District No. 1) (Placer and Nevada Counties, California) (the “SFID No.
1 Bonds”), and (ii) Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado Counties,
California) Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement District
No. 2) (Placer and El Dorado Counties, California) (the “SFID No. 2 Bonds,” and, together with the SFID
No. 1 Bonds, the “Bonds”).
This Introduction is not a summary of this Official Statement. It is only a brief description of and
guide to, and is qualified by, more complete and detailed information contained in the entire Official
Statement, including the cover page, inside cover page and appendices hereto, and the documents
summarized or described herein. A full review should be made of the entire Official Statement. The
offering of the Bonds to potential investors is made only by means of the entire Official Statement.
The District
The Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (the “District”) is a Basic Aid district (defined
herein), which was established in 1949 and located in Placer County (the “County”), Nevada County and
El Dorado County (collectively with the County, the “Counties”) in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range
near Lake Tahoe. The District operates six elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools,
one alternative school and one continuation school. For fiscal year 2014-15, the District’s projected
average daily attendance (“ADA”) is 3,522 students.
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Education (the “Board”), each member of
which is elected to a four-year term. Elections for positions to the Board are held every two years,
alternating between two and three available positions. The management and policies of the District are
administered by a Superintendent appointed by the Board who is responsible for day-to-day District
operations as well as the supervision of the District’s other personnel. Dr. Robert Leri is currently the
District Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer.
For more information regarding the assessed valuation of property within the respective
Improvement Districts, see “TAX BASES FOR REPAYMENT OF BONDS” herein. For more general
and financial information regarding the District, see “DISTRICT FINANCIAL INFORMATION” and
“TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT” herein.
1
The Improvement Districts
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 (“Improvement District No. 1”). Improvement
District No. 1 encompasses the northern portion of the District in Placer and Nevada Counties. Taxable
property within Improvement District No. 1 has a fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation of
$9,453,224,105, which represents approximately 54.4% pf the assessed valuation of the District. See
“THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS – Improvement District No. 1” and APPENDIX A – “LOCATION
MAP OF THE DISTRICT AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS” herein.
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2 (“Improvement District No. 2”). Improvement
District No. 2 encompasses the southern portion of the District in Placer and El Dorado Counties.
Taxable property within Improvement District No. 2 has a fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation of
$7,913,461,597, which represents approximately 45.6% of the assessed valuation of the District. See
“THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS – Improvement District No. 2” and APPENDIX A – “LOCATION
MAP OF THE DISTRICT AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS” herein.
Improvement District No. 1 and Improvement District No. 2 are referred to collectively as the
“Improvement Districts.”
Purpose of the Bonds
SFID No. 1 Bonds. The SFID No. 1 Bonds are being issued to: (i) finance the renovation,
acquisition, construction, repair, and equipping of classrooms, schools, sites, and facilities and costs
related thereto, as approved by the voters, for schools in Improvement District No. 1 pursuant to the
Improvement District No. 1 2014 Authorization (defined herein), and (ii) pay the costs of issuing the
SFID No. 1 Bonds.
SFID No. 2 Bonds. The SFID No. 2 Bonds are being issued to: (i) finance the renovation,
acquisition, construction, repair, and equipping of classrooms, schools, sites, and facilities and costs
related thereto, as approved by the voters, for schools in Improvement District No. 2 pursuant to the
Improvement District No. 2 2014 Authorization (defined herein), and (ii) pay the costs of issuing the
SFID No. 2 Bonds.
Authority for Issuance of the Bonds
The Bonds are issued pursuant to certain provisions of the State of California Government Code
and other applicable law, and pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board of Education of the District.
See “THE BONDS – Authority for Issuance” herein.
Sources of Payment for the Bonds
SFID No. 1 Bonds. The SFID No. 1 Bonds are general obligations of the District payable solely
from ad valorem property taxes. The Boards of Supervisors of the County and Nevada County are
empowered and obligated to annually levy ad valorem property taxes upon all property within
Improvement District No. 1 subject to taxation by the District, without limitation as to rate or amount
(except for certain personal property which is taxable at limited rates), for the payment of principal of and
interest on the SFID No. 1 Bonds when due.
SFID No. 2 Bonds. The SFID No. 2 Bonds are general obligations of the District payable solely
from ad valorem property taxes. The Boards of Supervisors of the County and El Dorado County are
empowered and obligated to annually levy ad valorem property taxes upon all property within
Improvement District No. 2 subject to taxation by the District, without limitation as to rate or amount
2
(except for certain personal property which is taxable at limited rates), for the payment of principal of and
interest on the SFID No. 2 Bonds when due.
See “THE BONDS – Security and Sources of Payment” and “TAX BASES FOR REPAYMENT
OF BONDS” herein.
Description of the Bonds
Form and Registration. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form only, without
coupons. Purchasers of the Bonds (the “Beneficial Owners”) will not receive physical certificates
representing their interests in the Bonds purchased. The Bonds will be initially registered in the name of
Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”). DTC will
act as securities depository of the Bonds. See “THE BONDS – General Provisions” and “– Book-Entry
Only System” herein. In the event that the book-entry only system described below is no longer used
with respect to the Bonds, the Bonds will be registered in accordance with the Resolutions described
herein. See “THE BONDS – Discontinuation of Book-Entry Only System; Registration, Payment and
Transfer of Bonds” herein.
So long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of the Bonds, as nominee of DTC, references
herein to the “Owners” “Bond Owners” or “Holders” of the Bonds (other than under the captions
“INTRODUCTION – Tax Matters” and “TAX MATTERS,” and in APPENDIX B) will mean Cede
& Co. and will not mean the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds.
Denominations. Individual purchases of interests in the Bonds will be available in the
denominations of $5,000 principal amount or any integral multiple thereof.
Redemption. The SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing on or after August 1, 2028, may be redeemed
before maturity at the option of the District from any source of funds, on August 1, 2024 or on any date
thereafter, as a whole or in part, without premium. The SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on or after August 1,
2030, may be redeemed before maturity at the option of the District from any source of funds, on August
1, 2024 or on any date thereafter, as a whole or in part, without premium. Bonds issued as Term Bonds
are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption as further described herein. See “THE BONDS –
Redemption” herein.
Payments. The Bonds will be issued as current interest bonds, such that interest thereon will
accrue from the initial date of delivery of the Bonds (the “Date of Delivery”), such interest to be payable
semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing on August 1, 2015 (each, a “Bond
Payment Date”). Principal of the Bonds is payable on August 1 in the amounts and years set forth on the
inside cover page hereof.
Payments of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will be made by U.S. Bank National
Association, as the designated paying agent, bond registrar and transfer agent (the “Paying Agent”) to
DTC for subsequent disbursement through DTC Participants (defined herein) to the Beneficial Owners of
the Bonds.
3
Tax Matters
In the opinion of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco,
California, Bond Counsel, based on existing statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions and
assuming the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants and requirements
described herein, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes
and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax
imposed on individuals and corporations. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is
exempt from State of California personal income tax. In addition, the difference between the issue price
of a Bond (the first price at which a substantial amount of the Bonds of a maturity is to be sold to the
public) and the stated redemption price at maturity with respect to such Bond constitutes original issue
discount, and the amount of original issue discount that accrues to the owner of such Bond is excluded
from gross income of such owner for federal income tax purposes, is not an item of tax preference for
purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations, and is exempt
from State of California personal income tax. See “TAX MATTERS” herein.
Offering and Delivery of the Bonds
The Bonds are offered when, as and if issued, subject to approval as to their legality by Bond
Counsel. It is anticipated that the Bonds in book-entry form will be available for delivery through the
facilities of DTC in New York, New York on or about March 31, 2015.
Bond Owner’s Risks
The Bonds are general obligations of the District payable solely from ad valorem taxes which
may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount (except with respect to certain personal property
which is taxable at limited rates) on all property within the Improvement Districts subject to taxation by
the District, as further described herein. For more complete information regarding the taxation of
property within the Improvement Districts, see “TAX BASES FOR REPAYMENT OF BONDS” herein.
Continuing Disclosure
The District will covenant for the benefit of the registered Owners and Beneficial Owners of the
Bonds to make available certain financial information and operating data relating to the District and to
provide notices of the occurrence of certain listed events, in order to assist the Underwriters in complying
with S.E.C. Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) (the “Rule”). The specific nature of the information to be made available
and of the notices of listed events is summarized below under “LEGAL MATTERS – Continuing
Disclosure” and APPENDIX D – “FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATES FOR
THE BONDS” herein.
Forward Looking Statements
Certain statements included or incorporated by reference in this Official Statement constitute
“forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Such statements are generally
identifiable by the terminology used such as “plan,” “intend,” “expect,” “estimate,” “project,” “budget” or
other similar words. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, certain statements
contained in the information regarding the District herein.
4
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CERTAIN RESULTS OR OTHER EXPECTATIONS CONTAINED
IN SUCH FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS INVOLVE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN RISKS,
UNCERTAINTIES AND OTHER FACTORS WHICH MAY CAUSE ACTUAL RESULTS,
PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENTS DESCRIBED TO BE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM
ANY FUTURE RESULTS, PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENTS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY
SUCH FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS. THE DISTRICT DOES NOT PLAN TO ISSUE ANY
UPDATES OR REVISIONS TO THE FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS
OFFICIAL STATEMENT.
Professionals Involved in the Offering
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, California, is acting
as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel to the District with respect to the Bonds. Keygent LLC is
acting as Financial Advisor to the District with respect to the Bonds. Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
and Keygent LLC will receive compensation from the District contingent upon the sale and delivery of
the Bonds.
Other Information
This Official Statement speaks only as of its date, and the information contained herein is subject
to change.
Copies of documents referred to herein and information concerning the Bonds are available from
the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, 11603 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California 96161,
telephone: (530) 582-2500. The District may impose a charge for copying, mailing and handling.
No dealer, broker, salesperson or other person has been authorized by the District to give any
information or to make any representations other than as contained herein and, if given or made, such
other information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the District.
This Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall
there be any sale of the Bonds by a person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to
make such an offer, solicitation or sale.
This Official Statement is not to be construed as a contract with the purchasers of the Bonds.
Statements contained in this Official Statement which involve estimates, forecasts or matters of opinion,
whether or not expressly so described herein, are intended solely as such and are not to be construed as
representations of fact. The summaries and references to documents, statutes and constitutional
provisions referred to herein do not purport to be comprehensive or definitive, and are qualified in their
entireties by reference to each such documents, statutes and constitutional provisions.
Certain of the information set forth herein, other than that provided by the District, has been
obtained from official sources which are believed to be reliable but it is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness, and is not to be construed as a representation by the District. The information and
expressions of opinions herein are subject to change without notice and neither delivery of this Official
Statement nor any sale made hereunder shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there
has been no change in the affairs of the District since the date hereof. This Official Statement is
submitted in connection with the sale of the Bonds referred to herein and may not be reproduced or used,
in whole or in part, for any other purpose.
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such
terms by the Resolutions (defined herein).
5
THE BONDS
Authority for Issuance
The Bonds are issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2
of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California and other applicable law (the “Act”), and
pursuant to a resolutions relating to each series of Bonds adopted by the Board of Education of the
District on February 25, 2015 (collectively, the “Resolutions”).
The SFID No. 1 Bonds received authorization at an election of the registered voters residing in
the territory of the Improvement District, which was held on November 4, 2014. At this election, 55.55%
of the voters voting on the measure approved the issuance of not-to-exceed $114,000,000 principal
amount of general obligation bonds for Improvement District No. 1 (the “SFID No. 1 2014
Authorization”). The SFID No. 1 Bonds represent the first issuance of bonds within the SFID No. 1 2014
Authorization, and following the issuance thereof, $94,000,000 of the SFID No. 1 2014 Authorization
will remain.
The SFID No. 2 Bonds received authorization at an election of the registered voters residing in
the territory of the Improvement District, which was held on November 4, 2014. At this election, 59.80%
of the voters voting on the measure approved the issuance of not-to-exceed $62,000,000 principal amount
of general obligation bonds for Improvement District No. 2 (the “SFID No. 2 2014 Authorization”). The
SFID No. 2 Bonds represent the first issuance of bonds within the SFID No. 2 2014 Authorization, and
following the issuance thereof, $42,500,000 of the SFID No. 2 2014 Authorization will remain.
Security and Sources of Payment
SFID No. 1 Bonds. The SFID No. 1 Bonds are general obligations of the District payable solely
from ad valorem property taxes. The Board of Supervisors of the County and Nevada County are
empowered and obligated to annually levy ad valorem property taxes upon all property within
Improvement District No. 1 subject to taxation by the District, without limitation as to rate or amount
(except certain personal property which is taxable at limited rates), for the payment of principal of and
interest on the SFID No. 1 Bonds when due.
SFID No. 2 Bonds. The SFID No. 2 Bonds are general obligations of the District payable solely
from ad valorem property taxes. The Boards of Supervisors of the County and El Dorado County are
empowered and obligated to annually levy ad valorem property taxes upon all property located within
Improvement District No. 2 subject to taxation by the District, without limitation as to rate or amount
(except certain personal property which is taxable at limited rates), for the payment of principal of and
interest on the SFID No. 2 Bonds when due.
General. The taxes described above will be levied annually in addition to all other taxes during
the period that the Bonds are outstanding in an amount sufficient to pay the respective principal of and
interest thereon when due. Such taxes, when collected (or in the case of taxes levied by El Dorado and
Nevada Counties, when received by the County therefrom), will be placed by the County in the respective
Debt Service Funds (defined herein) relating to each series of the Bonds, which funds are each segregated
and held by the County and which are designated for the payment of principal of and interest on the SFID
No. 1 Bonds and SFID No. 2 Bonds, as applicable, when due, and for no other purpose. Although the
Counties are obligated to levy ad valorem taxes for the payment of the Bonds, and the County will hold
the Debt Service Funds, the Bonds are not a debt of any of the Counties. Pursuant to the Resolutions, the
District has pledged funds on deposit in the respective Debt Service Funds for the payment of each series
of Bonds.
6
The moneys in the Debt Service Funds, to the extent necessary to pay the principal of and interest
on the Bonds as the same become due and payable, will be transferred by the County to the Paying Agent.
The Paying Agent will in turn remit the funds to DTC for remittance of such principal and interest to
DTC Participants for subsequent disbursement to the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds.
The amount of the annual ad valorem taxes levied by the Counties to repay the Bonds will be
determined by the relationship between the assessed valuation of taxable property within the respective
Improvement District and the amount of debt service due in any year on the series of Bonds payable from
taxes levied within such Improvement District. Fluctuations in the annual debt service on each series of
the Bonds and the assessed value of taxable property in the related Improvement District may cause the
respective annual tax rates to fluctuate. Economic and other factors beyond the District’s control, such as
general market decline in land values, reclassification of property to a class exempt from taxation,
whether by ownership or use (such as exemptions for property owned by the State and local agencies and
property used for qualified education, hospital, charitable or religious purposes), or the complete or partial
destruction of the taxable property caused by a natural or manmade disaster, such as earthquake, flood or
toxic contamination, could cause a reduction in the assessed value of taxable property within an
Improvement District, and necessitate a corresponding increase in the respective annual tax rates to pay
the series of Bonds payable from taxes levied within such Improvement District. For further information
regarding the assessed valuation of the Improvement Districts, tax rates, overlapping debt, and other
matters concerning taxation, see “CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
AFFECTING DISTRICT REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS – Article XIIIA of the California
Constitution” and “TAX BASES FOR REPAYMENT OF BONDS” herein.
General Provisions
The Bonds will be issued in book-entry form only, and will be initially issued and registered in
the name of Cede & Co. as nominee for DTC. Beneficial Owners will not receive physical certificates
representing their interests in the Bonds.
Interest on the Bonds accrues from the Date of Delivery, and is payable semiannually on each
Bond Payment Date, commencing August 1, 2015. Interest on the Bonds shall be computed on the basis
of a 360-day year of 12, 30-day months. Each Bond shall bear interest from the Bond Payment Date next
preceding the date of authentication thereof unless it is authenticated as of a day during the period from
the 16th day of the month immediately preceding any Bond Payment Date to that Bond Payment Date,
inclusive, in which event it shall bear interest from such Bond Payment Date, or unless it is authenticated
on or before July 15, 2015, in which event it shall bear interest from the Date of Delivery. The Bonds are
issuable in denominations of $5,000 principal amount or any integral multiple thereof. Principal of the
Bonds is payable on August 1 in the amounts and years set forth on the inside cover page hereof.
Payment of interest on any Bond on any Bond Payment Date shall be made to the person
appearing on the registration books of the Paying Agent as the Owner of such Bond thereof as of the 15th
day of the month immediately preceding such Bond Payment Date (the “Record Date”), such interest to
be paid by wire transfer or check mailed to such Owner on the Bond Payment Date, at his or her address
as it appears on such registration books or at such other address as he or she may have filed with the
Paying Agent for that purpose on or before the Record Date. The Owner in an aggregate principal
amount of $1,000,000 or more may request in writing to the Paying Agent that such Owner be paid
interest by wire transfer to the bank and account number on file with the Paying Agent as of the Record
Date. The principal and redemption premiums, if any, payable on the Bonds are payable upon maturity or
earlier redemption, as applicable, upon surrender at the principal office of the Paying Agent. The interest,
principal and redemption premiums, if any, on the Bonds are payable in lawful money of the United
States of America. The Paying Agent is authorized to pay the Bonds when duly presented for payment at
7
maturity, and to cancel all Bonds upon payment thereof. So long as the Bonds are held in the book-entry
system of DTC, all payments of principal of and interest on the Bonds will be made by the Paying Agent
to Cede & Co. (as a nominee of DTC), as the registered Owner of the Bonds. See “THE BONDS –
Book-Entry Only System” herein.
Annual Debt Service
The following table summarizes the annual debt service requirements for the Bonds, assuming no
optional redemptions are made:
SFID No. 1 Bonds
SFID No. 2 Bonds
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Year Ending
Principal
Interest
Principal
Interest
Total Annual
August 1
Payment
Payment(1)
Payment
Payment(1)
Debt Service
2015
-$263,733.78
-$234,826.13
$498,559.91
2016
$4,415,000.00
784,662.50
1,610,000.00
698,656.26
7,508,318.76
2017
4,355,000.00
608,062.50
1,835,000.00
634,256.26
7,432,318.76
2018
4,505,000.00
433,862.50
1,995,000.00
560,856.26
7,494,718.76
2019
3,885,000.00
253,662.50
1,050,000.00
530,931.26
5,719,593.76
2020
-98,262.50
-488,931.26
587,193.76
2021
-98,262.50
-488,931.26
587,193.76
2022
-98,262.50
-488,931.26
587,193.76
2023
-98,262.50
-488,931.26
587,193.76
2024
-98,262.50
-488,931.26
587,193.76
2025
-98,262.50
-488,931.26
587,193.76
2026
-98,262.50
10,000.00
488,931.26
597,193.76
2027
-98,262.50
40,000.00
488,618.76
626,881.26
2028
50,000.00
98,262.50
80,000.00
487,368.76
715,631.26
2029
60,000.00
96,762.50
120,000.00
484,868.76
761,631.26
2030
65,000.00
94,962.50
165,000.00
481,118.76
806,081.26
2031
75,000.00
93,012.50
215,000.00
475,962.50
858,975.00
2032
80,000.00
90,668.76
265,000.00
468,706.26
904,375.02
2033
90,000.00
88,068.76
320,000.00
459,762.50
957,831.26
2034
95,000.00
85,143.76
380,000.00
448,962.50
1,009,106.26
2035
105,000.00
82,056.26
450,000.00
436,137.50
1,073,193.76
2036
115,000.00
78,643.76
520,000.00
420,950.00
1,134,593.76
2037
125,000.00
74,618.76
590,000.00
403,400.00
1,193,018.76
2038
135,000.00
70,243.76
675,000.00
382,750.00
1,262,993.76
2039
150,000.00
65,518.76
760,000.00
359,125.00
1,334,643.76
2040
160,000.00
60,268.76
855,000.00
332,525.00
1,407,793.76
2041
175,000.00
54,668.76
955,000.00
302,600.00
1,487,268.76
2042
190,000.00
48,543.76
1,065,000.00
264,400.00
1,567,943.76
2043
200,000.00
41,893.76
1,185,000.00
221,800.00
1,648,693.76
2044
215,000.00
34,893.76
1,315,000.00
174,400.00
1,739,293.76
2045
235,000.00
27,368.76
1,450,000.00
121,800.00
1,834,168.76
2046
250,000.00
18,850.00
1,595,000.00
63,800.00
1,927,650.00
2047
270,000.00
9,787.50
--279,787.50
Total
$20,000,000.00
$4,444,321.42
$19,500,000.00
$13,361,101.29
$57,305,422.71
___________________
(1)
Interest payments on the Bonds will be made semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1,
2015.
See “TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – District Debt Structure” herein for a
full debt service schedule of all the outstanding general obligation bond debt the District and the
Improvement Districts.
8
Application and Investment of Bond Proceeds
SFID No. 1 Bonds. The SFID No. 1 Bonds are being issued by the District to: (i) to finance the
renovation, acquisition, construction, repair, and equipping of classrooms, schools, sites, and facilities and
costs related thereto, as approved by the voters, for schools in Improvement District No. 1 pursuant to the
SFID No. 1 2014 Authorization, and (ii) pay the costs of issuing the Bonds.
The proceeds of the sale of the SFID No. 1 Bonds, net of costs of issuance and any premium on
the sale of the SFID No. 1 Bonds, shall be deposited in the “Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement District No. 1)
Building Fund” (the “SFID No. 1 Building Fund”) and shall be applied only for the purposes for which
the SFID No. 1 Bonds are issued. Any interest earnings on moneys held in the SFID No 1 Building Fund
shall be retained in the SFID No. 1 Building Fund.
The ad valorem property taxes levied by the County and Nevada County for the payment of the
SFID No. 1 Bonds, when collected, will be deposited into to the credit of the “Tahoe-Truckee Unified
School District Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement
District No. 1) Debt Service Fund (the “SFID No 1 Debt Service Fund”). Any premium or accrued
interest received on the sale of the SFID No. 1 Bonds shall be deposited in the SFID No. 1 Debt Service
Fund. Any interest earnings on moneys held in the SFID No. 1 Debt Service Fund shall be retained in the
SFID No. 1 Debt Service Fund. If, after all of the Bonds have been redeemed or paid and otherwise
cancelled, there are moneys remaining in the SFID No. 1 Debt Service Fund or otherwise held in trust for
the payment of the redemption price of the SFID No. 1 Bonds, said moneys shall be transferred to the
general fund of the District as provided and permitted by law.
SFID No. 2 Bonds. The SFID No. 2 Bonds are being issued by the District to: (i) to finance the
renovation, acquisition, construction, repair, and equipping of classrooms, schools, sites, and facilities and
costs related thereto, as approved by the voters, for schools in Improvement District No. 2 pursuant to the
SFID No. 2 2014 Authorization, and (ii) pay the costs of issuing the Bonds.
The proceeds of the sale of the SFID No. 2 Bonds, net of costs of issuance and any premium on
the sale of the SFID No. 2 Bonds, shall be deposited in the “Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement District No. 2)
Building Fund” (the “SFID No. 2 Building Fund” and together with the SFID No. 1 Building Fund, the
“Building Funds”) and shall be applied only for the purposes for which the SFID No. 2 Bonds are issued.
Any interest earnings on moneys held in the SFID No 2 Building Fund shall be retained in the SFID No. 2
Building Fund.
The ad valorem property taxes levied by the County and El Dorado County for the payment of
the SFID No. 2 Bonds, when collected, will be deposited into to the credit of the “Tahoe-Truckee Unified
School District Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement
District No. 2) Debt Service Fund (the “SFID No 2 Debt Service Fund” and together with the SFID No. 1
Debt Service Fund, the “Debt Service Funds”). Any premium or accrued interest received on the sale of
the SFID No. 2 Bonds shall be deposited in the SFID No. 2 Debt Service Fund. Any interest earnings on
moneys held in the SFID No. 2 Debt Service Fund shall be retained in the SFID No. 2 Debt Service Fund.
If, after all of the Bonds have been redeemed or paid and otherwise cancelled, there are moneys
remaining in the SFID No. 2 Debt Service Fund or otherwise held in trust for the payment of the
redemption price of the SFID No. 2 Bonds, said moneys shall be transferred to the general fund of the
District as provided and permitted by law.
9
Investment of Funds. Moneys in the Building Funds and in the Debt Service Funds may be
invested in any one or more investments generally permitted to school districts under the laws of the State
of California or as permitted by the Resolutions. Moneys in the Building Funds and the Debt Service
Funds are expected to be invested through the Placer County Investment Pool. See “PLACER COUNTY
INVESTMENT POOL” herein.
Redemption
Optional Redemption. The SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing on or before August 1, 2019 are not
subject to optional redemption prior to their respective maturity dates. The SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing
on or after August 1, 2028 are subject to optional redemption prior to their respective stated maturity
dates at the option of the District, from any source of available funds, as a whole or in part on any date on
or after August 1, 2024, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the SFID No. 1 Bonds
called for redemption, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium.
The SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on or before August 1, 2019 are not subject to optional
redemption prior to their respective maturity dates. The SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on or after August 1,
2030 are subject to optional redemption prior to their respective stated maturity dates at the option of the
District, from any source of available funds, as a whole or in part on any date on or after August 1, 2024,
at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the SFID No. 2 Bonds called for redemption,
together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium..
Mandatory Redemption. The Term SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2040 are subject to
redemption prior to maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and
after August 1, 2036, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued
interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. The principal amount represented by such
Term SFID No. 1 Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final principal payment date is
as indicated in the following table:
Redemption Date
(August 1)
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040(1)
Total:
Principal Amount
$115,000
125,000
135,000
150,000
160,000
$685,000
_______________________________
(1)
Maturity.
In the event that a portion of the Term SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2040 are
optionally redeemed prior to maturity, the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments shown above
shall be reduced proportionately or as otherwise directed by the District, in integral multiples of $5,000 of
principal amount, in respect of the portion of such Term SFID No. 1 Bonds optionally redeemed.
The Term SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2044 are subject to redemption prior to
maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 2041,
at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date
fixed for redemption, without premium. The principal amount represented by such Term SFID No. 1
Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final principal payment date is as indicated in the
following table:
10
Redemption Date
(August 1)
Principal Amount
2041
2042
2043
2044(1)
Total:
$175,000
190,000
200,000
215,000
$780,000
_______________________________
(1)
Maturity.
In the event that a portion of the Term SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2044 are
optionally redeemed prior to maturity, the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments shown above
shall be reduced proportionately or as otherwise directed by the District, in integral multiples of $5,000 of
principal amount, in respect of the portion of such Term SFID No. 1 Bonds optionally redeemed.
The Term SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2047 are subject to redemption prior to
maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 2045,
at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date
fixed for redemption, without premium. The principal amount represented by such Term SFID No. 1
Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final principal payment date is as indicated in the
following table:
Redemption Date
(August 1)
2045
2046
2047(1)
Total:
Principal Amount
$235,000
250,000
270,000
$755,000
_______________________________
(1)
Maturity.
In the event that a portion of the Term SFID No. 1 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2047 are
optionally redeemed prior to maturity, the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments shown above
shall be reduced proportionately or as otherwise directed by the District, in integral multiples of $5,000 of
principal amount, in respect of the portion of such Term SFID No. 1 Bonds optionally redeemed.
The Term SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2030 are subject to redemption prior to
maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 2026,
at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date
fixed for redemption, without premium. The principal amount represented by such Term SFID No. 2
Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final principal payment date is as indicated in the
following table:
Redemption Date
(August 1)
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030(1)
Total:
$10,000
40,000
80,000
120,000
165,000
$415,000
_______________________________
(1)
Principal Amount
Maturity.
11
In the event that a portion of the Term SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2030 are
optionally redeemed prior to maturity, the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments shown above
shall be reduced proportionately or as otherwise directed by the District, in integral multiples of $5,000 of
principal amount, in respect of the portion of such Term SFID No. 2 Bonds optionally redeemed.
The Term SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2035 are subject to redemption prior to
maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 2031,
at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date
fixed for redemption, without premium. The principal amount represented by such Term SFID No. 2
Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final principal payment date is as indicated in the
following table:
Redemption Date
(August 1)
Principal Amount
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035(1)
Total:
$215,000
265,000
320,000
380,000
450,000
$1,630,000
_______________________________
(1)
Maturity.
In the event that a portion of the Term SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2035 are
optionally redeemed prior to maturity, the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments shown above
shall be reduced proportionately or as otherwise directed by the District, in integral multiples of $5,000 of
principal amount, in respect of the portion of such Term SFID No. 2 Bonds optionally redeemed.
The Term SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2040 are subject to redemption prior to
maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 2037,
at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date
fixed for redemption, without premium. The principal amount represented by such Term SFID No. 2
Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final principal payment date is as indicated in the
following table:
Redemption Date
(August 1)
Principal Amount
2037
2038
2039
2040(1)
Total:
$590,000
675,000
760,000
855,000
2,880,000
_______________________________
(1)
Maturity.
In the event that a portion of the Term SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2040 are
optionally redeemed prior to maturity, the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments shown above
shall be reduced proportionately or as otherwise directed by the District, in integral multiples of $5,000 of
principal amount, in respect of the portion of such Term SFID No. 2 Bonds optionally redeemed.
12
The Term SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2046 are subject to redemption prior to
maturity from mandatory sinking fund payments on August 1 of each year, on and after August 1, 2041,
at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date
fixed for redemption, without premium. The principal amount represented by such Term SFID No. 2
Bonds to be so redeemed and the dates therefor and the final principal payment date is as indicated in the
following table:
Redemption Date
(August 1)
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046(1)
Total:
Principal Amount
$955,000
1,065,000
1,185,000
1,315,000
1,450,000
1,595,000
$7,565,000
_______________________________
(1)
Maturity
In the event that a portion of the Term SFID No. 2 Bonds maturing on August 1, 2046 are
optionally redeemed prior to maturity, the remaining mandatory sinking fund payments shown above
shall be reduced proportionately or as otherwise directed by the District, in integral multiples of $5,000 of
principal amount, in respect of the portion of such Term SFID No. 2 Bonds optionally redeemed.
Selection of Bonds for Redemption. Whenever provision is made for the optional redemption of
Bonds and less than all outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed, the Paying Agent, upon written instruction
from the District, will select Bonds for redemption as so directed and if not directed, in inverse order of
maturity. Within a maturity, the Paying Agent will select Bonds for redemption by lot. Redemption by
lot will be in such manner as the Paying Agent will determine; provided, however, that with respect to
redemption by lot, the portion of any Bond to be redeemed in part will be in a principal amount of $5,000,
or any integral multiple thereof.
Notice of Redemption. When redemption is authorized or required pursuant to the Resolution,
the Paying Agent, upon written instruction from the District, will give notice (a “Redemption Notice”) of
the redemption of the Bonds (or portions thereof). Such Redemption Notice will specify (a) the Bonds or
designated portions thereof (in the case of redemption of the Bonds in part but not in whole) which are to
be redeemed, (b) the date of redemption, (c) the place or places where the redemption will be made,
including the name and address of the Paying Agent, (d) the redemption price, (e) the CUSIP numbers (if
any) assigned to the Bonds to be redeemed, (f) the Bond numbers of the Bonds to be redeemed in whole
or in part and, in the case of any Bond to be redeemed in part only, the principal amount of such Bond to
be redeemed, and (g) the original issue date, interest rate and stated maturity date of each Bond to be
redeemed in whole or in part.
The Paying Agent will take the following actions with respect to each such Redemption Notice:
(a) at least 20 but not more than 45 days prior to the redemption date, such Redemption Notice will be
given to the respective Owners of Bonds designated for redemption by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, at their addresses appearing on the bond register; (b) at least 20 but not more than 45
days prior to the redemption date, such Redemption Notice will be given by (i) registered or certified
mail, postage prepaid, (ii) telephonically confirmed facsimile transmission, or (iii) overnight delivery
service, to the Securities Depository; (c) at least 20 but not more than 45 days prior to the redemption
date, such Redemption Notice will be given by (i) registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or
13
(ii) overnight delivery service, to one of the Information Services; and (d) such Redemption Notice shall
be given to such other persons as may be required pursuant to the Continuing Disclosure Certificate.
“Information Services” means Financial Information, Inc.’s “Daily Called Bond Service,” 1
Cragwood Road, 2nd Floor, South Plainfield, New Jersey 07080, Attention: Editor; Mergent Inc., 585
Kingsley Park Drive, Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715, Attention: Called Bond Department; and Standard
and Poor’s J.J. Kenny Information Services’ “Called Bond Record,” 55 Water Street, 45th Floor, New
York, New York 10041.
“Securities Depository” shall mean The Depository Trust Company, 55 Water Street, New York,
New York 10041.
Neither failure to receive any Redemption Notice nor any defect in any such Redemption Notice
so given will affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for the redemption of the affected Bonds. Each
check issued or other transfer of funds made by the Paying Agent for the purpose of redeeming Bonds
will bear or include the CUSIP number, if any, identifying, by issue and maturity, the Bonds being
redeemed with the proceeds of such check or other transfer. Such Redemption Notice may state that no
representation is made as to the accuracy or correctness of CUSIP numbers printed thereon, or on the
Bonds.
Partial Redemption of Bonds. Upon the surrender of any Bond redeemed in part only, the
Paying Agent will execute and deliver to the Owner thereof a new Bond or Bonds of like tenor and
maturity and of authorized denominations equal in principal amounts to the unredeemed portion of the
Bond surrendered. Such partial redemption is valid upon payment of the amount required to be paid to
such Owner, and the District will be released and discharged thereupon from all liability to the extent of
such payment.
Payment of Redeemed Bonds. When notice of redemption has been given substantially as
described above, and, when the amount necessary for the redemption of the Bonds called for redemption
(principal, interest, and premium, if any) is irrevocably set aside in trust for that purpose, as described in
“—Defeasance” herein, the Bonds designated for redemption in such notice will become due and payable
on the date fixed for redemption thereof and upon presentation and surrender of said Bonds at the place
specified in the Redemption Notice, said Bonds will be redeemed and paid at the redemption price out of
such funds. All unpaid interest payable at or prior to the redemption date will continue to be payable to
the respective Owners, but without interest thereon.
Effect of Notice of Redemption. Notice having been given as described above, and the moneys
for the redemption (including the interest accrued to the applicable date of redemption) having been set
aside as described in “-Defeasance” herein, the Bonds to be redeemed will become due and payable on
such date of redemption.
If, on such redemption date, moneys for the redemption of all the Bonds to be redeemed, together
with interest accrued to such redemption date, will be held by the Paying Agent (or an independent
escrow agent selected by the District) in trust as described in “-Defeasance” herein so as to be available
therefor on such redemption date, and if a Redemption Notice thereof will have been given as described
above, then from and after such redemption date, interest with respect to the Bonds to be redeemed will
cease to accrue and become payable. All money held by or on behalf of the Paying Agent (or an
independent escrow agent selected by the District) for the redemption of the Bonds shall be held in trust
for the account of the Owners of the Bonds to be so redeemed.
14
All Bonds paid at maturity or redeemed prior to maturity as described above will be cancelled
upon surrender thereof and be delivered to or upon the order of the District. All or any portion of a Bond
purchased by the District will be cancelled by the Paying Agent.
Conditional Notice of Redemption. With respect to any Redemption Notice in connection with
the optional redemption of Bonds (or portions thereof) as described above, unless upon the giving of such
notice such Bonds shall be deemed to have been defeased as described in “-Defeasance” herein, such
Redemption Notice will state that such redemption will be conditional upon the receipt by the Paying
Agent (or an independent escrow agent selected by the District), on or prior to the date fixed for such
redemption, of the moneys necessary and sufficient to pay the principal, and premium, if any, and interest
on, such Bonds (or portions thereof) to be redeemed, and that if such moneys shall not have been so
received said Redemption Notice will be of no force and effect, no portion of the Bonds will be subject to
redemption on such date and the Bonds will not be required to be redeemed on such date. In the event
that such Redemption Notice contains such a condition and such moneys are not so received, the
redemption will not be made and the Paying Agent will within a reasonable time thereafter (but in no
event later than the date originally set for redemption) give notice to the persons to whom and in the
manner in which the Redemption Notice was given that such moneys were not so received. In addition,
the District will have the right to rescind any Redemption Notice, by written notice to the Paying Agent,
on or prior to the date fixed for such redemption. The Paying Agent will distribute a notice of the
rescission of such notice in the same manner as such notice was originally given.
Bonds No Longer Outstanding. When any Bonds (or portions thereof), which have been duly
called for redemption prior to maturity, or with respect to which irrevocable instructions to call for
redemption prior to maturity at the earliest redemption date have been given to the Paying Agent, in form
satisfactory to it, and sufficient moneys shall be held irrevocably in trust for the payment of the
redemption price of such Bonds or portions thereof, and, accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for
redemption, then such Bonds will no longer be deemed outstanding and will be surrendered to the Paying
Agent for cancellation.
Book-Entry Only System
The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC’s book-entry system has been obtained
from sources that the District believes to be reliable, but the District takes no responsibility for the
accuracy or completeness thereof. The District cannot and does not give any assurances that DTC, DTC
Direct Participants or Indirect Participants (as defined herein) will distribute to the Beneficial Owners
(a) payments of interest, principal or premium, if any, with respect to the Bonds, (b) certificates
representing ownership interest in or other confirmation or ownership interest in the Bonds, or
(c) redemption or other notices sent to DTC or Cede & Co., its nominee, as the registered Owner of the
Bonds, or that they will so do on a timely basis or that DTC, Direct Participants or Indirect Participants
will act in the manner described in this Official Statement. The current “Rules” applicable to DTC are
on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the current “Procedures” of DTC to be
followed in dealing with Participants are on file with DTC.
The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, NY, will act as securities depository for the
Bonds. The Bonds will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co.
(DTC’s partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of
DTC. One fully-registered Bond certificate will be issued for each maturity of the Bonds, each in the
aggregate principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC.
DTC, the world’s largest securities depository, is a limited-purpose trust company organized
under the New York Banking Law, a “banking organization” within the meaning of the New York
15
Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a “clearing corporation” within the meaning of
the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a “clearing agency” registered pursuant to the provisions
of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and provides asset servicing for over
3.5 million issues of U.S. and non-U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt issues, and money
market instruments from over 100 countries that DTC’s participants (“Direct Participants”) deposit with
DTC. DTC also facilitates the post-trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales and other
securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book-entry transfers and
pledges between Direct Participants’ accounts. This eliminates the need for physical movement of
securities certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers,
banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”). DTCC is the holding company
for DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation, and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, all of which
are registered clearing agencies. DTCC is owned by the users of its regulated subsidiaries. Access to the
DTC system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers,
banks, trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship
with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly (“Indirect Participants”). DTC has a Standard &
Poor’s rating of AA+. The DTC Rules applicable to its Participants are on file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. More information about DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com.
Purchases of Bonds under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants,
which will receive a credit for the Bonds on DTC’s records. The ownership interest of each Beneficial
Owner is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants’ records. Beneficial Owners will
not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase. Beneficial Owners are, however, expected
to receive written confirmations providing details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their
holdings, from the Direct or Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the
transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in the Bonds are to be accomplished by entries made on the
books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will
not receive certificates representing their ownership interests in the Bonds, except in the event that use of
the book-entry system for the Bonds is discontinued.
To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Bonds deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are
registered in the name of DTC’s partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may be
requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of Bonds with DTC and their registration
in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in beneficial ownership.
DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Bonds; DTC’s records reflect only the
identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Bonds are credited, which may or may not be
the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping account
of their holdings on behalf of their customers.
Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct
Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial
Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory
requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Beneficial Owners of Bonds may wish to take certain
steps to augment the transmission to them of notices of significant events with respect to the Bonds, such
as redemptions, defaults, and proposed amendments to the Resolutions. For example, Beneficial Owners
of Bonds may wish to ascertain that the nominee holding the Bonds for their benefit has agreed to obtain
and transmit notices to Beneficial Owners. In the alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish to provide
their names and addresses to the registrar and request that copies of notices be provided directly to them.
16
Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Bonds within an issue are being
redeemed, DTC’s practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in
such issue to be redeemed.
Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with respect to
Bonds unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC’s MMI Procedures. Under its
usual procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to the District as soon as possible after the record date.
The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.’s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to
whose accounts Bonds are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus
Proxy).
Redemption proceeds and distributions on the Bonds will be made to Cede & Co., or such other
nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. DTC’s practice is to credit Direct
Participants’ accounts upon DTC’s receipt of funds and corresponding detail information from the
District or the Paying Agent, on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on
DTC’s records. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions
and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or
registered in “street name,” and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC, the Paying
Agent, or the District, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to
time. Payment of redemption proceeds or distributions to Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be
requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the responsibility of the District or the Paying
Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and
disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect
Participants.
DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the Bonds at any time
by giving reasonable notice to the District or the Paying Agent. Under such circumstances, in the event
that a successor depository is not obtained, Bond certificates are required to be printed and delivered.
The District may decide to discontinue use of the system of book-entry-only transfers through
DTC (or a successor securities depository). In that event, Bond certificates will be printed and delivered
to DTC.
For every transfer and exchange of Bonds, Owners requesting such transfer or exchange may be
charged a sum sufficient to cover any tax, governmental charge or transfer fees that may be imposed in
relation thereto, which charge may include transfer fees imposed by the Paying Agent, DTC or the DTC
Participant in connection with such transfers or exchanges.
Discontinuation of Book-Entry Only System; Registration, Payment and Transfer of Bonds
So long as any of the Bonds remain outstanding, the District will cause the Paying Agent to
maintain at its principal office all books and records necessary for the registration, exchange and transfer
of such Bonds, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the District, and, upon presentation for
such purpose, the Paying Agent shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register,
exchange or transfer or cause to be registered, exchanged or transferred, on said books, Bonds as provided
in the Resolutions.
In the event that the book-entry system described above is no longer used with respect to the
Bonds, the following provisions will govern the payment, registration, transfer, exchange and
replacement of the Bonds.
17
The principal of the Bonds and any premium and interest upon the redemption thereof will be
payable in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds at
the designated office of the Paying Agent, initially located in Dallas, Texas. Interest on the Bonds will be
paid by the Paying Agent by check or draft mailed to the person whose name appears on the registration
books of the Paying Agent as the registered Owner, and to that person’s address appearing on the
registration books as of the close of business on the Record Date. At the written request of any registered
Owner of at least $1,000,000 in aggregate principal amount, interest shall be wired to a bank and account
number on file with the Paying Agent as of the Record Date.
Any Bond may be exchanged for Bonds of like tenor, series, maturity and principal amount upon
presentation and surrender at the designated office of the Paying Agent, initially located in Dallas, Texas,
together with a request for exchange signed by the registered Owner or by a person legally empowered to
do so in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent. A Bond may be transferred on the registration books of
the Paying Agent only upon presentation and surrender of such Bond at the designated office of the
Paying Agent together with an assignment executed by the Owner or by a person legally empowered to
do so in a form satisfactory to the Paying Agent. Upon such exchange or transfer, the Paying Agent will
complete, authenticate and deliver a new Bond or Bonds of like tenor and of any authorized denomination
or denominations requested by the Owner equal to the principal amount of the Bond surrendered and
bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date.
Neither the District nor the Paying Agent will be required to (a) issue or transfer any Bonds
during a period beginning with the opening of business on the 16th day next preceding either any Bond
Payment Date or any date of selection of Bonds to be redeemed and ending with the close of business on
the Bond Payment Date, or any day on which the applicable Redemption Notice is given or (b) transfer
any Bonds which have been selected or called for redemption in whole or in part.
Defeasance
All or any portion of the outstanding maturities of the Bonds may be defeased at any time prior to
maturity in the following ways:
(a)
Cash: by irrevocably depositing with an independent escrow agent selected by the
District an amount of cash which, together with amounts transferred from the Debt
Service Fund, if any, is sufficient to pay and discharge all Bonds outstanding and
designated for defeasance (including all principal thereof, accrued interest thereon and
redemption premiums, if any) at or before their maturity date; or
(b)
Government Obligations: by irrevocably depositing with an independent escrow agent
selected by the District noncallable Government Obligations together with cash and
amounts transferred from the Debt Service Fund, if any, and any other cash, if required,
in such amount as will, together with interest to accrue thereon, in the opinion of an
independent certified public accountant, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge all Bonds
outstanding and designated for defeasance (including all principal thereof, accrued
interest thereon and redemption premiums, if any) at or before their maturity date;
then, notwithstanding that any of such Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, all obligations
of the District with respect to all such designated outstanding Bonds shall cease and terminate, except
only the obligation of the Paying Agent or an independent escrow agent selected by the District to pay or
cause to be paid from funds deposited pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) above, to the owners of such
designated Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due with respect thereto.
18
“Government Obligations” means direct and general obligations of the United States of America,
or obligations that are unconditionally guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States of
America (which may consist of obligations of the Resolution Funding Corporation that constitute interest
strips), or “prerefunded” municipal obligations rated in the highest rating category by Moody’s Investors
Service (“Moody’s”) or Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services, a Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC
business (“S&P”). In the case of direct and general obligations of the United States of America,
Government Obligations shall include evidences of direct ownership of proportionate interests in future
interest or principal payments of such obligations. Investments in such proportionate interests must be
limited to circumstances where (a) a bank or trust company acts as custodian and holds the underlying
United States obligations; (b) the owner of the investment is the real party in interest and has the right to
proceed directly and individually against the obligor of the underlying United States obligations; and (c)
the underlying United States obligations are held in a special account, segregated from the custodian’s
general assets, and are not available to satisfy any claim of the custodian, any person claiming through the
custodian, or any person to whom the custodian may be obligated; provided that such obligations are
rated or assessed at least as high as direct and general obligations of the United States of America by
Moody’s or S&P.
ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
The proceeds of the Bonds are expected to be applied as follows:
SFID No. 1
Bonds
SFID No. 2
Bonds
$20,000,000.00
1,386,686.05
$19,500,000.00
400,635.60
$21,386,686.05
$19,900,635.60
$19,840,000.00
1,305,037.29
81,648.76
160,000.00
$19,341,000.00
234,947.51
165,688.09
159,000.00
$21,386,686.05
$19,900,635.60
Sources of Funds
Principal Amount of Bonds
Net Original Issue Premium
Total Sources
Uses of Funds
Building Fund
Debt Service Fund
Underwriters’ Discount
Costs of Issuance(1)
Total Uses
(1)
Reflects the costs of issuance, including but not limited to the demographics and filing fees, printing costs, legal fees, financial
advisory fees, and the costs and fees of the Paying Agent to be paid from proceeds of the Bonds.
19
TAX BASES FOR REPAYMENT OF BONDS
The information in this section describes ad valorem property taxation, assessed valuation, and
other measures of the tax bases of the Improvement Districts. Each series of the Bonds are payable solely
from ad valorem taxes levied and collected by the Counties on taxable property in the respective
Improvement District, as further described below. The District’s general fund is not a source for the
repayment of the Bonds.
Ad Valorem Property Taxation
District property taxes are assessed and collected by the Counties at the same time and on the
same rolls as special district property taxes. Assessed valuations are the same for both the District and the
Counties’ taxing purposes.
Taxes are levied for each fiscal year on taxable real and personal property which is located in the
District, including the Improvement Districts, as of the preceding January 1. For assessment and
collection purposes, property is classified either as “secured” or “unsecured” and is listed accordingly on
separate parts of the assessment roll. The “secured roll” is that part of the assessment roll containing
State assessed public utilities property and real property having a tax lien which is sufficient, in the
opinion of the assessor, to secure payment of the taxes. Other property is assessed on the “unsecured
roll.” Unsecured property comprises certain property not attached to land such as personal property or
business property. Boats and airplanes are examples of such property. Unsecured property is assessed on
the “unsecured roll.” A supplemental roll is developed when property changes hands or new construction
is completed. The Counties levy and collect all property taxes for property falling within that Counties’
taxing boundaries.
The valuation of secured property is established as of January 1 and is subsequently equalized in
August. Property taxes on the secured roll are due in two installments, November 1 and February 1 of the
fiscal year. If unpaid, such taxes become delinquent after December 10 and April 10, respectively, and a
10% penalty attaches to any delinquent installment plus a minimum $10 cost on the second installment,
plus any additional amount determined by the Treasurer-Tax Collector of the Counties. Property on the
secured roll with delinquent taxes is declared tax-defaulted on or about June 30 of the fiscal year. Such
property may thereafter be redeemed by payment of the delinquent taxes and the delinquency penalty,
plus a $15 redemption fee and a redemption penalty of 1.5% per month to the time of redemption. If
taxes are unpaid for a period of five years or more, the property is then subject to sale by the taxcollecting authority of the Counties.
Property taxes on the unsecured roll are due as of the January 1 lien date and become delinquent
if they are not paid by August 31. In the case of unsecured property taxes, a 10% penalty attaches to
delinquent taxes on property on the unsecured roll, and an additional penalty of 1.5% per month begins to
accrue beginning November 1 of the fiscal year, and a lien may be recorded against the assessee. The
taxing authority has four ways of collecting unsecured personal property taxes: (1) a civil action against
the assessee; (2) filing a certificate in the office of the respective County Clerk specifying certain facts in
order to obtain a judgment lien on specific property of the assessee; (3) filing a certificate of delinquency
for record in the respective County Recorder’s office in order to obtain a lien on specified property of the
assessee; and (4) seizure and sale of personal property, improvements or possessory interests belonging or
assessed to the assessee. See also “ – Tax Levies Collections and Delinquencies” herein.
State law exempts from taxation $7,000 of the full cash value of an owner-occupied dwelling, but
this exemption does not result in any loss of revenue to local agencies, since the State reimburses local
agencies for the value of the exemptions.
20
All property is assessed using full cash value as defined by Article XIIIA of the State
Constitution. State law provides exemptions from ad valorem property taxation for certain classes of
property such as churches, colleges, non-profit hospitals, and charitable institutions.
Assessed valuation growth allowed under Article XIIIA (new construction, certain changes of
ownership, 2% inflation) is allocated on the basis of “situs” among the jurisdictions that serve the tax rate
area within which the growth occurs. Local agencies and schools share the growth of “base” revenues
from the tax rate area. Each year’s growth allocation becomes part of each agency’s allocation in the
following year.
For information regarding the secured tax charges and delinquencies within the respective
Improvement Districts, see “Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment – ‘Teeter Plan’” below.
Assessed Valuations
The assessed valuation of property in the Improvement Districts is established by the tax
assessing authority for the county in which such property is located, except for public utility property
which is assessed by the State Board of Equalization. Assessed valuations are reported at 100% of the
“full value” of the property, as defined in Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. For a discussion
of how properties currently are assessed, see “CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
AFFECTING DISTRICT REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS” herein.
Certain classes of property, such as churches, colleges, not-for-profit hospitals, and charitable
institutions, are exempt from property taxation and do not appear on the tax rolls.
Economic and other factors beyond the District’s control, such as general market decline in
property values, disruption in financial markets that may reduce availability of financing for purchasers of
property, reclassification of property to a class exempt from taxation, whether by ownership or use (such
as exemptions for property owned by the State and local agencies and property used for qualified
education, hospital, charitable or religious purposes), or the complete or partial destruction of the taxable
property caused by a natural or manmade disaster, such as earthquake, flood or toxic contamination, could
cause a reduction in the assessed value of taxable property within an Improvement District. Any such
reduction would result in a corresponding increase in the respective annual tax rates levied by the
Counties to pay the debt service with on the Bonds payable from taxes levied within such Improvement
District. See “THE BONDS – Security and Sources of Payment” herein.
Assessed Valuation of Improvement District No. 1
Property within Improvement District No. 1 has a total assessed valuation for fiscal year 2014-15
of $9,453,224,105. The following table represents a seven-year history of assessed valuations in
Improvement District No. 1:
21
ASSESSED VALUATIONS
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
Fiscal Years 2008-09 through 2014-15
Fiscal Year
Local Secured
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
$2,982,445,255
3,221,853,165
3,071,275,368
3,092,898,840
3,157,737,972
3,369,574,610
3,716,186,962
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
$5,626,604,411
5,810,615,279
5,482,473,996
5,184,042,706
5,211,595,126
5,286,824,709
5,530,899,102
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
$8,609,049,666
9,032,468,444
8,553,749,364
8,276,941,546
8,369,333,098
8,656,399,319
9,247,086,064
Utility
Unsecured
Placer County Portion
$2,852,355
$51,752,729
3,003,690
57,301,901
3,003,690
55,557,930
3,003,690
53,537,077
3,003,690
58,968,760
1,936,833
68,714,576
1,936,833
70,430,622
Nevada County Portion
$5,689,844
$124,652,538
5,689,844
130,262,435
5,689,710
128,461,705
3,587,529
118,693,679
3,360,456
122,486,476
3,360,308
125,269,739
3,360,160
130,410,426
Total
$8,542,199
$176,405,267
8,693,534
187,564,336
8,693,400
184,019,635
6,591,219
172,230,756
6,364,146
181,455,236
5,297,141
193,984,315
5,296,993
200,841,048
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
22
Total
$3,037,050,339
3,282,158,756
3,129,836,988
3,149,439,607
3,219,710,422
3,440,226,019
3,788,554,417
$5,756,946,793
5,946,567,558
5,616,625,411
5,306,323,914
5,337,442,058
5,415,454,756
5,664,669,688
$8,793,997,132
9,228,726,314
8,746,462,399
8,455,763,521
8,557,152,480
8,855,680,775
9,453,224,105
The following table shows a per-parcel analysis of the distribution of taxable property within
Improvement District No. 1 by principal use, and the fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation of such
parcels:
ASSESSED VALUATION AND PARCELS BY LAND USE
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Non-Residential:
Agricultural/Forest/Timber
Commercial
Vacant Commercial
Industrial
Vacant Industrial
Recreational
Government/Social/Institutional
Vacant Unclassified
Miscellaneous
Subtotal Non-Residential
2014-15
Assessed Valuation (1)
$15,181,588
499,692,209
36,831,503
8,002,123
4,530,360
315,677,373
42,780,240
44,571,456
12,724,678
$979,991,530
% of
Total
0.16%
5.40
0.40
0.09
0.05
3.41
0.46
0.48
0.14
10.60%
Residential:
Single Family Residence
Condominium/Townhouse
Mobile Home
Mobile Home Park
2-4 Residential Units
5+ Residential Units/Apartments
Miscellaneous Residential
Vacant Residential
Subtotal Residential
$6,648,091,192
784,527,536
9,446,069
623,080
248,627,034
23,427,486
20,189,956
532,162,181
$8,267,094,534
71.89%
8.48
0.10
0.01
2.69
0.25
0.22
5.75
89.40%
13,532
2,294
260
3
279
311
129
4,119
20,927
56.11%
9.51
1.08
0.01
1.16
1.29
0.53
17.08
86.77%
Total
$9,247,086,064
100.00%
24,117
100.00%
(1)
Total local secured assessed valuation; excluding tax-exempt property.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
23
No. of
Parcels
279
584
109
17
12
872
569
631
117
3,190
% of
Total
1.16%
2.42
0.45
0.07
0.05
3.62
2.36
2.62
0.49
13.23%
The following table is a per-parcel analysis of single family residences within Improvement
District No. 1, in terms of their fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation:
PER PARCEL ASSESSED VALUATION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Single Family Residential
2014-15
Assessed Valuation
$0 - $99,999
100,000 - 199,999
200,000 - 299,999
300,000 - 399,999
400,000 - 499,999
500,000 - 599,999
600,000 - 699,999
700,000 - 799,999
800,000 - 899,999
900,000 - 999,999
1,000,000 - 1,099,999
1,100,000 - 1,199,999
1,200,000 - 1,299,999
1,300,000 - 1,399,999
1,400,000 - 1,499,999
1,500,000 - 1,599,999
1,600,000 - 1,699,999
1,700,000 - 1,799,999
1,800,000 - 1,899,999
1,900,000 - 1,999,999
2,000,000 and greater
Total
No. of
Parcels
13,532
No. of
Parcels (1)
721
2,015
2,624
2,254
1,761
1,175
788
543
343
249
159
120
92
67
52
51
59
41
59
35
324
13,532
2014-15
Assessed Valuation
$6,648,091,192
% of
Cumulative
Total
% of Total
5.328%
5.328%
14.891
20.219
19.391
39.610
16.657
56.267
13.014
69.280
8.683
77.963
5.823
83.787
4.013
87.799
2.535
90.334
1.840
92.174
1.175
93.349
0.887
94.236
0.680
94.916
0.495
95.411
0.384
95.795
0.377
96.172
0.436
96.608
0.303
96.911
0.436
97.347
0.259
97.606
2.394
100.000
100.000%
Average
Assessed Valuation
$491,287
Median
Assessed Valuation
$357,438
Total
% of
Cumulative
Valuation
Total
% of Total
$43,873,628
0.660%
0.660%
317,482,948
4.776
5.435
651,965,828
9.807
15.242
781,855,973 11.761
27.003
788,388,474 11.859
38.862
639,126,256
9.614
48.475
509,990,116
7.671
56.147
404,717,482
6.088
62.234
290,279,879
4.366
66.601
235,321,832
3.540
70.140
165,761,371
2.493
72.634
136,942,246
2.060
74.694
114,162,685
1.717
76.411
90,423,372
1.360
77.771
75,479,963
1.135
78.906
78,988,905
1.188
80.095
97,201,778
1.462
81.557
71,594,121
1.077
82.634
108,932,464
1.639
84.272
68,223,551
1.026
85.298
977,378,320 14.702
100.000
$6,648,091,192 100.000%
___________________
Improved single family residential parcels. Excludes condominiums and parcels with multiple family units.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
(1)
24
The following table shows an analysis of taxable property within Improvement District No. 1 by
jurisdiction, and the fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation of such parcels:
ASSESSED VALUATION BY JURISDICTION(1)
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Jurisdiction:
Town of Truckee
Unincorporated Nevada County
Unincorporated Placer County
Total District
Summary by County:
Nevada County
Placer County
Total District
Assessed Valuation
in District
$5,310,995,237
353,674,451
3,788,554,417
$9,453,224,105
% of
District
56.18%
3.74
40.08
100.00%
$5,664,669,688
3,788,554,417
$9,453,224,105
59.92%
40.08
100.00%
___________________
(1)
Before deduction of redevelopment incremental valuation.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK]
25
Assessed Valuation % of Jurisdiction
of Jurisdiction
in District
$5,310,995,237
100.00%
8,650,911,242
4.09
25,242,334,053
15.01
$15,889,778,432
58,844,810,706
35.65%
6.44
Assessed Valuation of Improvement District No. 2
Property within Improvement District No. 2 has a total assessed valuation for fiscal year 2014-15
of $7,913,461,597. The following table represents a seven-year history of assessed valuations in
Improvement District No. 2:
ASSESSED VALUATIONS
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
Fiscal Years 2008-09 through 2014-15
Fiscal Year
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Local Secured
Utility
Unsecured
Placer County Portion
$1,434,726
$127,670,714
1,061,818
118,284,903
1,061,818
107,940,877
1,061,818
102,162,746
1,061,818
107,902,092
1,061,818
107,902,092
714,644
119,345,291
El Dorado County Portion
$733,146,167
$0
$3,404,831
764,745,578
0
3,589,664
729,123,598
0
3,732,939
737,858,600
0
4,225,930
749,105,345
0
4,545,589
801,655,939
0
4,162,398
866,421,846
0
5,625,456
Total
$7,368,125,469
$1,434,726
$131,075,545
7,655,495,333
1,061,818
121,874,567
7,352,661,367
1,061,818
111,673,816
7,351,768,774
1,061,818
106,388,676
7,372,429,625
1,061,818
112,447,681
7,556,818,099
714,644
118,070,076
7,787,776,206
714,644
124,970,747
$6,634,979,302
6,890,749,755
6,623,537,769
6,613,910,174
6,623,324,280
6,755,162,160
6,921,354,360
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
26
Total
$6,764,084,742
7,010,096,476
6,732,540,464
6,717,134,738
6,732,288,190
6,732,288,190
7,041,414,295
$736,550,998
768,335,242
732,856,537
742,084,530
753,650,934
805,818,337
872,047,302
$7,500,635,740
7,778,431,718
7,465,397,001
7,459,219,268
7,485,939,124
7,675,602,819
7,913,461,597
The following table shows a per-parcel analysis of the distribution of taxable property within
Improvement District No. 2 by principal use, and the fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation of such
parcels:
ASSESSED VALUATION AND PARCELS BY LAND USE
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Non-Residential:
Agricultural/Forest
Commercial
Vacant Commercial
Industrial
Vacant Industrial
Recreational
Government/Social/Institutional
Vacant Other
Miscellaneous
Subtotal Non-Residential
2014-15
Assessed Valuation (1)
$7,113,780
394,145,551
18,199,072
17,325,761
1,224,366
176,387,355
5,243,461
22,859,799
13,432,995
$655,932,140
% of
Total
0.09%
5.06
0.23
0.22
0.02
2.26
0.07
0.29
0.17
8.42%
No. of
Parcels
94
515
210
54
26
381
75
401
143
1,899
% of
Total
0.42%
2.29
0.94
0.24
0.12
1.70
0.33
1.79
0.64
8.46%
Residential:
Single Family Residence
Condominium/Townhouse
Mobile Home
2-4 Residential Units
5+ Residential Units/Apartments
Miscellaneous Residential
Timeshare Properties
Vacant Residential
Subtotal Residential
$5,578,907,831
1,216,600,869
6,079,661
216,982,242
25,625,805
10,222,161
28,507,450
48,918,047
$7,131,844,066
71.64%
15.62
0.08
2.79
0.33
0.13
0.37
0.63
91.58%
11,036
3,562
49
446
89
67
4,598
711
20,558
49.14%
15.86
0.22
1.99
0.40
0.30
20.47
3.17
91.54%
Total
$7,787,776,206
100.00%
22,457
100.00%
___________________
(1)
Total local secured assessed valuation; excluding tax-exempt property.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
27
The following table is a per-parcel analysis of single family residences within Improvement
District No. 2, in terms of their fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation:
ASSESSED VALUATION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Single Family Residential
2014-15
Assessed Valuation
$0 - $99,999
100,000 - 199,999
200,000 - 299,999
300,000 - 399,999
400,000 - 499,999
500,000 - 599,999
600,000 - 699,999
700,000 - 799,999
800,000 - 899,999
900,000 - 999,999
1,000,000 - 1,099,999
1,100,000 - 1,199,999
1,200,000 - 1,299,999
1,300,000 - 1,399,999
1,400,000 - 1,499,999
1,500,000 - 1,599,999
1,600,000 - 1,699,999
1,700,000 - 1,799,999
1,800,000 - 1,899,999
1,900,000 - 1,999,999
2,000,000 and greater
Total
No. of
Parcels
11,036
No. of
Parcels (1)
1,316
2,025
1,930
1,532
1,117
809
500
398
290
148
121
109
81
63
55
52
47
33
29
32
349
11,036
2014-15
Assessed Valuation
$5,578,907,831
% of
Cumulative
Total
% of Total
11.925%
11.925%
18.349
30.274
17.488
47.762
13.882
61.644
10.121
71.765
7.331
79.096
4.531
83.626
3.606
87.233
2.628
89.860
1.341
91.202
1.096
92.298
0.988
93.286
0.734
94.020
0.571
94.590
0.498
95.089
0.471
95.560
0.426
95.986
0.299
96.285
0.263
96.548
0.290
96.838
3.162
100.000
100.000%
Average
Assessed Valuation
$505,519
Median
Assessed Valuation
$314,096
Total
% of
Cumulative
Valuation
Total
% of Total
$85,962,692
1.541%
1.541%
306,726,381
5.498
7.039
478,018,245
8.568
15.607
532,399,280
9.543
25.150
498,930,216
8.943
34.093
442,991,070
7.940
42.034
322,364,018
5.778
47.812
296,878,853
5.321
53.134
245,758,816
4.405
57.539
139,739,626
2.505
60.043
125,893,369
2.257
62.300
124,509,548
2.232
64.532
100,885,427
1.808
66.340
84,513,934
1.515
67.855
79,284,401
1.421
69.276
79,837,177
1.431
70.707
77,420,255
1.388
72.095
57,626,168
1.033
73.128
53,505,153
0.959
74.087
62,522,037
1.121
75.208
1,383,141,165 24.792
100.000
$5,578,907,831 100.000%
___________________
Improved single family residential parcels. Excludes condominiums and parcels with multiple family units.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
(1)
28
The following table shows an analysis of taxable property within Improvement District No. 2 by
jurisdiction, and the fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation of such parcels:
ASSESSED VALUATION BY JURISDICTION(1)
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Jurisdiction:
Unincorporated El Dorado County
Unincorporated Placer County
Total District
Summary by County:
El Dorado County
Placer County
Total District
Assessed Valuation
in District
$872,047,302
7,041,414,295
$7,913,461,597
% of
District
11.02%
88.98
100.00%
$872,047,302
7,041,414,295
$7,913,461,597
11.02%
88.98
100.00%
Assessed Valuation % of Jurisdiction
of Jurisdiction
in District
$21,883,362,441
3.98%
25,242,334,053
27.90
$26,729,692,008
58,844,810,706
3.26%
11.97
___________________
(1)
Before deduction of redevelopment incremental valuation.
Appeals and Adjustments of Assessed Valuations
Under California law, property owners may apply for a reduction of their property tax assessment
by filing a written application, in form prescribed by the State Board of Equalization (the “SBE”), with
the appropriate county board of equalization or assessment appeals board. In most cases, the appeal is
filed because the applicant believes that present market conditions (such as residential home prices) cause
the property to be worth less than its current assessed value. Any reduction in the assessment ultimately
granted as a result of such appeal applies to the year for which application is made and during which the
written application was filed. Such reductions are subject to yearly reappraisals and may be adjusted back
to their original values when market conditions improve. Once the property has regained its prior value,
adjusted for inflation, it once again is subject to the annual inflationary factor growth rate allowed under
Article XIIIA. See “CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFFECTING DISTRICT
REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS – Article XIIIA of the California Constitution” herein.
A second type of assessment appeal involves a challenge to the base year value of an assessed
property. Appeals for reduction in the base year value of an assessment, if successful, reduce the
assessment for the year in which the appeal is taken and prospectively thereafter. The base year is
determined by the completion date of new construction or the date of change of ownership. Any base
year appeal must be made within four years of the change of ownership or new construction date.
In addition to the above-described taxpayer appeals, county assessors may independently reduce
assessed valuations based on changes in the market value of property, or for other factors such as the
complete or partial destruction of taxable property caused by natural or man-made disasters such as
earthquakes, floods, fire, or toxic contamination pursuant to relevant provisions of the State Constitution.
See also “CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFFECTING DISTRICT
REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS – Article XIIIA of the California Constitution” herein. Such
reductions are subject to yearly reappraisals by the county assessor and may be adjusted back to their
original values when real estate market conditions improve. Once property has regained its prior assessed
value, adjusted for inflation, it once again is subject to the annual inflationary growth rate factor allowed
under Article XIIIA.
29
No assurance can be given that property tax appeals in the future will not significantly reduce the
assessed valuation of property within the District.
Tax Levies, Collections and Delinquencies
The Counties each levy and collect all property taxes for property falling within such County’s
taxing boundaries. The following tables show historical secured tax charge and delinquency data for the
portions of the Improvement Districts located in the County. Tax charge and delinquency for data for El
Dorado County and Nevada County is not available.
SECURED TAX CHARGES AND DELINQUENCY RATES
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
Fiscal Years 2007-08 through 2013-14
(Placer County Portion Only)
Tax Year
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Secured Tax
Charge(1)
$851,118.78
919,782.40
1,081,261.12
1,171,305.99
1,172,805.29
1,204,241.12
1,397,720.63
Amount Delinquent
June 30
$16,567.27
52,617.85
20,801.83
31,662.50
32,026.58
18,706.10
19,882.95
Percent Delinquent
June 30
1.95%
5.72
1.92
2.70
2.73
1.55
1.42
_______________________
(1)
General obligation bond debt service levy only.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
SECURED TAX CHARGES AND DELINQUENCY RATES
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
Fiscal Years 2007-08 through 2013-14
(Placer County Portion Only)
Tax Year
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Secured Tax
Charge(1)
$3,237,482.42
3,259,448.44
3,603,486.46
3,785,309.40
3,229,761.52
3,526,771.68
3,616,268.69
Amount Delinquent
June 30
$62,845.75
91,939.60
117,644.23
85,912.38
76,666.83
60,324.77
62,146.44
Percent Delinquent
June 30
1.94%
2.82
3.26
2.27
2.37
1.71
1.72
_______________________
(1)
General obligation bond debt service levy only.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment - “Teeter Plan”
The Boards of Supervisors of each of the Counties has approved the implementation of the
Alternative Method of Distribution of Tax Levies and Collections and of Tax Sale Proceeds (the “Teeter
Plan”), as provided for in Section 4701 et seq. of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. Under the
Teeter Plan, the Counties apportion secured property taxes on an accrual basis when due (irrespective of
30
actual collections) to its local political subdivisions, including the District, for which the Counties act as
the tax-levying or tax-collecting agency.
The Teeter Plan is applicable to all secured tax levies for which each such county acts as the taxlevying or tax-collecting agency, or for which such county’s treasury is the legal depository of the tax
collections. The Teeter Plan does not apply to the supplemental property taxes for El Dorado County.
The ad valorem property tax to be levied to pay the interest on and principal of the Bonds will be
subject to the Teeter Plan, beginning in the first year of such levy. The District will receive 100% of the
secured ad valorem property tax levied in the Counties to pay the Bonds irrespective of actual
delinquencies in the collection of the tax by the Counties.
The Teeter Plan is to remain in effect in each County unless the Board of Supervisors of such
County orders its discontinuance or unless, prior to the commencement of any fiscal year of either thereof
(which commences on July 1 for each of the Counties), the Board of Supervisors of such County receives
a petition for its discontinuance joined in by a resolution adopted by at least two-thirds of the participating
revenue districts in the applicable county, in which event the Board of Supervisors of the applicable
County is to order discontinuance of the Teeter Plan effective at the commencement of the subsequent
fiscal year. The Board of Supervisors of any of the Counties may, by resolution adopted not later than
July 15 of the fiscal year for which it is to apply, after holding a public hearing on the matter, discontinue
the procedures under the Teeter Plan with respect to any tax levying agency or assessment levying agency
in such county if the rate of secure tax delinquency in that agency in any year exceeds 3% of the total of
all taxes and assessments levied on the secured rolls for that agency. In the event the Board of
Supervisors of such County is to order discontinuance of the Teeter Plan subsequent to its
implementation, only those secured property taxes actually collected would be allocated to political
subdivisions (including the District) for which such county acts as the tax-levying or tax-collecting
agency.
Tax Rates
Improvement District No. 1. The following table summarizes the total ad valorem tax rates
levied, as a percentage of assessed valuation, by all taxing entities in a typical tax rate area (“TRA”)
within Improvement District No. 1 from fiscal years 2010-11 through 2014-15.
TYPICAL TOTAL TAX RATES (TRA 91-012)(1)
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
Fiscal Years 2010-11 through 2014-15
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
General
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
SFID No. 1
Sierra Community College District
SFID No. 1
Tahoe Forest Hospital District
1.000000%
.007824
.037273
1.000000%
.004543
.037651
1.000000%
.007903
.038088
1.000000%
.006753
.041439
1.000000%
.006676
.033761
.010592
.011434
.011755
.010276
.009397
.018760
.021000
.030670
.030120
.030040
Total
1.074449%
1.074628%
1.088416%
1.088588%
1.079874%
(1)
The 2014-15 assessed valuation of TRA 91-012 is $1,390,612,725, representing 14.71% of the Improvement District No. 1’s
total 2014-15 assessed valuation.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
31
Improvement District No. 2. The following table summarizes the total ad valorem tax rates
levied, as a percentage of assessed valuation, by all taxing entities in a typical tax rate area (“TRA”)
within Improvement District No. 2 from fiscal years 2010-11 through 2014-15.
TYPICAL TOTAL TAX RATES (TRA 91-003)(1)
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
Fiscal Years 2010-11 through 2014-15
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
General
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
SFID No. 2
Sierra Community College District
SFID No. 1
Tahoe Forest Hospital District
Tahoe City Public Utility District
1.000000%
.007824
.057261
1.000000%
.004543
.048883
1.000000%
.007903
.053172
1.000000%
.006753
.053560
1.000000%
.006676
.048472
.010592
.011434
.011755
.010276
.009397
.018760
.000500
.021000
--
.030670
--
.030120
--
.030040
--
Total
1.094937%
1.085860%
1.103500%
1.100709%
1.094585%
(1)
The 2014-15 assessed valuation of TRA 91-003 is $2,123,515,921, representing 26.83% of the Improvement District No. 2’s
total 2014-15 assessed valuation.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK]
32
Principal Taxpayers
Improvement District No. 1. The following table lists the major taxpayers in Improvement
District No. 1 based on their 2014-15 secured assessed valuations:
LARGEST LOCAL SECURED TAXPAYERS
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
Fiscal Year 2014-15
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2014-15
Property Owner
Primary Land Use Assessed Valuation
Trimont Land Company
Ski Resort
$78,076,191
KW-Northstar Ventures LLC
Hotel
46,702,948
Sugar Bowl Corporation
Ski Resort
25,549,912
Hidden Lake Properties Inc.
Office Building
22,294,682
DMB Highlands Group LLC
Golf Course
20,661,587
Joeger Associates LLC
Commercial
20,241,117
RitzCarlton Development Company
Residential/Timeshares
19,266,105
Northstar Group Commercial Properties
Commercial
18,969,412
New Martis Partners LLC
Residential Properties
17,609,041
Gateway at Donner Pass LP
Commercial
15,400,000
Tahoe Escapes LLC
Residential/Timeshares
15,183,111
Northstar Venture Penthouses LLC
Residential Properties
14,502,365
Martis Creek LP
Hotel
12,368,000
Lahontan Golf Club
Golf Course
9,900,000
Northstar Mountain Properties LLC
Ski Resort
9,801,139
Trailside Sierra LLC
Residential Properties
9,764,000
Trailside Alpine LLC
Residential Properties
9,600,000
Powerplay Properties LLC
Residential Properties
9,033,806
Stuart L. and Gina R. Peterson, Trust
Residential Properties
8,916,678
Glenda G. Chang, Trust
Residential Properties
8,835,925
$392,676,019
(1)
2014-15 local secured assessed valuation: $9,247,086,064.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK]
33
% of
Total (1)
0.84%
0.51
0.28
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
4.25%
Improvement District No. 2. The following table lists the major taxpayers in Improvement
District No. 2 based on their 2014-15 secured assessed valuations:
LARGEST LOCAL SECURED TAXPAYERS
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
Fiscal Year 2014-15
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Property Owner
Primary Land Use
Squaw Valley Real Estate and Resort LLC
Ski Resort
Kevin and Michelle Douglas, Trustees
Residential
Homewood Village Resorts LLC
Ski Resort
Squaw Creek Associates
Hotel & Golf
Brembil LLC
Residential
Abigail W. and Joseph P. Baratta II
Residential
Ray and Dagmar Dolby, Trustees
Residential
AKM Retreat LLC
Residential
Carole J. McNeil, Trust
Residential
William D. and Denise P. Watkins, Trustees
Hotel
Laurentinum LP
Residential
Dreamy CA LLC
Residential
Daniel W. and Devon M. Morehead, Trustees
Residential
George Fouad Boutros, Trust
Residential
Michael E. Raney, Trsut
Residential
M. David and Diane B. Paul
Residential
Joseph Piazza, Trust
Residential
Marcia M. and Harold M. Messmer, Jr., Trustees
Residential
Safeway Inc.
Commercial
Robert E. Challey, Trustee
Residential
2014-15
Assessed Valuation
$88,308,279
27,495,112
26,261,682
20,745,968
20,169,500
19,412,406
18,233,306
17,342,315
16,099,165
15,657,747
14,963,217
14,565,827
14,000,000
13,870,333
13,534,345
13,234,080
13,059,020
13,042,771
13,000,180
12,500,000
$405,495,253
% of
Total (1)
1.13%
0.35
0.34
0.27
0.26
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
5.21%
(1)
2014-15 local secured assessed valuation: $7,787,776,206.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
Statement of Direct and Overlapping Debt
Set forth below are direct and overlapping debt reports relating to the Improvement Districts
(each a “Debt Report”) prepared by California Municipal Statistics, Inc., each effective as of February 1,
2015, for debt issued as of January 7, 2015 with respect to Improvement District No. 1 and January 8,
2015 with respect to Improvement District No. 2. The Debt Reports are included for general information
purposes only. The District has not reviewed the Debt Reports for completeness or accuracy and makes
no representation in connection therewith.
The Debt Reports generally include long-term obligations sold in the public credit markets by
public agencies whose boundaries overlap the boundaries of the respective Improvement District, in
whole or in part. Such long-term obligations generally are not payable from revenues of the District
(except as indicated) nor are they necessarily obligations secured by land within such Improvement
District. In many cases long-term obligations issued by a public agency are payable only from the general
fund or other revenues of such public agency.
The first column in the table names each public agency which has outstanding debt as of the date
of each Debt Report and whose territory overlaps the respective Improvement District, in whole or in part.
Column 2 in each Debt Report shows the percentage of each overlapping agency’s assessed value located
within the boundaries of such Improvement District. This percentage, multiplied by the total outstanding
34
debt of each overlapping agency (which is not shown in the table) produces the amount shown in column
3 of each Debt Report, which is the apportionment of each overlapping agency’s outstanding debt to
taxable property located respective Improvement District.
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT STATEMENT
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
2014-15 Assessed Valuation: $9,453,224,105
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT:
% Applicable
Sierra Joint Community College District School Facilities Improvement District No. 1
57.311%
Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified School District
54.433
Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified School District School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 100.000
Tahoe Forest Hospital District
57.280
Sierra Lakes County Water District
100.000
Northstar Community Services District Community Facilities District No. 1
100.000
Truckee Donner Public Utility District Community Facilities Districts Nos. 03-1 and 04-1
100.000
TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT
OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT:
Nevada County Certificates of Participation
Placer County General Fund Obligations
Placer County Office of Education Certificates of Participation
Sierra Joint Community College District Certificates of Participation
Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified School District Certificates of Participation
Town of Truckee General Fund Obligations
Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District Certificates of Participation
Placer County Mosquito and Vector Control District Certificates of Participation
TOTAL OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT
OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT:
Truckee Redevelopment Agency (Successor Agency)
TOTAL OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT
35.650%
6.438
6.438
12.042
54.433
100.000
100.000
6.438
100.000%
Debt 2/1/15
$17,388,715
3,851,135
20,374,957(1)
56,389,296
150,000
110,040,000
44,145,000
$252,339,103
$1,873,408
2,451,912
106,227
1,089,681
1,235,085
9,175,000
22,150,000
251,726
$38,333,039
$12,645,000
$12,645,000
$303,317,142(2)
COMBINED TOTAL DEBT
Ratios to 2014-15 Assessed Valuation:
Direct Debt ($20,374,957) ..................................................................... 0.22%
Total Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt ........................ 2.67%
Combined Total Debt............................................................................... 3.21%
Ratios to Redevelopment Incremental Valuation ($187,584,257):
Total Overlapping Tax Increment Debt ................................................... 6.74%
(1)
Excludes the SFID No. 1 Bonds described herein.
Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and non-bonded capital lease obligations.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
(2)
35
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT STATEMENT
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
2014-15 Assessed Valuation: $7,913,461,597
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT:
Los Rios Community College District
Sierra Joint Community College District Schools Facilities Improvement District No. 1
Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified School District
Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified School District School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
Tahoe Forest Hospital District
TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT
OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT:
Placer County General Fund Obligations
Placer County Office of Education Certificates of Participation
Los Rios Community College District General Fund Obligations
Sierra Joint Community College District Certificates of Participation
Tahoe-Truckee Joint Unified School District Certificates of Participation
Placer Mosquito and Vector Control District Certificates of Participation
TOTAL OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT
OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT:
Placer County Redevelopment Agency Housing Bonds
Placer County Redevelopment Agency North Tahoe Project Area
TOTAL OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT
% Applicable
0.557%
42.689
45.567
100.000
42.679
Debt 2/1/15
$2,012,330
12,952,258
3,223,865
37,384,078 (1)
42,015,342
$97,587,873
11.966%
11.966
0.557
8.969
45.567
11.966
$4,557,251
197,439
31,582
811,605
1,033,915
467,871
$7,099,663
62.072%
100.000
$3,181,190
13,275,000
$16,456,190
$121,143,726 (2)
COMBINED TOTAL DEBT
Ratios to 2014-15 Assessed Valuation:
Direct Debt ($42,015,342) .............................................................. 0.47%
Total Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt ................. 1.23%
Combined Total Debt........................................................................ 1.53%
Ratios to Redevelopment Incremental Valuation ($646,694,949):
Total Overlapping Tax Increment Debt ............................................ 2.54%
(1)
Excludes the SFID No. 2 Bonds described herein.
Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and non-bonded capital lease obligations.
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
(2)
36
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFFECTING DISTRICT
REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
The principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable solely from the proceeds of an ad valorem
property tax levied by the Counties for the payment thereof. (See “THE BONDS – Security and Sources
of Payment”) Articles XIIIA, XIIIB, XIIIC and XIIID of the State Constitution, Propositions 98 and 111,
and certain other provisions of law discussed below, are included in this section to describe the potential
effect of these Constitutional and statutory measures on the ability of the Counties to levy taxes on behalf
of the District and to the District to spend tax proceeds for operating and other purposes, and it should
not be inferred from the inclusion of such materials that these laws impose any limitation on the ability of
the Counties to levy taxes for payment of the Bonds. The tax levied by the Counties for payment of the
Bonds was approved by the District’s voters in compliance with Article XIIIA, Article XIIIC, and all
applicable laws.
Article XIIIA of the California Constitution
Article XIIIA (“Article XIIIA”) of the State Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes
on real property to 1% of “full cash value” as determined by the county assessor. Article XIIIA defines
“full cash value” to mean “the county assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 bill
under “full cash value,” or thereafter, the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly
constructed or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment,” subject to exemptions in
certain circumstances of property transfer or reconstruction. Determined in this manner, the full cash
value is also referred to as the “base year value.” The “full cash value” is subject to annual adjustment to
reflect increases, not to exceed 2% for any year, or decreases in the consumer price index or comparable
local data, or to reflect reductions in property value caused by damage, destruction or other factors.
Article XIIIA has been amended to allow for temporary reductions of assessed value in instances
where the fair market value of real property falls below the adjusted base year value described above.
Proposition 8—approved by the voters in November of 1978—provides for the enrollment of the lesser of
the base year value or the market value of real property, taking into account reductions in value due to
damage, destruction, depreciation, obsolescence, removal of property, or other factors causing a similar
decline. In these instances, the market value is required to be reviewed annually until the market value
exceeds the base year value, adjusted for inflation. Reductions in assessed value could result in a
corresponding increase in the annual tax rate levied by the Counties to pay debt service on the Bonds.
See “THE BONDS – Security and Sources of Payment” and “TAX BASE FOR REPAYMENT OF
BONDS” herein.
Article XIIIA requires a vote of two-thirds or more of the qualified electorate of a city, county,
special district or other public agency to impose special taxes, while totally precluding the imposition of
any additional ad valorem property, sales or transaction tax on real property. Article XIIIA exempts from
the 1% tax limitation any taxes above that level required to pay debt service (a) on any indebtedness
approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978, or (b), as the result of an amendment approved by State
voters on June 3, 1986, on any bonded indebtedness approved by two-thirds or more of the votes cast by
the voters for the acquisition or improvement of real property on or after July 1, 1978, or (c) bonded
indebtedness incurred by a school district or community college district for the construction,
reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement of school facilities or the acquisition or lease of real property
for school facilities, approved by fifty-five percent or more of the votes cast on the proposition, but only if
certain accountability measures are included in the proposition. The tax for payment of the Bonds falls
within the exception described in (c) of the immediately preceding sentence. In addition, Article XIIIA
requires the approval of two-thirds or more of all members of the State legislature to change any State
taxes for the purpose of increasing tax revenues.
37
Legislation Implementing Article XIIIA
Legislation has been enacted and amended a number of times since 1978 to implement
Article XIIIA. Under current law, local agencies are no longer permitted to levy directly any property tax
(except to pay voter-approved indebtedness). The 1% property tax is automatically levied by the county
and distributed according to a formula among taxing agencies. The formula apportions the tax roughly in
proportion to the relative shares of taxes levied prior to 1979.
Increases of assessed valuation resulting from reappraisals of property due to new construction,
change in ownership or from the annual adjustment not to exceed 2% are allocated among the various
jurisdictions in the “taxing area” based upon their respective “situs.” Any such allocation made to a local
agency continues as part of its allocation in future years.
All taxable property value included in this Official Statement is shown at 100% of taxable value
(unless noted differently) and all tax rates reflect the $1 per $100 of taxable value.
Both the United States Supreme Court and the California State Supreme Court have upheld the
general validity of Article XIIIA.
Unitary Property
Some amount of property tax revenue of the District is derived from utility property which is
considered part of a utility system with components located in many taxing jurisdictions (“unitary
property”). Under the State Constitution, such property is assessed by the State Board of Equalization
(“SBE”) as part of a “going concern” rather than as individual pieces of real or personal property. Such
State-assessed unitary and certain other property is allocated to the counties by the SBE, taxed at special
county-wide rates, and the tax revenues distributed to taxing jurisdictions (including the Improvement
Districts) according to statutory formulae generally based on the distribution of taxes in the prior year.
The California electric utility industry has been undergoing significant changes in its structure
and in the way in which components of the industry are regulated and owned. Sale of electric generation
assets to largely unregulated, nonutility companies may affect how those assets are assessed, and which
local agencies are to receive the property taxes. The District is unable to predict the impact of these
changes on its utility property tax revenues, or whether legislation may be proposed or adopted in
response to industry restructuring, or whether any future litigation may affect ownership of utility assets
or the State’s methods of assessing utility property and the allocation of assessed value to local taxing
agencies, including the District. So long as the District is a basic aid district (see “DISTRICT
FINANCIAL INFORMATION – State Funding of Education - Basic Aid” herein) taxes lost through any
reduction in assessed valuation will not be compensated by the State as equalization aid under the State’s
school financing formula.
Article XIIIB of the California Constitution
Article XIIIB (“Article XIIIB”) of the State Constitution, as subsequently amended by
Propositions 98 and 111, respectively, limits the annual appropriations of the State and of any city,
county, school district, authority or other political subdivision of the State to the level of appropriations of
the particular governmental entity for the prior fiscal year, as adjusted for changes in the cost of living
and in population and for transfers in the financial responsibility for providing services and for certain
declared emergencies. As amended, Article XIIIB defines:
38
(a)
“change in the cost of living” with respect to school districts to mean the percentage
change in California per capita income from the preceding year, and
(b)
“change in population” with respect to a school district to mean the percentage change in
the average daily attendance of the school district from the preceding fiscal year.
For fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1990, the appropriations limit of each entity of
government shall be the appropriations limit for the 1986-87 fiscal year adjusted for the changes made
from that fiscal year pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIIB, as amended.
The appropriations of an entity of local government subject to Article XIIIB limitations include
the proceeds of taxes levied by or for that entity and the proceeds of certain state subventions to that
entity. “Proceeds of taxes” include, but are not limited to, all tax revenues and the proceeds to the entity
from (a) regulatory licenses, user charges and user fees (but only to the extent that these proceeds exceed
the reasonable costs in providing the regulation, product or service), and (b) the investment of tax
revenues.
Appropriations subject to limitation do not include (a) refunds of taxes, (b) appropriations for
debt service such as the Bonds, (c) appropriations required to comply with certain mandates of the courts
or the federal government, (d) appropriations of certain special districts, (e) appropriations for all
qualified capital outlay projects as defined by the State legislature, (f) appropriations derived from certain
fuel and vehicle taxes and (g) appropriations derived from certain taxes on tobacco products.
Article XIIIB includes a requirement that all revenues received by an entity of government other
than the State in a fiscal year and in the fiscal year immediately following it in excess of the amount
permitted to be appropriated during that fiscal year and the fiscal year immediately following it shall be
returned by a revision of tax rates or fee schedules within the next two subsequent fiscal years.
Article XIIIB also includes a requirement that fifty percent of all revenues received by the State
in a fiscal year and in the fiscal year immediately following it in excess of the amount permitted to be
appropriated during that fiscal year and the fiscal year immediately following it shall be transferred and
allocated to the State School Fund pursuant to Section 8.5 of Article XVI of the State Constitution. See
“– Propositions 98 and 111” herein.
Proposition 26
On November 2, 2010, voters in the State approved Proposition 26. Proposition 26 amends
Article XIIIC of the State Constitution to expand the definition of “tax” to include “any levy, charge, or
exaction of any kind imposed by a local government” except the following: (1) a charge imposed for a
specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not
charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit
or granting the privilege; (2) a charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided
directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable
costs to the local government of providing the service or product; (3) a charge imposed for the reasonable
regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations,
inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and
adjudication thereof; (4) a charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the
purchase, rental, or lease of local government property; (5) a fine, penalty, or other monetary charge
imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law; (6)
a charge imposed as a condition of property development; and (7) assessments and property-related fees
imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIIID. Proposition 26 provides that the local
39
government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other
exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the
governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or
reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity.
Article XIIIC and Article XIIID of the California Constitution
On November 5, 1996, the voters of the State approved Proposition 218, popularly known as the
“Right to Vote on Taxes Act.” Proposition 218 added to the California Constitution Articles XIIIC and
XIIID (respectively, “Article XIIIC” and “Article XIIID”), which contain a number of provisions
affecting the ability of local agencies, including school districts, to levy and collect both existing and
future taxes, assessments, fees and charges.
According to the “Title and Summary” of Proposition 218 prepared by the California Attorney
General, Proposition 218 limits “the authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related
assessments, fees and charges.” Among other things, Article XIIIC establishes that every tax is either a
“general tax” (imposed for general governmental purposes) or a “special tax” (imposed for specific
purposes), prohibits special purpose government agencies such as school districts from levying general
taxes, and prohibits any local agency from imposing, extending or increasing any special tax beyond its
maximum authorized rate without a two-thirds vote; and also provides that the initiative power will not be
limited in matters of reducing or repealing local taxes, assessments, fees and charges. Article XIIIC
further provides that no tax may be assessed on property other than ad valorem property taxes imposed in
accordance with Articles XIII and XIIIA of the California Constitution and special taxes approved by a
two-thirds vote under Article XIIIA, Section 4. Article XIIID deals with assessments and propertyrelated fees and charges, and explicitly provides that nothing in Article XIIIC or XIIID will be construed
to affect existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property
development.
The District does not impose any taxes, assessments, or property-related fees or charges which
are subject to the provisions of Proposition 218. It does, however, receive a portion of the basic 1% ad
valorem property tax levied and collected by the Counties pursuant to Article XIIIA of the California
Constitution. The provisions of Proposition 218 may have an indirect effect on the District, such as by
limiting or reducing the revenues otherwise available to other local governments whose boundaries
encompass property located within the District thereby causing such local governments to reduce service
levels and possibly adversely affecting the value of property within the District.
Propositions 98 and 111
On November 8, 1988, voters approved Proposition 98, a combined initiative constitutional
amendment and statute called the “Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act” (the
“Accountability Act”). Certain provisions of the Accountability Act have, however, been modified by
Proposition 111, discussed below, the provisions of which became effective on July 1, 1990. The
Accountability Act changed State funding of public education below the university level and the
operation of the State’s appropriations limit. The Accountability Act guarantees State funding for K-12
school districts and community college districts (hereinafter referred to collectively as “K-14 school
districts”) at a level equal to the greater of (a) the same percentage of the State general fund revenues as
the percentage appropriated to such districts in the 1986-87 fiscal year, and (b) the amount actually
appropriated to such districts from the State general fund in the previous fiscal year, adjusted for increases
in enrollment and changes in the cost of living. The Accountability Act permits the State Legislature to
suspend this formula for a one-year period.
40
The Accountability Act also changed how tax revenues in excess of the State appropriations limit
are distributed. Any excess State tax revenues up to a specified amount, instead of being returned to
taxpayers, is transferred to K-14 school districts. Any such transfer to K-14 school districts would be
excluded from the appropriations limit for K-14 school districts and the K-14 school district
appropriations limit for the next year is automatically increased by the amount of such transfer. These
additional moneys enter the base funding calculation for K-14 school districts for subsequent years,
creating further pressure on other portions of the State budget, particularly if revenues decline in a year
following an Article XIIIB surplus. The maximum amount of excess tax revenues which can be
transferred to K-14 school districts is 4% of the minimum State spending for education mandated by the
Accountability Act.
Since the Accountability Act is unclear in some details, there can be no assurances that the State
Legislature or a court might not interpret the Accountability Act to require a different percentage of State
general fund revenues to be allocated to K-14 school districts, or to apply the relevant percentage to the
State’s budgets in a different way than is proposed in the Governor’s budget.
On June 5, 1990, the voters of the State approved Proposition 111 (Senate Constitutional
Amendment No. 1) called the “Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limit Act of 1990” (“Proposition
111”) which further modified Article XIIIB and Sections 8 and 8.5 of Article XVI of the State
Constitution with respect to appropriations limitations and school funding priority and allocation.
The most significant provisions of Proposition 111 are summarized as follows:
a.
Annual Adjustments to Spending Limit. The annual adjustments to the Article XIIIB
spending limit were liberalized to be more closely linked to the rate of economic growth.
Instead of being tied to the Consumer Price Index, the “change in the cost of living” is
now measured by the change in California per capita personal income. The definition of
“change in population” specifies that a portion of the State’s spending limit is to be
adjusted to reflect changes in school attendance.
b.
Treatment of Excess Tax Revenues. “Excess” tax revenues with respect to Article XIIIB
are now determined based on a two-year cycle, so that the State can avoid having to
return to taxpayers excess tax revenues in one year if its appropriations in the next fiscal
year are under its limit. In addition, the Proposition 98 provision regarding excess tax
revenues was modified. After any two-year period, if there are excess State tax revenues,
50% of the excess are to be transferred to K-14 school districts with the balance returned
to taxpayers; under prior law, 100% of excess State tax revenues went to K-14 school
districts, but only up to a maximum of 4% of the schools’ minimum funding level. Also,
reversing prior law, any excess State tax revenues transferred to K-14 school districts are
not built into the school districts’ base expenditures for calculating their entitlement for
State aid in the next year, and the State’s appropriations limit is not to be increased by
this amount.
c.
Exclusions from Spending Limit. Two exceptions were added to the calculation of
appropriations which are subject to the Article XIIIB spending limit. First, there are
excluded all appropriations for “qualified capital outlay projects” as defined by the State
Legislature. Second, there are excluded any increases in gasoline taxes above the 1990
level (then nine cents per gallon), sales and use taxes on such increment in gasoline taxes,
and increases in receipts from vehicle weight fees above the levels in effect on January 1,
1990. These latter provisions were necessary to make effective the transportation
funding package approved by the State Legislature and the Governor, which was
41
expected to raise over $15 billion in additional taxes from 1990 through 2000 to fund
transportation programs.
d.
Recalculation of Appropriations Limit. The Article XIIIB appropriations limit for each
unit of government, including the State, is to be recalculated beginning in fiscal year
1990-91. It is based on the actual limit for fiscal year 1986-87, adjusted forward to
1990-91 as if Proposition 111 had been in effect.
e.
School Funding Guarantee. There is a complex adjustment in the formula enacted in
Proposition 98 which guarantees K-14 school districts a certain amount of State general
fund revenues. Under prior law, K-14 school districts were guaranteed the greater of
(1) 40.9% of State general fund revenues (“Test 1”) or (2) the amount appropriated in the
prior year adjusted for changes in the cost of living (measured as in Article XIIIB by
reference to per capita personal income) and enrollment (“Test 2”).
Under
Proposition 111, schools will receive the greater of (1) Test 1, (2) Test 2, or (3) a third
test (“Test 3”), which will replace Test 2 in any year when growth in per capita State
general fund revenues from the prior year is less than the annual growth in California per
capital personal income. Under Test 3, schools will receive the amount appropriated in
the prior year adjusted for change in enrollment and per capita State general fund
revenues, plus an additional small adjustment factor. If Test 3 is used in any year, the
difference between Test 3 and Test 2 will become a “credit” to schools which will be paid
in future years when State general fund revenue growth exceeds personal income growth.
Proposition 39
On November 7, 2000, California voters approved an amendment (commonly known as
Proposition 39) to the California Constitution. This amendment (1) allows school facilities bond
measures to be approved by 55% (rather than two-thirds) of the voters in local elections and permits
property taxes to exceed the current 1% limit in order to repay the bonds and (2) changes existing
statutory law regarding charter school facilities. As adopted, the constitutional amendments may be
changed only with another Statewide vote of the people. The statutory provisions could be changed by a
majority vote of both houses of the Legislature and approval by the Governor, but only to further the
purposes of the proposition. The local school jurisdictions affected by this proposition are K-12 school
districts, including the District, community college districts, and county offices of education. As noted
above, the California Constitution previously limited property taxes to 1 percent of the value of property,
and property taxes could only exceed this limit to pay for (1) any local government debts approved by the
voters prior to July 1, 1978 or (2) bonds to acquire or improve real property that receive two-thirds voter
approval after July 1, 1978.
The 55% vote requirement authorized by Proposition 39 applies only if the local bond measure
presented to the voters includes: (1) a requirement that the bond funds can be used only for construction,
rehabilitation, equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school
facilities; (2) a specific list of school projects to be funded and certification that the school board has
evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing the list; and (3) a
requirement that the school board conduct annual, independent financial and performance audits until all
bond funds have been spent to ensure that the bond funds have been used only for the projects listed in the
measure. Legislation approved in June 2000 places certain limitations on local school bonds to be
approved by 55% of the voters. These provisions require that the tax rate projected to be levied as the
result of any single election be no more than $60 (for a unified school district), $30 (for a high school or
elementary school district), or $25 (for a community college district) per $100,000 of taxable proerpty
value, when assessed valuation is projected to increase in accordance with Article XIIIA of the State
42
Constitution. These requirements are not part of Proposition 39 and can be changed with a majority vote
of both houses of the State Legislature and approval by the Governor. See “-Article XIIIA of the
California Constitution” herein.
Proposition 1A and Proposition 22
On November 2, 2004, California voters approved Proposition 1A, which amends the State
constitution to significantly reduce the State’s authority over major local government revenue sources.
Under Proposition 1A, the State cannot (i) reduce local sales tax rates or alter the method of allocating the
revenue generated by such taxes, (ii) shift property taxes from local governments to schools or
community colleges, (iii) change how property tax revenues are shared among local governments without
two-third approval of both houses of the State Legislature or (iv) decrease Vehicle License Fee revenues
without providing local governments with equal replacement funding. Proposition 1A does allow the
State to approve voluntary exchanges of local sales tax and property tax revenues among local
governments within a county. Proposition 1A also amends the State Constitution to require the State to
suspend certain State laws creating mandates in any year that the State does not fully reimburse local
governments for their costs to comply with the mandates. This provision does not apply to mandates
relating to schools or community colleges or to those mandates relating to employee rights.
Proposition 22, The Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act, approved
by the voters of the State on November 2, 2010, prohibits the State from enacting new laws that require
redevelopment agencies to shift funds to schools or other agencies and eliminates the State’s authority to
shift property taxes temporarily during a severe financial hardship of the State. In addition, Proposition
22 restricts the State’s authority to use State fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation
bonds, to borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues, and to use vehicle license fee
revenues to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs. Proposition 22 impacts resources in
the State’s general fund and transportation funds, the State’s main funding source for schools and
community colleges, as well as universities, prisons and health and social services programs. According
to an analysis of Proposition 22 submitted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (the “LAO”) on July 15,
2010, the expected reduction in resources available for the State to spend on these other programs as a
consequence of the passage of Proposition 22 was projected to be approximately $1 billion in fiscal year
2010-11, with an estimated immediate fiscal effect equal to approximately 1% of the State’s total general
fund spending. The longer-term effect of Proposition 22, according to the LAO analysis, was expected to
be an increase in the State’s general fund costs by approximately $1 billion annually for several decades.
See also “DISTRICT FINANCIAL INFORMATION – State Dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies”
herein.
Jarvis vs. Connell
On May 29, 2002, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District decided the case of
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, et al. v. Kathleen Connell (as Controller of the State of
California). The Court of Appeal held that either a final budget bill, an emergency appropriation, a selfexecuting authorization pursuant to state statutes (such as continuing appropriations) or the California
Constitution or a federal mandate is necessary for the State Controller to disburse funds. The foregoing
requirement could apply to amounts budgeted by the District as being received from the State. To the
extent the holding in such case would apply to State payments reflected in the District’s budget, the
requirement that there be either a final budget bill or an emergency appropriation may result in the delay
of such payments to the District if such required legislative action is delayed, unless the payments are
self-executing authorizations or are subject to a federal mandate. On May 1, 2003, the California
Supreme Court upheld the holding of the Court of Appeal, stating that the Controller is not authorized
under State law to disburse funds prior to the enactment of a budget or other proper appropriation, but
43
under federal law, the Controller is required, notwithstanding a budget impasse and the limitations
imposed by State law, to timely pay those State employees who are subject to the minimum wage and
overtime compensation provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Proposition 30
On November 6, 2012, voters of the State of California approved the Temporary Taxes to Fund
Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Initiative Constitutional Amendment (also known as
“Proposition 30”), which temporarily increases the State Sales and Use Tax and personal income tax rates
on higher incomes. Proposition 30 temporarily imposes an additional tax on all retailers, at the rate of
0.25% of gross receipts from the sale of all tangible personal property sold in the State from January 1,
2013 to December 31, 2016. Proposition 30 also imposes an additional excise tax on the storage, use, or
other consumption in the State of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer on and after
January 1, 2013 and before January 1, 2017, for storage, use, or other consumption in the State. This
excise tax will be levied at a rate of 0.25% of the sales price of the property so purchased. For personal
income taxes imposed beginning in the taxable year commencing January 1, 2012 and ending December
31, 2018, Proposition 30 increases the marginal personal income tax rate by: (i) 1% for taxable income
over $250,000 but less than $300,000 for single filers (over $340,000 but less than $408,000 for joint
filers), (ii) 2% for taxable income over $300,000 but less than $500,000 for single filers (over $408,000
but less than $680,000 for joint filers), and (iii) 3% for taxable income over $500,000 for single filers
(over $680,000 for joint filers).
The revenues generated from the temporary tax increases will be included in the calculation of
the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee for school districts and community college districts. See
“CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFFECTING DISTRICT REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS – Propositions 98 and 111” herein. From an accounting perspective, the revenues
generated from the temporary tax increases are being deposited into the State account created pursuant to
Proposition 30 called the Education Protection Account (the “EPA”). Pursuant to Proposition 30, funds
in the EPA will be allocated quarterly, with 89% of such funds provided to schools districts and 11%
provided to community college districts. The funds will be distributed to school districts and community
college districts in the same manner as existing unrestricted per-student funding, except that no school
district will receive less than $200 per unit of ADA and no community college district will receive less
than $100 per full time equivalent student. The governing board of each school district and community
college district is granted sole authority to determine how the moneys received from the EPA are spent,
provided that, the appropriate governing board is required to make these spending determinations in open
session at a public meeting and such local governing boards are prohibited from using any funds from the
EPA for salaries or benefits of administrators or any other administrative costs.
Since the District is a Basic Aid district, the revenues the District receives from the EPA do not
offset State apportionment. The District receives approximately $702,000 a year from the EPA.
Proposition 2
On November 4, 2014, voters approved the Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act (also
known as “Proposition 2”). Proposition 2 is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment which
makes certain changes to State budgeting practices, including substantially revising the conditions under
which transfers are made to and from the State’s Budget Stabilization Account (the “BSA”) established
by the California Balanced Budget Act of 2004 (also known as Proposition 58).
Under Proposition 2, and beginning in fiscal year 2015-16 and each fiscal year thereafter, the
State will generally be required to annually transfer to the BSA an amount equal to 1.5% of estimated
44
State general fund revenues (the “Annual BSA Transfer”). Supplemental transfers to the BSA (a
“Supplemental BSA Transfer”) are also required in any fiscal year in which the estimated State general
fund revenues that are allocable to capital gains taxes exceed 8% of the total estimated general fund tax
revenues. Such excess capital gains taxes—net of any portion thereof owed to K-14 school districts
pursuant to Proposition 98—will be transferred to the BSA. Proposition 2 also increases the maximum
size of the BSA to an amount equal to 10% of estimated State general fund revenues for any given fiscal
year. In any fiscal year in which a required transfer to the BSA would result in an amount in excess of the
10% threshold, Proposition 2 requires such excess to be expended on State infrastructure, including
deferred maintenance.
For the first 15-year period ending with the 2029-30 fiscal year, Proposition 2 provides that half
of any required transfer to the BSA, either annual or supplemental, must be appropriated to reduce certain
State liabilities, including making certain payments owed to K-14 school districts, repaying State
interfund borrowing, reimbursing local governments for State mandated services, and reducing or
prefunding accrued liabilities associated with State-level pension and retirement benefits. Following the
initial 15-year period, the Governor and the State Legislature are given discretion to apply up to half of
any required transfer to the BSA to the reduction of such State liabilities. Any amount not applied
towards such reduction must be transferred to the BSA or applied to infrastructure, as described above.
Proposition 2 changes the conditions under which the Governor and the State Legislature may
draw upon or reduce transfers to the BSA. The Governor does not retain unilateral discretion to suspend
transfers to the BSA, nor does the State Legislature retain discretion to transfer funds from the BSA for
any reason, as previously provided by law. Rather, the Governor must declare a “budget emergency,”
defined as an emergency within the meaning of Article XIIIB of the Constitution or a determination that
estimated resources are inadequate to fund State general fund expenditures, for the current or ensuing
fiscal year, at a level equal to the highest level of State spending within the three immediately preceding
fiscal years. Any such declaration must be followed by a legislative bill providing for a reduction or
transfer. Draws on the BSA are limited to the amount necessary to address the budget emergency, and no
draw in any fiscal year may exceed 50% of the funds on deposit in the BSA unless a budget emergency
was declared in the preceding fiscal year.
Proposition 2 also requires the creation of the Public School System Stabilization Account (the
“PSSSA”) into which transfers will be made in any fiscal year in which a Supplemental BSA Transfer is
required (as described above). Such transfer will be equal to the portion of capital gains taxes above the
8% threshold that would otherwise be paid to K-14 school districts as part of the minimum funding
guarantee. A transfer to the PSSSA will only be made if certain additional conditions are met, as follows:
(i) the minimum funding guarantee was not suspended in the immediately preceding fiscal year, (ii) the
operative Proposition 98 formula for the fiscal year in which a PSSSA transfer might be made is “Test 1,”
(iii) no maintenance factor obligation is being created in the budgetary legislation for the fiscal year in
which a PSSSA transfer might be made, (iv) all prior maintenance factor obligations have been fully
repaid, and (v) the minimum funding guarantee for the fiscal year in which a PSSSA transfer might be
made is higher than the immediately preceding fiscal year, as adjusted for ADA growth and cost of
living. Proposition 2 caps the size of the PSSSA at 10% of the estimated minimum guarantee in any
fiscal year, and any excess funds must be paid to K-14 school districts. Reductions to any required
transfer to the PSSSA, or draws on the PSSSA, are subject to the same budget emergency requirements
described above. However, Proposition 2 also mandates draws on the PSSSA in any fiscal year in which
the estimated minimum funding guarantee is less than the prior year’s funding level, as adjusted for ADA
growth and cost of living.
45
Future Initiatives
Article XIIIA, Article XIIIB, Article XIIIC and Article XIIID of the California Constitution and
Propositions 22, 26, 30, 39 and 98 were each adopted as measures that qualified for the ballot pursuant to
the State’s initiative process. From time to time other initiative measures could be adopted further
affecting District revenues or the District’s ability to expend revenues. The nature and impact of these
measures cannot be anticipated by the District.
THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Improvement District No. 1
Authorization and Establishment. The Board of Education of the District, at its meeting on
November 5, 1997, approved a Resolution of Intention to establish Improvement No. 1 and called a
public hearing on the matter. The Board of Supervisors of the County, at its meeting on November 17,
1997, approved the use of Chapter 2 of Part 10 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the California Education Code,
commencing with Section 15300 et seq. (the “SFID Act”), permitting the establishment of school
facilities improvement districts by all public school districts in the County. The Board of Supervisors of
Nevada County, at its meeting on November 12, 1997, approved the use of the SFID Act by all public
school districts in Nevada County. Following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted by the
District on December 10, 1997, Improvement No. 1 was established by the Board of Education of the
District pursuant to its Resolution No. 16-97/98, adopted on December 10, 1997.
Location and Territory. Improvement No. 1 encompasses the northern portion of the District in
Placer and Nevada Counties, and includes the Town of Truckee. Taxable property within Improvement
District No. 1 has a fiscal year 2014-15 assessed valuation of $9,453,224,105, which represents
approximately 54.4% pf the assessed valuation of the District. Improvement District No. 1, with 13,532
single family residential parcels.
Improvement District No. 2
Authorization and Establishment. The Board of Education of the District, at its meeting on
November 5, 1997, approved a Resolution of Intention to establish Improvement No. 2 and called a
public hearing on the matter. The Board of Supervisors of the County, at its meeting on November 17,
1997, approved the use of the SFID Act by all public school districts in the County. The Board of
Supervisors of El Dorado County, at its meeting on January 27, 1998, approved the use of the SFID Act
by all public school districts in El Dorado County. Following the conclusion of a public hearing
conducted by the District on January 26, 1998, Improvement No. 2 was established by the Board of
Education of the District pursuant to its Resolution No. 24-97/98, adopted on January 26, 1998.
Location and Territory. Improvement No. 2 encompasses the southern portion of the District in
Placer and El Dorado Counties. Taxable property within Improvement District No. 2 has a fiscal year
2014-15 assessed valuation of $7,913,461,597, which represents approximately 45.6% of the assessed
valuation of the District. Improvement District No. 2, with 11,036 single family residential parcels.
46
DISTRICT FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The information in this section concerning the State funding of public education is provided as
supplementary information only, and it should not be inferred from the inclusion of this information in
this Official Statement that the principal of or interest on the Bonds is payable from State revenues. The
Bonds are payable solely from the proceeds of an ad valorem tax which is required to be levied by the
Counties in an amount sufficient for the payment thereof.
State Funding of Education
School district revenues consist primarily of guaranteed State moneys, local property taxes and
funds received from the State in the form of categorical aid under ongoing programs of local assistance.
All State aid is subject to the appropriation of funds in the State’s annual budget.
Revenue Limit Funding. Previously, school districts operated under general purpose revenue
limits established by the State Department of Education. In general, revenue limits were calculated for
each school district by multiplying the ADA for such district by a base revenue limit per unit of ADA.
Revenue limit calculations were subject to adjustment in accordance with a number of factors designed to
provide cost of living adjustments (“COLAs”) and to equalize revenues among school districts of the
same type. Funding of a school district’s revenue limit was provided by a mix of local property taxes and
State apportionments of basic and equalization aid. Since fiscal year 2013-14, school districts have been
funded based on uniform funding grants assigned to certain grade spans. See “—Local Control Funding
Formula” herein. However, because the District is a “basic aid” school district, such apportionments are
less significant in determining the District’s primary funding sources. See “—Basic Aid” herein.
The following table reflects the District’s historical ADA and the revenue limit rates per unit of
ADA for fiscal years 2007-08 through 2012-13.
AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE AND REVENUE LIMIT
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Fiscal Years 2007-08 through 2012-13
Fiscal Year
Average Daily
Attendance(1)
Annual Change
in ADA
Base
Revenue
Limit Per ADA(2)
Basic Aid
Revenue Limit
Limit Per ADA
2007-08
3,845
-$5,860.23
$7,665.72
2008-09
3,855
10
5,737.99
8,346.22
2009-10
3,680
(175)
5,591.97
9,027.04
2010-11
3,605
(75)
5,566.38
8,650.65
2011-12
3,503
(102)
5,697.56
8,764.03
2012-13
3,513
10
5,649.45
9,432.30
________________________
(1)
Reflects ADA as of the second principal reporting period (P-2 ADA), ending on or before the last attendance month prior to
April 15 of each school year. Includes County operated programs, but excludes ADA from the District sponsored charter school.
An attendance month is each four-week period of instruction beginning with the first day of school for any school district.
(2)
Deficit revenue limit funding, when provided for in State budgetary legislation, reduced the revenue limit allocations received
by school districts by applying a deficit factor to the base revenue limit for the given fiscal year, and resulted from an
insufficiency of appropriation funds in the State budget to provide for State aid owed to school districts. The State’s practice of
deficit revenue limit funding was most recently reinstated beginning in fiscal year 2008-09 and discontinued following the
implementation of the LCFF (as defined herein). See also “—Basic Aid” herein.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
Local Control Funding Formula. State Assembly Bill 97 (Stats. 2013, Chapter 47) (“AB 97”),
enacted as part of the 2013-14 State budget, establishes a new system for funding school districts, charter
47
schools and county offices of education. Certain provisions of AB 97 were amended and clarified by
Senate Bill 91 (Stats. 2013, Chapter 49).
The primary component of AB 97, as amended by SB 91, is the implementation of the Local
Control Funding Formula (“LCFF”), which replaces the revenue limit funding system for determining
State apportionments, as well as the majority of categorical program funding. State allocations are
provided on the basis of target base funding grants per unit of ADA (a “Base Grant”) assigned to each of
four grade spans. Each Base Grant is subject to certain adjustments and add-ons, as discussed below.
Full implementation of the LCFF is expected to occur over a period of several fiscal years. Beginning in
fiscal year 2013-14, an annual transition adjustment is required to be calculated for each school district,
equal to such district’s proportionate share of appropriations included in the State budget to close the gap
between the prior-year funding level and the target allocation following full implementation of the LCFF.
In each year, school districts will have the same proportion of their respective funding gaps closed, with
dollar amounts varying depending on the size of a district’s funding gap.
The Base Grants per unit of ADA for each grade span are as follows: (i) $6,845 for grades K-3;
(ii) $6,947 for grades 4-6; (iii) $7,154 for grades 7-8; and (iv) $8,289 for grades 9-12. Beginning in fiscal
year 2013-14, and in each subsequent year, the Base Grants are to be adjusted for COLAs by applying the
implicit price deflator for government goods and services. Following full implementation of the LCFF,
the provision of COLAs will be subject to appropriation for such adjustment in the annual State budget.
The differences among Base Grants are linked to differentials in statewide average revenue limit rates by
district type, and are intended to recognize the generally higher costs of education at higher grade levels.
The Base Grants for grades K-3 and 9-12 are subject to adjustments of 10.4% and 2.6%,
respectively, to cover the costs of class size reduction in early grades and the provision of career technical
education in high schools. Following full implementation of the LCFF, and unless otherwise collectively
bargained for, school districts serving students in grades K-3 must maintain an average class enrollment
of 24 or fewer students in grades K-3 at each school site in order to continue receiving the adjustment to
the K-3 Base Grant. Such school districts must also make progress towards this class size reduction goal
in proportion to the growth in their funding over the implementation period. Additional add-ons are also
provided to school districts that received categorical block grant funding pursuant to the Targeted
Instructional Improvement and Home-to-School Transportation programs during fiscal year 2012-13.
School districts that serve students of limited English proficiency (“EL” students), students from
low income families that are eligible for free or reduced priced meals (“LI” students) and foster youth are
eligible to receive additional funding grants. Enrollment counts are unduplicated, such that students may
not be counted as both EL and LI (foster youth automatically meet the eligibility requirements for free or
reduced priced meals and are not discussed separately herein). A supplemental grant add-on (each, a
“Supplemental Grant”) is authorized for school districts that serve EL/LI students, equal to 20% of the
applicable Base Grant multiplied by such districts’ percentage of unduplicated EL/LI student enrollment.
School districts whose EL/LI populations exceed 55% of their total enrollment are eligible for a
concentration grant add-on (each, a “Concentration Grant”) equal to 50% of the applicable Base Grant
multiplied the percentage of such district’s unduplicated EL/LI student enrollment in excess of the 55%
threshold.
The following table shows a breakdown of the District’s ADA by grade span, total enrollment,
and the percentage of EL/LI student enrollment for fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14, and projected
figures for fiscal year 2014-15.
48
ADA, ENROLLMENT AND EL/LI ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGE
Fiscal Years 2012-13 and 2014-15
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Average Daily Attendance(1)
Fiscal
Year
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
K-3
1,240
1,288
1,266(3)
4-6
849
791
822(3)
7-8
518
486
484(3)
9-12
906
948
950(3)
Total
ADA
3,513
3,513
3,522(3)
Enrollment
% of
Total
EL/LI
Enrollment(2)
Enrollment(2)
3,756
n/a
3,740
47%
3,766
44
(1)
Except for fiscal year 2014-15, reflects ADA as of the second principal reporting period (P-2 ADA), ending on or before the
last attendance month prior to April 15 of each school year. Includes County operated programs, but excludes ADA from the
District sponsored charter school. An attendance month is each four-week period of instruction beginning with the first day of
school for any school district. ADA figures exclude enrollment from County operated programs.
(2)
Fiscal year 2012-13 enrollment as of October report submitted to the California Basic Educational Data System (“CBEDS”).
Fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15 reflect certified enrollment as of the fall census day (the first Wednesday in October), which is
reported to the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (“CALPADS”) in each school year and used to calculate
each school district’s unduplicated EL/LI student enrollment. Adjustments may be made by the California Department of
Education. Excludes Charter School Enrollment. For purposes of calculating Supplemental and Concentration Grants, a school
district’s fiscal year 2013-14 percentage of unduplicated EL/LI students will be expressed solely as a percentage of its total fiscal
year 2013-14 total enrollment. For fiscal year 2014-15, the percentage of unduplicated EL/LI enrollment will be based on the
two-year average of EL/LI enrollment in fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Beginning in fiscal year 2015-16, a school district’s
percentage of unduplicated EL/LI students will be based on a rolling average of such district’s EL/LI enrollment for the thencurrent fiscal year and the two immediately preceding fiscal years.
(3)
Projected.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
For certain school districts that would have received greater funding levels under the prior
revenue limit system, the LCFF provides for a permanent economic recovery target (“ERT”) add-on,
equal to the difference between the revenue limit allocations such districts would have received under the
prior system in fiscal year 2020-21, and the target LCFF allocations owed to such districts in the same
year. To derive the projected funding levels, the LCFF assumes the discontinuance of deficit revenue
limit funding, implementation of a 1.94% COLA in fiscal years 2014-15 through 2020-21, and restoration
of categorical funding to pre-recession levels. The ERT add-on will be paid incrementally over the eightyear implementing period of the LCFF. The District does not qualify for the ERT add-on.
The sum of a school district’s adjusted Base, Supplemental and Concentration Grants is
multiplied by such district’s P-2 ADA for the current or prior year, whichever is greater (with certain
adjustments applicable to small school districts such as the District). This funding amount, together with
any applicable ERT or categorical block grant add-ons, yields a district’s total LCFF allocation.
Generally, the amount of annual State apportionments received by a school district will amount to the
difference between such total LCFF allocation and such district’s share of applicable local property taxes.
Most school districts receive a significant portion of their funding from such State apportionments. As a
result, decreases in State revenues may significantly affect appropriations made by the Legislature to
school districts.
Basic Aid Districts. Certain schools districts, known as “Basic Aid” districts, have allocable
local property tax collections that equal or exceed such districts’ total LCFF allocation, and result in the
receipt of no State apportionment aid. Basic Aid school districts receive only special categorical funding,
which is deemed to satisfy the “basic aid” requirement of $120 per student per year guaranteed by Article
IX, Section 6 of the State Constitution. The implication for Basic Aid districts is that the legislatively
determined allocations to school districts, and other politically determined factors, are less significant in
determining their primary funding sources. Rather, property tax growth and the local economy are the
49
primary determinants. The District qualifies as a Basic Aid district for the 2014-15 fiscal year and
expects to remain a Basic Aid district after the LCFF is fully implemented. For fiscal year 2013-14, the
District’s local property tax receipts exceeded the District’s total LCFF allocation by $10,729,195 and the
District projects that local property tax receipts will exceed the District’s total LCFF allocation by
$9,414,559 in fiscal year 2014-15.
Accountability. The State Board of Education has promulgated regulations regarding the
expenditure of supplemental and concentration funding, including a requirement that school districts
increase or improve services for EL/LI students in proportion to the increase in funds apportioned to such
districts on the basis of the number and concentration of such EL/LI students, as well as the conditions
under which school districts can use supplemental or concentration funding on a school-wide or districtwide basis.
School districts are also required to adopt local control and accountability plans (“LCAPs”)
disclosing annual goals for all students, as well as certain numerically significant student subgroups, to be
achieved in eight areas of State priority identified by the LCFF. LCAPs may also specify additional local
priorities. LCAPs must specify the actions to be taken to achieve each goal, including actions to correct
identified deficiencies with regard to areas of State priority. LCAPs are required to be adopted every
three years, beginning in fiscal year 2014-15, and updated annually thereafter. The State Board of
Education has developed and adopted a template LCAP for use by school districts.
Support and Intervention. AB 97, as amended by SB 91, establishes a new system of support
and intervention to assist school districts meet the performance expectations outlined in their respective
LCAPs. School districts must adopt their LCAPs (or annual updates thereto) in tandem with their annual
operating budgets, and not later than five days thereafter submit such LCAPs or updates to their
respective county superintendents of schools. On or before August 15 of each year, a county
superintendent may seek clarification regarding the contents of a district’s LCAP or annual update
thereto, and the district is required to respond to such a request within 15 days. Within 15 days of
receiving such a response, the county superintendent can submit non-binding recommendations for
amending the LCAP or annual update, and such recommendations must be considered by the respective
school district at a public hearing within 15 days. A district’s LCAP or annual update must be approved
by the county superintendent by October 8 of each year if the superintendent determines that (i) the LCAP
or annual update adheres to the State template, and (ii) the district’s budgeted expenditures are sufficient
to implement the actions and strategies outlined in the LCAP.
A school district is required to receive additional support if its respective LCAP or annual update
thereto is not approved, if the district requests technical assistance from its respective county
superintendent, or if the district does not improve student achievement across more than one State priority
for one or more student subgroups. Such support can include a review of a district’s strengths and
weaknesses in the eight State priority areas, or the assignment of an academic expert to assist the district
identify and implement programs designed to improve outcomes. Assistance may be provided by the
California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, a state agency created by the LCFF and charged
with assisting school districts achieve the goals set forth in their LCAPs. On or before October 1, 2015,
the State Board of Education is required to develop rubrics to assess school district performance and the
need for support and intervention.
50
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction (the “State Superintendent”) is further authorized,
with the approval of the State Board of Education, to intervene in the management of persistently
underperforming school districts. The State Superintendent may intervene directly or assign an academic
trustee to act on his or her behalf. In so doing, the State Superintendent is authorized to (i) modify a
district’s LCAP, (ii) impose budget revisions designed to improve student outcomes, and (iii) stay or
rescind actions of the local governing board that would prevent such district from improving student
outcomes; provided, however, that the State Superintendent is not authorized to rescind an action required
by a local collective bargaining agreement.
Other State Sources. In addition to State allocations determined pursuant to the LCFF, the
District receives other State revenues consisting primarily of restricted revenues designed to implement
State mandated programs. Beginning in fiscal year 2013-14, categorical spending restrictions associated
with a majority of State mandated programs were eliminated, and funding for these programs was folded
into the LCFF. Categorical funding for certain programs was excluded from the LCFF, and school
districts will continue to receive restricted State revenues to fund these programs.
Other Revenue Sources
Federal and Local Sources. The federal government provides funding for several of the
District’s programs, including special education programs, programs under the No Child Left Behind Act,
and specialized programs such as Drug Free Schools, Innovative Strategies, and Vocational & Applied
Technology. In addition, the District receives additional local revenues beyond local property tax
collections, such as leases and rentals, interest earnings, interagency services, developer fees (as discussed
below), parcel taxes (as discussed below) and other local sources.
Redevelopment Revenue. The District previously received revenue from the Counties as a part
of certain redevelopment projects within the Counties (the “Community Redevelopment Revenues”). The
Community Redevelopment Revenues received are deposited directly into the unrestricted general fund of
the District, and since the District is a Basic Aid district, such revenues do not offset the State
apportionment received by the District. The District also receives pass-through tax increment revenue
(the “Pass Through Revenues”) from the redevelopment agencies within the District’s boundaries. The
Pass Through Revenues received by the District are deposited into the restricted general fund of the
District and do not offset the State apportionment received by the District. The amount of Community
Redevelopment Revenues and Pass-Through Revenues received by the District from fiscal years 2012-13
through 2014-15 are shown in the following table.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AND PASS-THROUGH REVENUES
Fiscal Years 2012-13 through 2014-15
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Fiscal
Year
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15(1)
Community
Redevelopment
Revenues
$1,257,498
447,238
398,392
____________________
(1)
Projected.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
51
Pass-Through
Revenues
$311,048
278,335
275,259
State Dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies
On December 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of California
Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (“Matosantos”), finding ABx1 26, a trailer bill to the 2011-12
State budget, to be constitutional. As a result, all Redevelopment Agencies in California ceased to exist
as a matter of law on February 1, 2012. The Court in Matosantos also found that ABx1 27, a companion
bill to ABx1 26, violated the California Constitution, as amended by Proposition 22. See
“CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFFECTING DISTRICT REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS – Proposition 1A and Proposition 22” herein. ABx1 27 would have permitted
redevelopment agencies to continue operations provided their establishing cities or counties agreed to
make specified payments to K-14 school districts and county offices of education, totaling $1.7 billion
statewide.
ABx1 26 was modified by Assembly Bill No. 1484 (Chapter 26, Statutes of 2011-12) (“AB
1484”), which, together with ABx1 26, is referred to herein as the “Dissolution Act.” The Dissolution
Act provides that all rights, powers, duties and obligations of a redevelopment agency under the
California Community Redevelopment Law that have not been repealed, restricted or revised pursuant to
ABx1 26 will be vested in a successor agency, generally the county or city that authorized the creation of
the redevelopment agency (each, a “Successor Agency”). All property tax revenues that would have been
allocated to a redevelopment agency, less the corresponding county auditor-controller’s cost to administer
the allocation of property tax revenues, are now allocated to a corresponding Redevelopment Property
Tax Trust Fund (“Trust Fund”), to be used for the payment of pass-through payments to local taxing
entities, and thereafter to bonds of the former redevelopment agency and any “enforceable obligations” of
the Successor Agency, as well as to pay certain administrative costs. The Dissolution Act defines
“enforceable obligations” to include bonds, loans, legally required payments, judgments or settlements,
legal binding and enforceable obligations, and certain other obligations.
Among the various types of enforceable obligations, the first priority for payment is tax allocation
bonds issued by the former redevelopment agency; second is revenue bonds, which may have been issued
by the host city, but only where the tax increment revenues were pledged for repayment and only where
other pledged revenues are insufficient to make scheduled debt service payments; third is administrative
costs of the Successor Agency, equal to at least $250,000 in any year, unless the oversight board reduces
such amount for any fiscal year or a lesser amount is agreed to by the Successor Agency; then, fourth tax
revenues in the Trust Fund in excess of such amounts, if any, will be allocated as residual distributions to
local taxing entities in the same proportions as other tax revenues. Moreover, all unencumbered cash and
other assets of former redevelopment agencies will also be allocated to local taxing entities in the same
proportions as tax revenues. Notwithstanding the foregoing portion of this paragraph, the order of
payment is subject to modification in the event a Successor Agency timely reports to the Controller and
the Department of Finance that application of the foregoing will leave the Successor Agency with
amounts insufficient to make scheduled payments on enforceable obligations. If the county auditorcontroller verifies that the Successor Agency will have insufficient amounts to make scheduled payments
on enforceable obligations, it shall report its findings to the Controller. If the Controller agrees there are
insufficient funds to pay scheduled payments on enforceable obligations, the amount of such deficiency
shall be deducted from the amount remaining to be distributed to taxing agencies, as described as the
fourth distribution above, then from amounts available to the Successor Agency to defray administrative
costs. In addition, if a taxing agency entered into an agreement pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33401 for payments from a redevelopment agency under which the payments were to be
subordinated to certain obligations of the redevelopment agency, such subordination provisions shall
continue to be given effect.
52
As noted above, the Dissolution Act expressly provides for continuation of pass-through
payments to local taxing entities. Per statute, 100% of contractual and statutory two percent passthroughs, and 56.7% of statutory pass-throughs authorized under the Community Redevelopment Law
Reform Act of 1993 (AB 1290, Chapter 942, Statutes of 1993) (“AB 1290”), are restricted to educational
facilities without offset against revenue limit apportionments by the State. Only 43.3% of AB 1290 passthroughs are offset against State aid so long as the affected local taxing entity uses the moneys received
for land acquisition, facility construction, reconstruction, or remodeling, or deferred maintenance as
provided under Education Code Section 42238(h).
ABX1 26 states that in the future, pass-throughs shall be made in the amount “which would have
been received . . . had the redevelopment agency existed at that time,” and that the county auditorcontroller shall “determine the amount of property taxes that would have been allocated to each
redevelopment agency had the redevelopment agency not been dissolved using current assessed values . .
. and pursuant to statutory formulas and contractual agreements with other taxing agencies.”
Successor Agencies continue to operate until all enforceable obligations have been satisfied and
all remaining assets of the Successor Agency have been disposed of. AB 1484 provides that once the
debt of the Successor Agency is paid off and remaining assets have been disposed of, the Successor
Agency shall terminate its existence and all pass-through payment obligations shall cease.
The District can make no representations as to the extent to which its base apportionments from
the State may be offset by the future receipt of residual distributions or from unencumbered cash and
assets of former redevelopment agencies or any other surplus property tax revenues pursuant to the
Dissolution Act.
Developer Fees. The District maintains a fund, separate and apart from the general fund, to
account for developer fees collected by the District. The table below sets forth the developer fees
collected by the District during the last four fiscal years and a projection for the current fiscal year.
ANNUAL DEVELOPER FEE COLLECTION
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Fiscal Years 2010-11 through 2014-15
Developer
Fees for the District
Fiscal Year
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15(1)
$1,215,254
1,382,452
1,752,266
2,190,592
2,200,000
(1)
Projected.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
Parcel Tax. The voters of the District have approved a parcel tax for the purpose of raising funds
to augment the District’s operating budget. Parcel taxes are “special taxes” for purposes of the State
Constitution, as and such must be approved by at least two-thirds of the voters voting on the relevant
proposition. On March 8, 2011, the voters approved Measure A, an extension of an existing parcel tax
previously approved by the District’s voters. Measure A extends the existing parcel tax for additional
seven years, at the rate of $135 per parcel. As extended, Measure A provides an exemption for property
owners who are 65 years or older. Revenues from Measure A were $5,038,843 in fiscal year 2013-14
which represented about 10.3% of general fund revenues in fiscal year 2013-14. Revenues from Measure
53
A are projected to be $5,153,420 in fiscal year 2014-15, which would represent about 10.4% of general
fund revenues in fiscal year 2014-15.
Foundation. The District is supported by the Tahoe Truckee Excellence in Education
Foundation (the “Foundation”). The Foundation was incorporated in 1986 and is dedicated to enhancing
the educational opportunities of the children of the District. The following table lists the annual
contribution of the Foundation transferred to the District and awarded for specific purposes.
FOUNDATION CONTRIBUTIONS
Tahoe-Truckee Unfired School District
Fiscal Years 2009-10 through 2014-15
Fiscal Year
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15(1)
Donations
$228,984
166,527
131,340
154,965
304,133
135,349
________________________
(1)
Projected.
Source: The District.
Accounting Practices
The accounting policies of the District conform to generally accepted accounting principles in
accordance with policies and procedures of the California School Accounting Manual. This manual,
according to Section 41010 of the California Education Code, is to be followed by all California school
districts. Revenues are recognized in the period in which they become both measurable and available to
finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. Expenditures are recognized in the period in which the
liability is incurred.
Budget Process
State Budgeting Requirements. The District is required by provisions of the State Education
Code to maintain a balanced budget each year, in which the sum of expenditures and the ending fund
balance cannot exceed the sum of revenues and the carry-over fund balance from the previous year. The
State Department of Education imposes a uniform budgeting and accounting format for school districts.
The budget process for school districts was substantially amended by A.B. 1200, which became law on
October 14, 1991. Portions of A.B. 1200 are summarized below.
School districts must adopt a budget on or before July 1 of each year. The budget must be
submitted to the county superintendent within five days of adoption or by July 1, whichever occurs first.
A district may be on either a dual or single budget cycle. The dual budget option requires a revised and
readopted budget by September 15 that is subject to State-mandated standards and criteria. The revised
budget must reflect changes in projected income and expenses subsequent to July 1. The single budget is
only readopted if it is disapproved by the county office of education, or as needed. The District is on a
single budget cycle and adopts its budget on or before July 1.
For both dual and single budgets submitted on July 1, the county superintendent will examine the
adopted budget for compliance with the standards and criteria adopted by the State Board of Trustees and
identify technical corrections necessary to bring the budget into compliance, will determine if the budget
54
allows the district to meet its current obligations and will determine if the budget is consistent with a
financial plan that will enable the district to meet its multi-year financial commitments. On or before
August 15, the county superintendent will approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the adopted
budget for each school district. Budgets will be disapproved if they fail the above standards. The district
board must be notified by August 15 of the county superintendent’s recommendations for revision and
reasons for the recommendations. The county superintendent may assign a fiscal advisor or appoint a
committee to examine and comment on the superintendent’s recommendations. The committee must
report its findings no later than August 20. Any recommendations made by the county superintendent
must be made available by the district for public inspection. No later than August 20, the county
superintendent must notify the Superintendent of Public Instruction of all school districts whose budget
has been disapproved.
For all dual budget options and for single budget option districts whose budgets have been
disapproved, the district must revise and readopt its budget by September 15, reflecting changes in
projected income and expense since July 1, including responding to the county superintendent’s
recommendations. The county superintendent must determine if the budget conforms with the standards
and criteria applicable to final district budgets and not later than October 8 will approve or disapprove the
revised budgets. If the budget is disapproved, the county superintendent will call for the formation of a
budget review committee pursuant to Education Code Section 42127.1. Until a district’s budget is
approved, the district will operate on the lesser of its proposed budget for the current fiscal year or the last
budget adopted and reviewed for the prior fiscal year.
Interim Financial Reporting. Under the provisions of AB 1200, each school district is required
to file interim certifications with the county office of education as to its ability to meet its financial
obligations for the remainder of the then-current fiscal year and, based on current forecasts, for the
subsequent two fiscal years. The county office of education reviews the certification and issues either a
positive, negative or qualified certification. A positive certification is assigned to any school district that
will meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year and subsequent two fiscal years. A negative
certification is assigned to any school district that will be unable to meet its financial obligations for the
remainder of the current fiscal year or the subsequent fiscal year. A qualified certification is assigned to
any school district that may not meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year or subsequent two
fiscal years.
The District has never had an adopted budget disapproved by the County superintendent of
schools, and has never submitted nor received a “qualified” or “negative” certification of an Interim
Financial Report pursuant to AB 1200.
2014-15 Budget Projections. The District currently projects that it will meet the minimum
general fund reserve requirement in fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16, maintaining unrestricted general
fund reserves of approximately 11.51%, and 10.35%, respectively for such years. The District currently
projects an operating deficit in fiscal year 2014-15 of approximately $2.25 million in the unrestricted
general fund. The District currently projects an operating deficit in 2015-16 of approximately $745,661
in the unrestricted general fund.
General Fund Budgeting. The table on the following page summarizes the District’s adopted
general fund budgets for fiscal years 2011-12 through 2014-15, audited ending results for fiscal years
2011-12 through 2013-14, and projected ending results for fiscal year 2014-15.
55
GENERAL FUND BUDGETING
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Fiscal Years 2011-12 through 2014-15
Fiscal Year
2011-12
REVENUES
LCFF/Revenue Limit Sources(4)
Federal Sources
Other State Sources
Other Local Sources
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
Certificated Salaries
Classified Salaries
Employee Benefits
Books & Supplies
Services & Other Operating Expenses
Capital Outlay
Other Outgo
Debt Service:
Principal retirement
Interest
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES)
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING
SOURCES/(USES)
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND
BALANCE
Fund Balance, July 1
Fund Balance, June 30
Fiscal Year
2012-13
Fiscal Year
2013-14
Fiscal Year
2014-15
Budgeted(1)
$28,211,296
2,173,452
4,835,145
6,566,271
41,786,164
Audited(1)
$31,146,981
2,331,439
3,002,903
7,078,632
43,559,955
Budgeted(1)
$27,473,560
3,481,694
5,091,878
8,399,937
44,447,069
Audited(1)
$34,051,636
1,771,880
2,934,709
8,538,602
47,296,827
Budgeted(1)
$33,431,911
2,875,787
3,746,605
8,410,152
48,464,455
Audited(1)
$35,598,792
1,720,856
2,137,044
9,484,247
48,940,939
Budgeted(3)
$36,749,701
2,177,081
1,208,879
8,344,169
48,479,830
Projected(3)
$36,955,365
2,309,609
1,470,126
8,840,642
49,575,742
20,102,354
7,804,571
9,054,323
2,220,099
3,897,337
269,843
14,330
19,698,009
7,606,386
9,506,411
2,546,723
3,761,628
360,006
2,638
19,736,444
7,513,596
8,736,453
2,941,461
5,276,402
2,455,813
151,817
19,992,463
7,467,227
8,952,791
2,782,789
4,963,727
666,000
4,951
21,560,679
7,982,679
8,901,102
3,604,212
4,068,498
2,915,072
14,300
22,190,842
8,746,807
9,097,269
2,731,303
4,110,847
640,192
--
23,645,970
8,833,922
9,767,308
3,488,919
4,337,529
751,827
952,849(5)
24,065,199
8,826,630
9,646,028
3,651,641
4,644,235
909,645
952,690(5)
179,000
31,800
43,573,657
186,443
24,311
43,692,555
178,980
36,830
47,027,796
194,218
16,536
45,040,702
194,218
16,536
49,257,296
550,314
16,536
48,084,110
--51,778,324
--52,696,068
(3,298,494)
(3,120,325)
(1,787,493)
(132,600)
(2,580,727)
2,256,125
(792,841)
856,829
66,163
(206,990)
71,498
(406,527)
73,237
(446,651)
65,115
(329,406)
-(390,336)
71,642
(197,408)
-(372,780)
-(377,882)
(140,827)
(335,029)
(373,414)
(264,291)
(390,336)
(125,766)
(372,780)
(377,882)
(1,928,320)
(467,629)
(2,954,141)
1,991,834
(1,183,177)
(3,671,274)
(3,498,207)
11,861,486
11,861,486
13,853,320
13,853,320
13,707,659(6)
14,584,383
$8,907,345
$13,853,320
$12,670,143
$14,584,383
12,329,115
$10,400,795
12,329,115
$11,861,486
(2)
(1)
731,063
$10,036,385
$11,086,176
From the District’s Comprehensive Audited Financial Statements for fiscal years 2011-12 through 2013-14, respectively.
Audited ending balance does not reflect the inclusion of Associated Study Body trust funds, which for budgeting purposes the District has included in its general fund for fiscal year 2012-13.
(3)
From the District’s First Interim Financial Report for fiscal year 2014-15, approved by the Board on December 10, 2014.
(4)
Prior to the Fiscal Year 2013-14 First Interim Financial Report, this category was coded as “Revenue Limit.” From the Fiscal Year 2013-14 First Interim Financial Report through the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Second Interim
Financial Report, this category was coded as “LCFF/Revenue Limit Sources.” Beginning with the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Adopted Budget, the category is coded as “LCFF.”
(5)
The categories “Other Outgo (excluding Transfers of Indirect Costs)” and “Other Outgo- Transfers of Indirect Costs” have been combined for comparison purposes.
(6)
Reflects the estimated beginning fund balance as of the date of the original budget adopted by the Board on June 18, 2014.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
(2)
56
Comparative Financial Statements
The District’s general fund finances the legally authorized activities of the District for which
restricted funds are not provided. General fund revenues are derived from such sources as State school
fund apportionments, taxes, use of money and property, and aid from other governmental agencies.
Certain information from the financial statements follows. The District’s audited financial statements for
the year ended June 30, 2014 are included for reference in APPENDIX C hereto. The following table
reflects the District’s audited general fund revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance for fiscal
years 2009-10 through 2013-14.
AUDITED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES – GENERAL FUND
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Fiscal Years 2009-10 through 2013-14
Fiscal
Year
2009-10
REVENUES
Revenue Limit/LCFF Sources:
State apportionment
Local sources
Total Revenue Limit/LCFF
Federal Revenue
Other State Revenue
Other Local Revenue
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES:
Certificated Salaries
Classified Salaries
Employee Benefits
Books & Supplies
Services & Operating Expenses
Capital Outlay
Other Outgo
Debt Service:
Principal retirement
Interest
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
(USES)
EXCESS OF REVENUES AND OTHER
FINANCING SOURCES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND
OTHER USED
FUND BALANCE, JULY 1
FUND BALANCE, JUNE 30
Fiscal
Year
2010-11
Fiscal
Year
2011-12
Fiscal
Year
2012-13
Fiscal
Year
2013-14
$(37,523)
33,726,173
33,688,650
2,360,712
4,542,571
7,273,492
47,865,425
$(24,111)
31,676,081
31,651,970
2,300,745
3,660,030
7,255,916
44,868,661
$(14,045)
31,161,026
31,146,981
2,331,439
3,002,903
7,078,632
43,559,955
$697,962
33,353,674
34,051,636
1,771,880
2,934,709
8,538,602
47,296,827
$2,609,064
32,989,728
35,598,792
1,720,856
2,137,044
9,484,247
48,940,939
20,605,172
7,434,861
8,057,746
2,195,835
4,037,004
275,417
14,247
20,469,586
8,010,210
8,736,214
2,655,345
4,031,233
287,695
1,154
19,698,009
7,606,386
9,506,411
2,546,723
3,761,628
360,006
2,638
19,992,463
7,467,227
8,952,791
2,782,789
4,963,727
666,000
4,951
22,190,842
8,746,807
9,097,269
2,731,303
4,110,847
640,192
--
214,277
40,824
42,875,383
178,980
31,774
44,402,191
186,443
24,311
43,692,555
194,218
16,536
45,040,702
550,314
16,536
48,084,110
4,990,042
466,470
(132,600)
2,256,125
856,829
60,802
(227,360)
(166,558)
71,498
(406,527)
(335,029)
4,836,957
299,912
(467,629)
7,192,246
$12,029,203
12,029,203
$12,329,115
57,066
(210,151)
(153,085)
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
57
12,329,115
$11,861,486
65,115
(329,406)
(264,291)
71,642
(197,408)
(125,766)
1,991,834
731,063
11,861,486
$13,853,320
13,853,320
$14,584,383
State Budget Measures
The following information concerning the State’s budgets has been obtained from publicly
available information which the District believes to be reliable; however, the District does not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of this information and has not independently verified such information.
Furthermore, it should not be inferred from the inclusion of this information herein that the principal of
or interest on the Bonds is payable from the general fund of the District. The Bonds are payable solely
from the proceeds of an ad valorem property tax required to be levied by the Counties in an amount
sufficient for the payment thereof.
2014-15 Budget. On June 20, 2014, the Governor signed into law the State budget for fiscal year
2014-15 (the “2014-15 Budget”). The following information is drawn from the State Department of
Finance’s summary of the 2014-15 Budget and the LAO report entitled “The 2014-15 Budget: California
Spending Plan,” and certain other sources relating to Proposition 2 (defined herein).
The 2014-15 Budget is based on revenue projections previously included in the Governor’s May
revision to the proposed budget for fiscal year 2014-15. For fiscal year 2013-14, the 2014-15 Budget
projects total State general fund revenues of $102.2 billion, and total State general fund expenditures of
$100.7 billion. The 2014-15 Budget projects that the State will end the 2013-14 fiscal year with a $2.9
billion general fund surplus. For fiscal year 2014-15, the 2014-15 Budget projects total State general fund
revenues of $109.5 billion and total State general fund expenditures of $108 billion, leaving the State with
a projected general fund surplus for fiscal year 2014-15 of approximately $2.1 billion. This projected
reserve is a combination of $449 million in the State’s general fund traditional reserve, and an authorized
deposit of $1.6 billion into the Budget Stabilization Account (the “BSA”) established by the California
Balanced Budget Act of 2004 (also known as Proposition 58).
As part of implementing certain provisions of the 2014-15 Budget, a legislatively-referred
constitutional amendment (Proposition 2) was placed on the ballot, and ultimately approved by the voters
at the November 4, 2014 statewide election. Among other things, Proposition 2 will create a reserve
account that is expected to smooth spikes in education funding. See also “CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFFECTING DISTRICT REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS –
Proposition 2” herein.
As a result of changes in State general fund revenues, local property tax collections and changes
in student attendance, the 2014-15 Budget includes revised estimates to the minimum funding guarantees
for fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The 2012-13 minimum guarantee is revised upward to $57.8
billion, an increase of $1.3 billion over the estimate included in the 2013-14 State budget. For fiscal year
2013-14, the 2014-15 Budget revises the minimum guarantee at $58.3 billion, approximately $3 billion
higher than that included in the 2013-14 State budget.
The 2014-15 Budget sets the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee for fiscal year 2014-15
at $60.9 billion, including $44.5 billion of support from the State general fund. This represents an
increase of $2.6 billion over the estimates included in the Governor’s May revision. The 2014-15 Budget
also authorizes certain payments to reduce the State’s outstanding maintenance factor, including $5.2
billion allocable to fiscal year 2012-13 and $2.6 billion allocable to fiscal year 2014-15. The State is
expected to end fiscal year 2014-15 with an outstanding maintenance factor of approximately $4 billion.
Significant features of the 2014-15 Budget related to the funding of K-12 education include the
following:
58
•
State Pensions – The 2014-15 Budget includes a plan to reduce the $74.4 billion unfunded
STRS liability in approximately 30 years by increasing contribution rates among the State,
K-14 school districts, and participating employees. For fiscal year 2014-15, these increases
are expected to result in $276 million of additional contributions from all three entities. The
plan also provides the STRS Board (as defined herein) with limited authority to (i) increase
State and K-14 school district contributions based on changing conditions, and (ii) reduce K14 school district contributions if they are no longer necessary. For additional information,
see “TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – District Retirement Systems”
herein.
•
Local Control Funding Formula – An increase of $4.7 billion in Proposition 98 funding to
continue the transition to the LCFF. This includes a 0.85% COLA to prior-year Base Grants,
and results in per-pupil funding that is 12% higher than the prior-year. This increase is
projected to close the remaining funding implementation gap between prior year funding
levels and the LCFF target levels by approximately 29%. As a result, the adjusted 2014-15
Base Grants are as follows: (i) $7,011 for grades K-3, (ii) $7,116 for grades 4-6, (iii) $7,328
for grades 7-8, and (iv) $8,491 for grades 9-12. The LAO estimates that the 2014-15 funding
levels are approximately 80% of the full implementation cost. The 2014-15 Budget also
provides $26 million towards implementing the LCFF for county offices of education,
sufficient to fully fund their LCFF funding target in fiscal year 2014-15. See also
“DISTRICT FINANCIAL INFORMATION – State Funding of Education – Local Control
Funding Formula” herein.
•
School Reserves – Senate Bill 858 (Stats. 2014, Chapter 32) (“SB 858”), trailer legislation to
the 2014-15 Budget, creates new disclosure requirements effective beginning fiscal year
2015-16 for school districts that have general fund reserves in excess of the State minimum.
Existing minimum reserve levels vary between one to five percent of general fund
expenditures, depending on the size of the district, and generally require higher reserves for
smaller school districts. SB 858 would require school districts to identify amounts in excess
of their required reserves and explain the need for higher levels. This information must be
disclosed at a public meeting and in each budget submitted to a county office of education.
The LAO indicates that available data shows that virtually all school districts maintain excess
reserves. As a result of the passage of Proposition 2 (defined herein), certain additional
provisions of SB 858 have gone into effect that will cap school district reserve levels.
Reserves will be capped in any fiscal year following a State deposit into the PSSSA created
by Proposition 2. See also “CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
AFFECTING DISTRICT REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS – Proposition 2” herein.
Caps for most school districts will range between three to ten percent of annual general fund
expenditures. SB 858 permits a county office of education to grant an exemption from the
reserve cap for up to two years if a school district demonstrates that it would face
extraordinary fiscal circumstances justifying a higher reserve.
•
Categorical Programs – The 2014-15 Budget provides $33 million to fund a 0.85% COLA
for select K-12 categorical programs, including foster youth services, American Indian
American Indian Childhood Education, special education and child nutrition.
•
K-12 Deferrals – The 2014-15 Budget provides $5.2 billion to reduce outstanding
apportionment deferrals, including $4.7 billion for school districts. Under the budget plan,
$992 million in deferrals, including $897 million for school districts, are expected to remain
outstanding at the end of fiscal year 2014-15. The 2014-15 Budget also provides for a trigger
mechanism whereby potentially all outstanding deferrals would be repaid if the Proposition
98 minimum guarantee increases as a result of additional funding sources. Effectively, the
59
2014-15 Budget earmarks the first $992 million of additional State spending allocable to
fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the pay down of deferrals.
•
Student Assessments – The 2014-15 Budget provides $54 million to continue the
implementation of new student assessments.
•
Independent Study – The 2014-15 Budget streamlines the existing independent study
program, reducing administrative burdens and freeing up time for teachers to spend on
student instruction and support, while making it easier for schools to offer and expand
instructional opportunities available to students through non-classroom based instruction.
•
K-12 Mandates – The 2014-15 Budget provides $400 million, including $287 million of
Proposition 98 funding and $113 million from unspent prior-year funds, to reduce a backlog
of unpaid reimbursement claims to school districts for the cost of State-mandated programs.
Funds will be distributed to school districts on a per-student basis. The 2014-15 Budget also
adds six new K-12 reimbursable mandates to the existing block grant program. The 2014-15
Budget does not increase funding for the block grant program as the added costs are expected
to be minimal.
•
Proposition 39 – Passed by voters in November 2012, Proposition 39 increases State
corporate tax revenues and requires a five-year period, starting in fiscal year 2013-14, that a
portion of these additional revenues be used to improve energy efficiency and expand the use
of alternative energy in public buildings. The 2014-15 Budget provides $279 million of
Proposition 98 funding for qualifying school district energy programs and $28 million for a
revolving loan program for K-14 school districts.
•
Quality Education Investment Act – The 2014-15 Budget authorizes a final payment of $410
million to retire the State’s obligation under the Quality Education Investment Act (Stats.
2006, Chapter 751), which required the State to provide additional annual school district and
community college district funding payments. Of this amount, $316 million is for continued
funding of the QEIA program (including $268 million for school districts) and $94 million is
to pay down a separate State obligation related to school facility repairs.
•
Emergency Repair Program – $189 million of funding towards the Emergency Repair
Program (“ERP”), which was created in 2004 to fund critical repair projects at certain lowperforming schools. Funds will be allocated to school districts that have unfunded claims for
emergency repairs from the most recent ERP award cycle, which occurred in 2008.
•
School Infrastructure – The 2014-15 Budget shifts existing bonding authority under the
Career Technical Education ($4.1 million) and High Performance Initiative ($32.9 million)
school facility programs to the New Construction and Modernization facility programs.
Bonding authority will be split equally between new construction and modernization.
•
K-12 High- Speed Internet Access – An increase of $27 million in one-time Proposition 98
funding for the K-12 High Speed Network to provide technical assistance and grants to K-12
local educational agencies required to successfully implement Common Core. These funds
will be targeted to those K-12 local educational agencies most in need of help with securing
internet connectivity and infrastructure required to implement the new computer adaptive
tests under Common Core.
•
Career Technical Education Pathways Program – An increase of $250 million in one-time
Proposition 98 funding to support competitive grants for participating K-12 local educational
agencies. The Career Pathways Trust Program provides grant awards to improve career
technical programs and linkages between employers, schools, and community colleges.
60
For additional information regarding the State’s budgets and revenue projections and a more
detailed description of the 2014-15 Budget, see the State Department of Finance website at
www.dof.ca.gov and the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. However, the information presented on such
websites is not incorporated herein by reference.
Governor’s Proposed 2015-16 Budget. On January 9, 2015, the Governor released his proposed
State budget for fiscal year 2015-16 (the “Proposed Budget”). The following information is taken from
the LAO’s overview of the Proposed Budget, dated January 13, 2015.
The Proposed Budget assumes, for fiscal year 2014-15, total general fund revenues and transfers
of $108 billion and authorizes total expenditures of $111.7 billion. The State is projected to end the
2014-15 fiscal year with a general fund surplus of $2.1 billion, comprised of a balance of $452 million in
the State’s traditional budget reserve and balance of $1.6 billion in the BSA. For fiscal year 2015-16, the
Proposed Budget assumes total general fund revenues of $113.4 billion and authorizes expenditures of
$113.3 billion. The State is projected to end the 2015-16 fiscal year with a $3.4 billion general fund
surplus, comprised of a $534 million balance in the budget reserve and $2.8 billion in the BSA. The
balance in the BSA includes a $1.2 billion deposit mandated by the provisions of Proposition 2. See
“CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AFFECTING DISTRICT REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS – Proposition 2” herein. This $1.2 billion deposit to the BSA reflects half of the
total Annual BSA Transfer and Supplemental BSA Transfer required by Proposition 2, and the Proposed
Budget allocates the other $1.2 billion towards paying down special fund loans and certain Proposition 98
“settle up” obligations created by previous budgetary legislation that understated the minimum funding
guarantee. Under the Proposed Budget, outstanding Proposition 98 settle up obligations at the end of
fiscal year 2015-16 total $1.3 billion.
As a result of projected increases to State general fund revenues, as well as certain revisions to
student attendance, the Proposed Budget includes revised estimates of the minimum funding guarantees
for fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The 2013-14 minimum funding guarantee is revised upward to
$58.7 billion, an increase of $371 million from the estimate included in the 2014-15 Budget. For fiscal
year 2014-15, the minimum funding guarantee is revised at $63.2 billion, approximately $2.3 billion
higher than that included in the 2014-15 Budget.
For fiscal year 2015-16, the Proposed Budget sets the minimum funding guarantee at $65.7
billion, including $47 billion from the State general fund, and reflects an increase of $2.6 billion (or 4%)
from the revised level for fiscal year 2014-15. Despite the increase in the minimum guarantee, the State
general fund share is only $371 million. A projected growth in available local property tax collections
accounts for the balance, and results primarily from the Governor’s assumption that the “triple flip”
legislation, which diverts local property tax revenues from school districts and community colleges to
local governments, will sunset. For purposes of Proposition 98, fiscal year 2015-16 is a “Test 2” year,
and changes in the minimum guarantee are driven primarily by an increase in per-capita personal income.
Under the Proposed Budget, total per-student Proposition 98 funding increases to $9,571, an increase of
$640 (or 7.2%) from the prior year.
Significant features of the Proposed Budget with respect to K-12 education include the following:
•
Maintenance Factor – The Proposed Budget authorizes a maintenance factor payment of
$725 million owed to school districts and community college districts, leaving an outstanding
maintenance factor of $1.9 billion.
•
Local Control Funding Formula – An additional $4 billion to school districts and charter
schools to continue the implementation of the LCFF, reflecting a year-to-year increase of 9%.
61
This amount is estimated to close approximately 32% of the remaining funding gap between
fiscal year 2014-15 funding levels and the LCFF target rates. Under the Proposed Budget,
the LAO estimates that the LCFF target rates will be approximately 85% funded. The
Proposed Budget also provides $109,000 of Proposition 98 funds to support a cost of living
adjustment for county offices of education at their target LCFF funding levels.
•
Apportionment Deferrals –$897 million to eliminate all outstanding K-12 apportionment
deferrals.
•
Categorical Programs – An increase of $71 million to support a 1.58% COLA for selected
categorical programs outside of the LCFF.
•
Adult Education – $500 million in ongoing funding for adult education. This proposal would
build on prior budgetary legislation which mandated the establishment of regional adult
education consortia composed of school districts, community college districts and certain
other stakeholders to for delivery of adult education services. Under the Governor’s
proposal, the ongoing funding would support programs in elementary and secondary basic
skills, citizenship and English as a second language for immigrants, educational programs for
disabled adults, short-term career technical education (CTE) and apprenticeship programs.
For fiscal year 2015-16 only, these funds would replace, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, LCFF
funds currently allocated to school district-run adult education programs in these five areas.
•
Career Technical Education – $250 million in funding in each of the next three fiscal years to
fund a competitive grant initiative the supports K-12 CTE programs that lead to industryrecognized credentials or postsecondary training.
Participating school districts, county
offices of education and charter schools would be required to match grant contributions
dollar-for-dollar, collect accountability data and commit to providing ongoing support to CTE
programs after the expiration of grant funding. Applicants would also be expected to partner
with local postsecondary institutions, labor organizations and businesses in applying for the
grant funds. The Proposed Budget also includes $48 million to extend the Career Technical
Education Pathways Grant Program, created as part of the 2013-14 State budgetary
legislation. The primary purpose of the program is to improve linkages between CTE
programs and schools and community colleges, as well as between K-14 education and local
businesses. The California Department of Education and the California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office jointly administer the program and allocate funding through an
interagency agreement.
•
Technology Infrastructure – $100 million in one-time funding to support additional
broadband infrastructure improvement grants, and builds on prior funding provided in the
2014-15 Budget for such grants.
•
Emergency Repair Program – $273 million in one-time funding for the State ERP. See also
“—2014-15 Budget” herein. This additional payment is expected to fully retire the State’s
ERP obligation.
•
Education Mandates –$1.1 billion to reduce a backlog of unpaid reimbursement claims to
school districts for the cost of State-mandated programs. Funds will be distributed to school
districts on a per-student basis.
62
For additional information regarding the Proposed Budget, see the DOF’s website at
www.dof.ca.gov and the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. However, the information presented on such
website is not incorporated herein by reference.
Future Budgets and Actions. The District cannot predict what actions will be taken in the future
by the State legislature and the Governor to address the changing State revenues and expenditures or the
impact such actions will have on State revenues available in the current or future years for education. The
State budget will be affected by national and State economic conditions and other factors over which the
District will have no control. Certain actions could result in a significant shortfall of revenue and cash,
and could impair the State’s ability to fund education. State budget shortfalls in future fiscal years could
have an adverse financial impact on the State general fund budget.
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
The information in this section concerning the operations of the District and the District’s
operating budget are provided as supplementary information only, and it should not be inferred from the
inclusion of this information in this Official Statement that the principal of or interest on the Bonds is
payable from the general fund of the District. The Bonds are payable solely from the proceeds of an ad
valorem tax required to be levied by the Counties in an amount sufficient for the payment thereof. See
“THE BONDS – Security and Sources for Payment” herein.
Introduction
The District is a Basic Aid district (defined herein), which was established in 1949 and is located
in Placer County, Nevada County and El Dorado County in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range near Lake
Tahoe. The District operates six elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one
alternative school and one continuation school. The District’s projected average daily attendance for fiscal
year 2014-15 is 3,522 students.
Unless otherwise indicated, the following financial, statistical and demographic data has been
provided by the District. Additional information concerning the district and copies of the most recent and
subsequent audited financial reports of the District may be obtained by contacting: Tahoe-Truckee
Unified School District, 11603 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California 96161, Attention: Executive
Director, Administrative Services.
Administration
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Education, each of whom is elected to a fouryear term. Elections for positions to the Board are held every two years, alternating between two and
three available positions. Current members of the Board, together with their offices and the dates their
terms expire, are listed below:
Name
Kim Szczurek
Randy Hill
Dianna Driller
Gaylan Larson
Kirsten Livak
Office
President
Clerk
Member
Member
Member
63
Term Expires
November 2018
November 2016
November 2018
November 2018
November 2016
The management and policies of the District are administered by a Superintendent appointed by
the Board, who is responsible for the day-to-day District operations as well as the supervision of the
District’s other personnel. Currently, Dr. Robert Leri is the Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer of the
District. Brief biographies of key personnel are listed below.
Dr. Robert Leri, Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer. Dr. Leri was appointed as
Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer of the District on April 2, 2012. Immediately prior to serving the
District, Dr. Leri served the Arcadia Unified School District, as Deputy Superintendent, Educational
Services and Programs from 2008 to 2012 and as Director of Assessment, Technology and Information
Services from 1996 to 2008. Dr. Leri has also served the Ceres Unified School District for eight years as
Director of Science, Technology and Media Services, and as an administrator, teacher and coordinator.
Dr. Leri received his doctorate and master’s degrees in education from the University of La Verne, and a
bachelor of arts in Asian studies and journalism from San Diego State University.
Thomas Gemma, Executive Director of Administrative Services. After serving as an interim
director of human resources, Mr. Gemma came out of retirement to serve as the Executive Director of
Administrative Services of the District in July 2012. Before joining the District, Mr. Gemma had a 33year career as a special education teacher, elementary, middle school and high school principal along with
responsibilities as an Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and five years as a school district
Superintendent. His career included five different districts with student ADA counts as low as 2,500
students and as large as 80,000 students. He received his masters degree from the University of San
Francisco in Educational Leadership.
Average Daily Attendance and Enrollment
On average throughout the District, the regular education pupil-teacher ratio is approximately
24:1 for grades K-3, 28:1 in grades 4-6, 30:1 in grades 6-8, and 30:1 in grades 9-12. The following table
reflects the ADA and enrollment of the District for the last seven years, and a projection for the current
fiscal year.
AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE AND ENROLLMENT(1)
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Fiscal Years 2007-08 through 2014-15
Fiscal Year
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Average Daily
Attendance
3,845
3,855
3,680
3,605
3,503
3,513
3,513
3,522(2)
Enrollment(3)
4,090
4,114
3,949
3,845
3,731
3,756
3,740
3,766
____________________
(1)
Net of charter school enrollment. See “—Charter Schools” herein.
Projected.
(3)
Fiscal year 2012-13 enrollment as of October report submitted to the California Basic Educational Data System (“CBEDS”).
Fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15 reflect certified enrollment as of the fall census day (the first Wednesday in October), which is
reported to the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (“CALPADS”) in each school year and used to calculate
each school district’s unduplicated EL/LI student enrollment. Adjustments may be made by the California Department of
Education. Excludes Charter School Enrollment.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
(2)
64
Charter Schools
The California Legislature enacted the Charter Schools Act of 1992 (California Education Code
Sections 47600-47663) to permit teachers, parents, students, and community members to establish
schools that would be free from most state and district regulations. Revised in 1998, California’s charter
school law states that local boards are the primary charter-approving agency and that county board of
education can approve a denied charter. State education standards apply, and charter schools are required
to use the same student assessment instruments. The charter school is exempt from state and local
education rules and regulations, except as specified in the legislation.
The District has certain fiscal oversight and other responsibilities with respect to both
independent and District operated charter schools established within its boundaries. However,
independent charter schools receive funding directly from the State, and such funding would not be
reported in the District’s audited financial statements. District operated charter schools receive their
funding through the District, and would be reflected in the District’s audited financial statements.
The District has four independent charter schools currently operating within the District, one of
which is a District approved charter school (collectively, the “Charter Schools”). Due to the District’s
Basic Aid status, the District is required to pay the base funding portion of the LCFF transition
calculation to the District-sponsored charter school. These amounts are paid from the District’s property
taxes and are incorporated into the budget as a contra-revenue. The following table shows enrollment
figures for the District-approved independent Charter School for the past two fiscal years and a projection
for the current fiscal year.
CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Fiscal Years 2012-13 through 2014-15
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Fiscal Year
District-Sponsored
Charter Schools
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15(1)
161
210
214
_________
(1)
Projected.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, based on October CBEDS enrollment.
The District can make no representations regarding how many District students will transfer to
charter schools in the future or back to the District from the Charter Schools, and the corresponding
financial impact on the District.
65
Labor Relations
The District currently employs 250 full-time equivalent (“FTE”) certificated employees, and 172
FTE classified employees. District employees, except management and some part-time employees, are
represented by two employee bargaining units as follows:
LABOR BARGAINING UNITS
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Number of
Employees
266
210
Labor Organization
Tahoe-Truckee Education Association
California School Employees Association, Local #383
Contract
Expiration Date
June 30, 2017
June 30, 2017
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
District Retirement Systems
The information set forth below regarding the District’s retirement programs, other than the
information provided by the District regarding its annual contributions thereto, has been obtained from
publicly available sources which are believed to be reliable but are not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness, and should not to be construed as a representation by either the District or the
Underwriters.
STRS. All full-time certificated employees, as well as certain classified employees, are members
of the State Teachers’ Retirement System (“STRS”). STRS provides retirement, disability and survivor
benefits to plan members and beneficiaries under a defined benefit program (the “STRS Defined Benefit
Program”). The STRS Defined Benefit Program is funded through a combination of investment earnings
and statutorily set contributions from three sources: employees, employers, and the State. Benefit
provisions and contribution amounts are established by State statutes, as legislatively amended from time
to time.
Prior to fiscal year 2014-15, and unlike typical defined benefit programs, neither the employee,
employer or State contribution rate to the STRS Defined Benefit Program varied annually to make up
funding shortfalls or assess credits for actuarial surpluses. In recent years, the combined employer,
employee and State contributions to the STRS Defined Benefit Program have not been sufficient to pay
actuarially required amounts. As a result, and due to significant investment losses, the unfunded actuarial
liability of the STRS Defined Benefit Program has increased significantly in recent fiscal years. In
September 2013, STRS projected that the STRS Defined Benefit Program would be depleted in 31 years
assuming existing contribution rates continued, and other significant actuarial assumptions were realized.
In an effort to reduce the unfunded actuarial liability of the STRS Defined Benefit Program, the State
recently passed the legislation described below to increase contribution rates.
Prior to July 1, 2014, K-14 school districts were required by such statutes to contribute 8.25% of
eligible salary expenditures, while participants contributed 8% of their respective salaries. On June 24,
2014, the Governor signed AB 1469 (“AB 1469”) into law as a part of the State’s fiscal year 2014-15
budget. AB 1469 seeks to fully fund the unfunded actuarial obligation with respect to service credited to
members of the STRS Defined Benefit Program before July 1, 2014 (the “2014 Liability”), within 32
years, by increasing member, K-14 school district and State contributions to STRS. Commencing on July
1, 2014, the employee contribution rates will increase over a three year phase-in period in accordance
with the following schedule:
66
MEMBER CONTRIBUTION RATES
STRS (Defined Benefit Program)
Effective Date
July 1, 2014
July 1, 2015
July 1, 2016
STRS Members Hired Prior to
January 1, 2013
STRS Members Hired
After January 1, 2013
8.150%
9.200
10.250
8.150%
8.560
9.205
____________________
Source: AB 1469.
Pursuant to AB 1469, K-14 school districts’ contribution rate will increase over a seven year
phase in period in accordance with the following schedule:
K-14 SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION RATES
STRS (Defined Benefit Program)
Effective Date
July 1, 2014
July 1, 2015
July 1, 2016
July 1, 2017
July 1, 2018
July 1, 2019
July 1, 2020
K-14 school districts
8.88%
10.73
12.58
14.43
16.28
18.13
19.10
____________________
Source: AB 1469.
Based upon the recommendation from its actuary, for fiscal year 2021-22 and each fiscal year
thereafter, the STRS Teachers’ Retirement Board (the “STRS Board”) is required to increase or decrease
the K-14 school districts’ contribution rate to reflect the contribution required to eliminate the remaining
2014 Liability by June 30, 2046; provided that the rate cannot change in any fiscal year by more than 1%
of creditable compensation upon which members’ contributions to the STRS Defined Benefit Program are
based; and provided further that such contribution rate cannot exceed a maximum of 20.25%. In addition
to the increased contribution rates discussed above, AB 1469 also requires the STRS Board to report to
the State legislature every five years (commencing with a report due on or before July 1, 2019) on the
fiscal health of the STRS Defined Benefit Program and the unfunded actuarial obligation with respect to
service credited to members of that program before July 1, 2014. The reports are also required to identify
adjustments required in contribution rates for K-14 school districts and the State in order to eliminate the
2014 Liability.
The District’s contribution to STRS was $1,616,850 in fiscal year 2011-12, $1,608,752 in fiscal
year 2012-13, and $1,801,717 in fiscal year 2013-14. The District currently projects $2,151,841 as its
contribution to STRS for fiscal year 2014-15.
The State also contributes to STRS, currently in an amount equal to 3.454% of teacher payroll for
fiscal year 2014-15. The State’s contribution reflects a base contribution rate of 2.017%, and a
supplemental contribution rate that will vary from year to year based on statutory criteria. Pursuant to
A.B. 1469, the State contribution rate will increase over the next three years to a total of 6.328% in fiscal
year 2016-17. Based upon the recommendation from its actuary, for fiscal year 2017-18 and each fiscal
year thereafter, the STRS Board is required, with certain limitations, to increase or decrease the State’s
67
contribution rates to reflect the contribution required to eliminate the unfunded actuarial accrued liability
attributed to benefits in effect before July 1, 1990. In addition, the State is currently required to make an
annual general fund contribution up to 2.5% of the fiscal year covered STRS member payroll to the
Supplemental Benefit Protection Account (the “SBPA”), which was established by statute to provide
supplemental payments to beneficiaries whose purchasing power has fallen below 85% of the purchasing
power of their initial allowance.
PERS. Classified employees working four or more hours per day are members of the Public
Employees’ Retirement System (“PERS”). PERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual costof-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. Benefit provisions are
established by the State statutes, as legislatively amended from time to time. PERS operates a number of
retirement plans including the Public Employees Retirement Fund (“PERF”). PERF is a multipleemployer defined benefit retirement plan. In addition to the State, employer participants at June 30, 2013
included 1,580 public agencies and schools (representing more than 2,500 entities). PERS acts as the
common investment and administrative agent for the member agencies. The State and K-14 school
districts (for “classified employees,” which generally consist of school employees other than teachers) are
required by law to participate in PERF. Employees participating in PERF generally become fully vested
in their retirement benefits earned to date after five years of credited service. One of the plans operated
by PERS is for K-14 school districts throughout the State (the “Schools Pool”).
Contributions by employers to the PERS Schools Pool are based upon an actuarial rate
determined annually and contributions by plan members vary based upon their date of hire. The District
is currently required to contribute to PERS at an actuarially determined rate, which is 11.771% of eligible
salary expenditures for fiscal year 2014-15. Participants enrolled in PERS prior to January 1, 2013
contribute 7% of their respective salaries, while participants enrolled after January 1, 2013 contribute at
an actuarially determined rate, which is 6% of their respective salaries for fiscal year 2014-15. See “—
California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013” herein.
The District’s contribution to PERS was $859,807 in fiscal year 2011-12, $870,870 in fiscal year
2012-13, and $978,191 in fiscal year 2013-14. The District currently projects $1,096,995 as its
contribution to PERS for fiscal year 2014-15.
State Pension Trusts. Each of STRS and PERS issues a separate comprehensive financial report
that includes financial statements and required supplemental information. Copies of such financial
reports may be obtained from each of STRS and PERS as follows: (i) STRS, P.O. Box 15275,
Sacramento, California 95851-0275; (ii) PERS, P.O. Box 942703, Sacramento, California 94229-2703.
Moreover, each of STRS and PERS maintains a website, as follows: (i) STRS: www.calstrs.com; (ii)
PERS: www.calpers.ca.gov. However, the information presented in such financial reports or on such
websites is not incorporated into this Official Statement by any reference.
Both STRS and PERS have substantial statewide unfunded liabilities. The amount of these
unfunded liabilities will vary depending on actuarial assumptions, returns on investments, salary scales
and participant contributions. The following table summarizes information regarding the actuariallydetermined accrued liability for both STRS and PERS. Actuarial assessments are “forward-looking”
information that reflect the judgment of the fiduciaries of the pension plans, and are based upon a variety
of assumptions, one or more of which may not materialize or be changed in the future. Actuarial
assessments will change with the future experience of the pension plans.
68
FUNDED STATUS
STRS (Defined Benefit Program) and PERS
(Dollar Amounts in Millions) (1)
Fiscal Years 2010-11 through 2012-13
STRS
Fiscal
Year
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Accrued
Liability
$208,405
215,189
222,281
Value of
Trust
Assets
(MVA) (2)
$147,140
143,118
157,176
Unfunded
Liability
(MVA) (2) (3)
$68,365
80,354
74,374
Unfunded
Liability
(AVA) (4)
$64,475
70,957
73,667
Accrued
Liability
$58,358
59,439
61,487
PERS
Value of
Trust
Unfunded
Assets
Liability
(MVA) (2)
(MVA) (2)
$45,901
$12,457
44,854
14,585
49,482
12,005
Unfunded
Liability
(AVA) (4)
$6,811
5,648
5,237
____________________
(1)
Amounts may not add due to rounding.
Reflects market value of assets.
(3)
Excludes SBPA reserve.
(4)
Reflects actuarial value of assets.
Source: PERS State & Schools Actuarial Valuation; STRS Defined Benefit Program Actuarial Valuation.
(2)
Over the past two years, the PERS Board of Administration (the “PERS Board”) has taken
several steps, as described below, intended to reduce the amount of the unfunded accrued actuarial
liability of its plans, including the Schools Pool.
On March 14, 2012, the PERS Board voted to lower the PERS’ rate of expected price inflation
and its investment rate of return (net of administrative expenses) (the “PERS Discount Rate”) from 7.75%
to 7.5%. As one consequence of such decrease, the annual contribution amounts paid by PERS member
public agencies, including the District, have been increased by 1 to 2% for miscellaneous plans and by 2
to 3% for safety plans beginning in fiscal year 2013-14. On February 18, 2014, the PERS Board voted to
keep the PERS Discount Rate unchanged at 7.5%.
On April 17, 2013, the PERS Board approved new actuarial policies aimed at returning PERS to
fully-funded status within 30 years. The policies include a rate smoothing method with a 30-year
amortization period for gains and losses, a five-year increase of public agency contribution rates,
including the contribution rate at the onset of such amortization period, and a five year reduction of public
agency contribution rates at the end of such amortization period. The PERS Board has delayed the
implementation of the new actuarial policies until fiscal year 2015-16 for the State, K-14 school districts
and all other public agencies.
Also, on February 20, 2014, the PERS Board approved new demographic assumptions reflecting
(i) expected longer life spans of public agency employees and related increases in costs for the PERS
system and (ii) trends of higher rates of retirement for certain public agency employee classes, including
police officers and firefighters. The cost of the revised assumptions shall be amortized over a 20-year
period and related increases in public agency contribution rates shall be affected over a three year period,
beginning in fiscal year 2014-15. The new demographic assumptions affect each of: the State, K-14
school districts and all other public agencies.
The District can make no representations regarding the future program liabilities of STRS, or
whether the District will be required to make additional contributions to STRS in the future above those
amounts required under AB 1469. The District can also provide no assurances that the District’s required
contributions to PERS will not increase in the future.
69
California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013. On September 12, 2012, the
Governor signed into law the California Public Employee’s Pension Reform Act of 2013 (the “Reform
Act”), which makes changes to both STRS and PERS, most substantially affecting new employees hired
after January 1, 2013 (the “Implementation Date”). For STRS participants hired after the Implementation
Date, the Reform Act changes the normal retirement age by increasing the eligibility for the 2% age factor
(the age factor is the percent of final compensation to which an employee is entitled to for each year of
service) from age 60 to 62 and increasing the eligibility of the maximum age factor of 2.4% from age 63
to 65. Similarly, for non-safety PERS participants hired after the Implementation Date, the Reform Act
changes the normal retirement age by increasing the eligibility for the 2% age factor from age 55 to 62
and increases the eligibility requirement for the maximum age factor of 2.5% to age 67. Among the other
changes to PERS and STRS, the Reform Act also: (i) requires all new participants enrolled in PERS and
STRS after the Implementation Date to contribute at least 50% of the total annual normal cost of their
pension benefit each year as determined by an actuary, (ii) requires STRS and PERS to determine the
final compensation amount for employees based upon the highest annual compensation earnable averaged
over a consecutive 36-month period as the basis for calculating retirement benefits for new participants
enrolled after the Implementation Date (previously 12 months for STRS members who retire with 25
years of service), and (iii) caps “pensionable compensation” for new participants enrolled after the
Implementation Date at 100% of the federal Social Security contribution (to be adjusted annually based
on changes to the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers) and benefit base for members
participating in Social Security or 120% for members not participating in social security (to be adjusted
annually based on changes to the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers), while excluding
previously allowed forms of compensation under the formula such as payments for unused vacation,
annual leave, personal leave, sick leave, or compensatory time off.
Other Post-Employment Benefits
Benefit Plan. The District provides post-employment medical, dental and vision benefits (the
“Benefits”) to retirees of the District (and their dependents) meeting certain eligibility requirements. The
following table summarizes the Benefits plan of the District.
Duration of Benefits
Required Years of Service
Minimum Age
District Contribution
Percentage
District Cap
Certificated(1)
To age 65
Classified(1)
To age 65
20
55
100%
20
55
Variable(2)
Active cap
currently $708.34
per month
$708.34 per
month(3)
Confidential(1)
10 years, but not
beyond age 65
10
50
100%
Management(1)
To age 65
Active cap
currently $708.34
per month
Active cap
currently $708.34
per month
5
50/55(4)
100%
____________________
(1)
Employees of each class are only eligible for Benefits if hired prior to a certain date, as follows: Certificated prior to June
30, 1988; Classified prior to September 1, 1988; Confidential and Management prior to October 17, 2006.
(2)
The District contributes 75% of current insurance premiums at age 55, 80% at age 56, 90% at age 57 and 100% at ages 58 to
65.
(3)
Reflects cap for current retirees only. The cap is frozen at retirement.
(4)
Depending on retirement system.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
As of February 1, 2015, there were 41 retirees eligible for and currently receiving Benefits, and,
as of the last Study (defined below) there were 122 active plan members.
70
Funding Policy. Expenditures for the Benefits are each recognized on a pay-as-you-go basis to
cover the cost of premiums for current retirees. For fiscal year 2013-14, the District recognized $420,217
of expenditures for the Benefits. The District has projected $448,735 as its contribution for fiscal year
2014-15.
Accrued Liability. The District has implemented Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(“GASB”) Statement #45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefit
Plans Other Than Pension Plans, pursuant to which the District has commissioned and received several
actuarial studies of its outstanding liabilities with respect to the Benefits. The most recent of these studies
(the “Study”), determined that the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (the “UAAL”) with respect to the
Benefits, as of a June 1, 2012 valuation date, was $3,504,187. The Study also concluded that the annual
required contribution (“ARC”) was $558,425. The ARC is the amount that would be necessary to fund
the value of future benefits earned by current employees during each fiscal year (the “Normal Cost”) and
the amount necessary to amortize the UAAL, in accordance with the GASB Statements Nos. 43 and 45.
As of June 30, 2014, the District recognized a long-term obligation (the “Net OPEB Obligation”)
of $333,550 with respect to its accrued liability for the Benefits. The Net OPEB Obligation is based on
the District’s contributions towards the ARC during fiscal year 2014-15. See “—District Debt Structure –
Long-Term Debt” and “APPENDIX C –THE 2013-14 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF
THE DISTRICT – Note 8” herein.
Risk Management
The District participates in two joint powers agencies (“JPAs”) under joint powers agreements,
for the provision of common risk management and insurance coverage: (1) School Insurance Group, for
workers’ compensation and property/liability, and (2) the Tri-County Schools Insurance Group, for
healthcare insurance. Membership in each JPA includes other school districts in Placer County, Nevada
County and Sutter County. The JPAs are independently accountable for their fiscal matters, and thus are
not components of the District for financial reporting purposes. See also APPENDIX C –THE 2013-14
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE DISTRICT – Note 9” herein.
District Debt Structure
Long-Term Debt. A schedule of changes in long-term debt for the year ended June 30, 2012, is
shown below:
Government Activities:
Capitalized Lease Obligations
General Obligation Bonds(1):
Current Interest
Capital Appreciation
Unamortized Premiums
Certificates of Participation(2)
Net OPEB Obligation(3)
Compensated Absences
Totals
Balance
July 1, 2013
$202,319
Additions
$3,605,004
Deductions
$670,059
Balance
June 30, 2014
$3,137,264
69,085,000
15,313,096
3,232,855
3,666,500
186,040
236,394
$91,922,204
-1,226,028
--567,727
28,727
$5,427,486
5,060,000
-196,735
697,500
420,217
-$7,044,511
64,025,000
16,539,124
3,036,120
2,969,000
333,550
265,121
$90,305,179
______________________
(1)
Includes outstanding general obligation bonds of the Improvement Districts.
(2)
See “—Lease Debt” herein.
(3)
Reflects the change in the District’s net OPEB obligation, based on its contributions towards the ARC. See “—Other
Post-Employment Benefits” herein.
Source: Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
71
Capitalized Lease Obligations. The District leases certain equipment under a capital lease
purchase agreement. The capitalized value for the equipment was $1,332,884 with accumulated
depreciation of $0 as of June 30, 2014. Additionally, the District has an additional $2,272,120 cash with
a fiscal agent to be spent on the remaining purchase contract. Future minimum lease payments are as
follows:
Year Ending June 30
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020-2024
Total
Total Lease Payments
$787,827
787,827
320,087
320,087
320,087
800,217
$3,336,132
Less amount representing interest
Net minimum lease payments
(198,868)
$3,137,264
Lease Debt. In December 2011, the District entered into a lease-purchase agreement to finance
the refinancing of certain, then-outstanding certificates of participation of the District. The following
table shows future lease payments due under the lease-purchase agreement.
Year Ending June 30
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total
Principal
$722,500
731,500
755,000
760,000
$2,969,000
Interest
$58,142
41,880
25,364
8,436
$133,822
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK]
72
Total
$780,642
773,380
780,364
768,436
$3,102,822
General Obligation Bonds. The following table summarizes the outstanding general obligation
bond issuances of the District, including bonds sold by the District on behalf of the Improvement Districts
pursuant to authorizations approved by the respective voters thereof.
Initial
Principal Amount
Bond Issuance
Principal Currently
Outstanding(1)
Date of Delivery
Improvement District No. 1
Election of 1999 Bonds, Series A
Election of 1999 Bonds, Series B
2001 Refunding Bonds(2)
$25,118,616.80
9,881,340.00
21,155,000.00
$2,123,616.80
821,340.00
14,405,000.00
October 28, 1999
August 19, 2004
July 11, 2001
$1,573,994.40
1,680,084.00
10,750,000.00
10,990,000.00
October 28, 1999
August 19, 2004
July 11, 2001
February 14, 2012
$4,080,000.00
2,995,000.00
3,025,000.00
12,390,000.00
September 1, 2004
July 1, 2010
January 29, 2013
January 29, 2013
Improvement District No. 2
Election of 1999 Bonds, Series A
Election of 1999 Bonds, Series B
2001 Refunding Bonds(3)
2012 Refunding Bonds(4)
$18,723,994.40
5,275,084.00
15,835,000.00
11,605,000.00
The District
(5)
2004 Refunding Bonds
2010 Refunding Bonds(6)
2013 Refunding Bonds, Series A(7)
2013 Refunding Bonds, Series B(8)
$4,080,000.00
6,290,000.00
3,615,000.00
13,450,000.00
___________________
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
As of March 3, 2015.
Advance refunded a portion of Improvement District No. 1’s Election of 1999 Bonds, Series A.
Advance refunded a portion of Improvement District No. 2’s Election of 1999 Bonds, Series A.
Advance refunded a portion of Improvement District No. 2’s Election of 2002 Bonds, Series A.
Advance refunded the District’s 1993 General Obligation Bonds, Series B.
Currently refunded the District’s 1998 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
Advance refunded a portion of the District’s Election of 1999, Series B Bonds.
Advance refunded a portion of the District’s Election of 2002, Series B Bonds.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK]
73
The following table shows the annual debt service on general obligation bonds issued by the District and the Improvement
Districts, including the Bonds (and assuming no optional redemptions):
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDED DEBT SERVICE
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District
Improvement District No. 1
Year
(Aug. 1)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
Total
Election of
1999 Series A
Bonds
Election of
1999 Series B
Bonds
------------$3,430,000.00
-3,600,000.00
-3,780,000.00
-3,970,000.00
--- $3,000,000.00
--------------------------------------------$14,780,000.00 $3,000,000.00
2001
Refunding
Bonds
Improvement District No. 2
SFID
No. 1
Bonds
Election of
1999 Series A
Bonds
Election of
1999 Series B
Bonds
$2,557,750.00
$263,733.78
--2,683,500.00
5,199,662.50
--2,818,500.00
4,963,062.50
--2,960,900.00
4,938,862.50
--3,108,400.00
4,138,662.50
--3,265,225.00
98,262.50
---98,262.50
2,560,000.00
--98,262.50
2,690,000.00
--98,262.50
2,820,000.00
--98,262.50
2,965,000.00
--98,262.50
-- 2,800,000.00
-98,262.50
-- 3,000,000.00
-98,262.50
---148,262.50
---156,762.50
---159,962.50
---168,012.50
---170,668.76
---178,068.76
---180,143.76
---187,056.26
---193,643.76
---199,618.76
---205,243.76
---215,518.76
---220,268.76
---229,668.76
---238,543.76
---241,893.76
---249,893.76
---262,368.76
---268,850.00
---279,787.50
--$17,394,275.00 $24,444,321.42 $11,035,000.00 $5,800,000.00
2001
Refunding
Bonds
2012
Refunding
Bonds
The District
SFID
No. 2
Bonds
$1,911,675.00
$941,375.00
$234,826.13
1,999,925.00
944,875.00
2,308,656.26
2,101,700.00
947,775.00
2,469,256.26
2,209,025.00
944,175.00
2,555,856.26
2,321,450.00
949,775.00
1,580,931.26
2,437,050.00
954,175.00
488,931.26
-952,375.00
488,931.26
-956,100.00
488,931.26
-953,250.00
488,931.26
-955,250.00
488,931.26
-951,250.00
488,931.26
-951,650.00
498,931.26
-956,300.00
528,618.76
-960,050.00
567,368.76
-957,900.00
604,868.76
--646,118.76
--690,962.50
--733,706.26
--779,762.50
--828,962.50
--886,137.50
--940,950.00
--993,400.00
--1,057,750.00
--1,119,125.00
--1,187,525.00
--1,257,600.00
--1,329,400.00
--1,406,800.00
--1,489,400.00
--1,571,800.00
--1,658,800.00
---$12,980,825.00 $14,276,275.00 $32,861,101.29
74
2004
Refunding
Bonds
2010
Refunding
Bonds
2013
Refunding
Bonds
Total
Debt
Service
$244,800.00
244,800.00
244,800.00
244,800.00
1,496,100.00
1,491,450.00
1,467,750.00
--------------------------$5,434,500.00
$997,650.00
1,020,675.00
1,046,500.00
1,065,750.00
-----------------------------$4,130,575.00
$1,758,437.50
1,687,637.50
1,597,837.50
1,529,837.50
1,452,837.50
1,367,237.50
1,278,437.50
1,236,637.50
1,110,037.50
1,057,037.50
901,787.50
907,287.50
905,787.50
894,750.00
906,500.00
1,877,200.00
-----------------$20,469,287.50
$8,910,247.41
16,089,731.26
16,189,431.26
16,449,206.26
15,048,156.26
10,102,331.26
10,275,756.26
9,069,931.26
9,250,481.26
9,534,481.26
8,240,231.26
5,456,131.26
2,488,968.76
2,570,431.26
2,626,031.26
2,683,281.26
858,975.00
904,375.02
957,831.26
1,009,106.26
1,073,193.76
1,134,593.76
1,193,018.76
1,262,993.76
1,334,643.76
1,407,793.76
1,487,268.76
1,567,943.76
1,648,693.76
1,739,293.76
1,834,168.76
1,927,650.00
279,787.50
$166,606,160.21
TAX MATTERS
In the opinion of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco,
California (“Bond Counsel”), under existing statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, and
assuming the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants and requirements
described herein, interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes
and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax
imposed on individuals and corporations. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is
exempt from State of California personal income tax. Bond Counsel notes that, with respect to
corporations, interest on the Bonds may be included as an adjustment in the calculation of alternative
minimum taxable income which may affect the alternative minimum tax liability of corporations.
The difference between the issue price of a Bond (the first price at which a substantial amount of
the Bonds of the same series and maturity is to be sold to the public) and the stated redemption price at
maturity with respect to such Bond constitutes original issue discount. Original issue discount accrues
under a constant yield method, and original issue discount will accrue to a Bond Owner before receipt of
cash attributable to such excludable income. The amount of original issue discount deemed received by
the Bond Owner will increase the Bond Owner’s basis in the Bond. In the opinion of Bond Counsel, the
amount of original issue discount that accrues to the owner of the Bond is excluded from the gross income
of such owner for federal income tax purposes, is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal
alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations, and is exempt from State of California
personal income tax.
Bond Counsel’s opinion as to the exclusion from gross income of interest (and original issue
discount) on the Bonds is based upon certain representations of fact and certifications made by the
District and others and is subject to the condition that the District complies with all requirements of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), that must be satisfied subsequent to the
issuance of the Bonds to assure that interest (and original issue discount) on the Bonds will not become
includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes. Failure to comply with such requirements of
the Code might cause the interest (and original issue discount) on the Bonds to be included in gross
income for federal income tax purposes retroactive to the date of issuance of the Bonds. The District has
covenanted to comply with all such requirements.
The amount by which a Bond Owner’s original basis for determining loss on sale or exchange in
the applicable Bond (generally, the purchase price) exceeds the amount payable on maturity (or on an
earlier call date) constitutes amortizable Bond premium, which must be amortized under Section 171 of
the Code; such amortizable Bond premium reduces the Bond Owner’s basis in the applicable Bond (and
the amount of tax-exempt interest received), and is not deductible for federal income tax purposes. The
basis reduction as a result of the amortization of Bond premium may result in a Bond Owner realizing a
taxable gain when a Bond is sold by the Owner for an amount equal to or less (under certain
circumstances) than the original cost of the Bond to the Owner. Purchasers of the Bonds should consult
their own tax advisors as to the treatment, computation and collateral consequences of amortizable Bond
premium.
The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) has initiated an expanded program for the auditing of
tax-exempt bond issues, including both random and targeted audits. It is possible that the Bonds will be
selected for audit by the IRS. It is also possible that the market value of the Bonds might be affected as a
result of such an audit of the Bonds (or by an audit of similar bonds). No assurance can be given that in
the course of an audit, as a result of an audit, or otherwise, Congress or the IRS might not change the
Code (or interpretation thereof) subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds to the extent that it adversely
affects the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds or their market value.
75
SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, THERE MIGHT BE FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL STATUTORY CHANGES (OR JUDICIAL OR REGULATORY
INTERPRETATIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW) THAT AFFECT THE FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL TAX TREATMENT OF THE INTEREST ON THE BONDS OR THE MARKET
VALUE OF THE BONDS. LEGISLATIVE CHANGES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN CONGRESS,
WHICH, IF ENACTED, WOULD RESULT IN ADDITIONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX BEING
IMPOSED ON CERTAIN OWNERS OF TAX-EXEMPT STATE OR LOCAL OBLIGATIONS SUCH
AS THE BONDS. THE INTRODUCTION OR ENACTMENT OF ANY SUCH CHANGES COULD
ADVERSELY AFFECT THE MARKET VALUE OR LIQUIDITY OF THE BONDS.
NO
ASSURANCE CAN BE GIVEN THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS SUCH
CHANGES (OR OTHER CHANGES) WILL NOT BE INTRODUCED OR ENACTED OR
INTERPRETATIONS WILL NOT OCCUR. BEFORE PURCHASING ANY OF THE BONDS, ALL
POTENTIAL PURCHASERS SHOULD CONSULT THEIR TAX ADVISORS REGARDING
POSSIBLE STATUTORY CHANGES OR JUDICIAL OR REGULATORY CHANGES OR
INTERPRETATIONS, AND THEIR COLLATERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES RELATING TO THE
BONDS.
Bond Counsel’s opinions may be affected by actions taken (or not taken) or events occurring (or
not occurring) after the date hereof. Bond Counsel has not undertaken to determine, or to inform any
person, whether any such actions or events are taken or do occur. The Resolutions and the Tax
Certificates relating to the Bonds permit certain actions to be taken or to be omitted if a favorable opinion
of bond counsel is provided with respect thereto. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion as to the effect on
the exclusion from gross income of interest (and original issue discount) on the Bonds for federal income
tax purposes with respect to any Bond if any such action is taken or omitted based upon the advice of
counsel other than Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth.
Although Bond Counsel has rendered an opinion that interest (and original issue discount) on the
Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes provided that the District continues
to comply with certain requirements of the Code, the ownership of the Bonds and the accrual or receipt of
interest (and original issue discount) with respect to the Bonds may otherwise affect the tax liability of
certain persons. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any such tax consequences. Accordingly,
before purchasing any of the Bonds, all potential purchasers should consult their tax advisors with respect
to collateral tax consequences relating to the Bonds.
Copies of the proposed forms of opinions of Bond Counsel for the Bonds are attached hereto as
APPENDIX B.
LEGAL MATTERS
Legality for Investment in California
Under provisions of the California Financial Code, the Bonds are legal investments for
commercial banks in California to the extent that the Bonds, in the informed opinion of the bank, are
prudent for the investment of funds of depositors, and, under provisions of the Government Code of the
State, are eligible for security for deposits of public moneys in the State.
76
Continuing Disclosure
Current Undertaking. In connection with the issuance of the Bonds, the District has covenanted
for the benefit of the Owners and Beneficial Owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial information
and operating data relating to the District and the respective Improvement District (each, an “Annual
Report”) by not later than nine months following the end of the District’s fiscal year (which currently
ends June 30), commencing with the report for the 2014-15 Fiscal Year, and to provide notices of the
occurrence of certain listed events. The Annual Reports and notices of listed events will be filed by the
District in accordance with the requirements the Rule. The specific nature of the information to be
contained in the Annual Reports or the notices of listed events is included in APPENDIX D – “FORM OF
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATES FOR THE BONDS” attached hereto. These covenants
have been made in order to assist the Underwriters in complying with the Rule.
Prior Undertaking. Within the past five years, the District failed to file the annual reports for
fiscal years 2008-09 through 2012-13, in a timely manner, as required by its existing continuing
disclosure obligations. Within the past five years, the District also failed to file in a timely manner
notices of certain enumerated events, as required by its existing continuing disclosure obligations. The
District has retained Keygent LLC, El Segundo, California, to assist it in preparing and filing the annual
reports and notices of enumerated events required under its existing continuing disclosure obligations
with respect to the District’s outstanding general obligation bonds, including the Bonds.
The District elected to participate in the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation
(“MCDC”) initiative of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The MCDC is a program allowing
issuers and underwriters to voluntarily report issuances of municipal obligations where the official
statement or other offering document therefor may have made misstatements about compliance with the
issuer’s or other obligated person’s continuing disclosure obligations. The District was notified by the
underwriter for the District’s 2010 Refunding Bonds that it filed a report under MCDC with respect to
statements made in the official statements for such issuance. The District was also notified by the
underwriter for the District’s 2012 Refunding Bonds that it filed a report under MCDC with respect to
statements made in the official statement for such issuance. The District filed a report under MCDC for
statements made in the respective Official Statements for the District’s 2010 Refunding Bonds and 2012
Refunding Bonds.
No Litigation
No litigation is pending or threatened concerning the validity of the Bonds. The District is not
aware of any litigation pending or threatened questioning the political existence of the District or
contesting the District’s ability to receive ad valorem taxes or to collect other revenues or contesting the
District’s ability to issue and retire the Bonds.
There are a number of lawsuits and claims pending against the District. In the opinion of the
District, the aggregate amount of the uninsured liabilities of the District under these lawsuits and claims
will not materially affect the finances of the District.
Information Reporting Requirements
On May 17, 2006, the President signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of
2005 (“TIPRA”). Under Section 6049 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by TIPRA,
interest paid on tax-exempt obligations is subject to information reporting in a manner similar to interest
paid on taxable obligations. The effective date of this provision is for interest paid after December 31,
2005, regardless of when the tax-exempt obligations were issued. The purpose of this change was to
77
assist in relevant information gathering for the IRS relating to other applicable tax provisions. TIPRA
provides that backup withholding may apply to such interest payments made after March 31, 2007 to any
bondholder who fails to file an accurate Form W-9 or who meets certain other criteria. The information
reporting and backup withholding requirements of TIPRA do not affect the excludability of such interest
from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
Legal Opinion
The legal opinions of Bond Counsel, approving the validity of the Bonds, will be supplied to the
original purchasers thereof without cost. Copies of the proposed forms of such legal opinions for the
Bonds are attached to this Official Statement as APPENDIX B.
MISCELLANEOUS
Ratings
Moody’s and S&P have assigned ratings of “Aa2” and “AA” respectively, to each series of the
Bonds. Such ratings reflect only the views of Moody’s and S&P and any desired explanation of the
significance of such ratings should be obtained therefrom at the following addresses: Moody’s Investors
Service, 7 World Trade Center at 250 Greenwich, New York, New York 10007 and Standard & Poor’s,
55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041. Generally, a rating agency bases its rating on the information and
materials furnished to it and on investigations, studies and assumptions of its own. There is no assurance
the ratings on the Bonds will continue for any given period of time or that such ratings will not be revised
downward or withdrawn entirely by Moody’s or S&P, as applicable, if, in the judgment of such rating
agency, the circumstances so warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of any rating on the
Bonds may have an adverse effect on the market price for the Bonds.
The District has covenanted in a Continuing Disclosure Certificate to file on The Electronic
Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) website operated by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
notices of any rating changes on the Bonds. See “- Continuing Disclosure” herein and “APPENDIX C FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATES FOR THE BONDS” attached hereto.
Notwithstanding such covenant, information relating to ratings changes on the Bonds may be publicly
available from the rating agencies prior to such information being provided to the District and prior to the
date the District is obligated to file a notice of rating change on EMMA. Purchasers of the Bonds are
directed to the rating agencies and their respective websites and official media outlets for the most current
ratings changes with respect to the Bonds after the initial issuance of the Bonds.
Financial Statements
The District’s audited financial statements with required supplemental information for the year
ended June 30, 2014, the independent auditor’s report of the District, the related statements of activities
and of cash flows for the year then ended, and the report dated November 13, 2014 of Crowe Horwarth
LLP (the “Auditor”), are included in this Official Statement as APPENDIX C. In connection with the
inclusion of the financial statements and the report of the Auditor thereon in APPENDIX C to this
Official Statement, the District did not request the Auditor to, and the Auditor has not undertaken to,
update its report or to take any action intended or likely to elicit information concerning the accuracy,
completeness or fairness of the statements made in this Official Statement, and no opinion is expressed by
the Auditor with respect to any event subsequent to the date of its report.
78
Underwriting
Pursuant to the terms of a Notice Inviting Proposals for Purchase of Bonds for the SFID No. 1
Bonds (the “SFID No. 1 Notice Inviting Proposals”), the SFID No. 1 Bonds were awarded to Fidelity
Capital Markets, as underwriter therefor (the “SFID No. 1 Underwriter”), at a True-Interest Cost of
2.4080597%. The SFID No. 1 Underwriter will purchase all of the SFID No. 1 Bonds for a purchase
price of $21,305,037.29, which is equal to the initial principal amount of the SFID No. 1 Bonds of
$20,000,000.00, plus net original issue premium of $1,386,686.05, and less $81,648.76 of underwriting
discount.
Pursuant to the terms of a Notice Inviting Proposals for Purchase of Bonds for the SFID No. 2
Bonds (the “SFID No. 2 Notice Inviting Proposals” and together with the SFID No. 1 Notice Inviting
Proposals, the “Notice Inviting Proposals”), the SFID No. 2 Bonds were awarded to Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC (the “SFID No. 2 Underwriter”), as underwriter therefor, at a True-Interest Cost of 3.6357144%.
The SFID No. 2 Underwriter will purchase all of the SFID No. 2 Bonds for a purchase price of
$19,734,947.51, which is equal to the initial principal amount of the SFID No. 2 Bonds of $19,500,000,
plus net original issue premium of $400,635.60, and less $165,688.09 of underwriting discount.
The Notice Inviting Proposals provides that the Underwriters will purchase all of the Bonds, if
any are purchased. The initial offering prices stated on the inside cover of this Official Statement may be
changed from time to time by the Underwriters. The Underwriters may offer and sell Bonds to certain
dealers and others at prices lower than such initial offering prices.
Morgan Stanley, parent company of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC., an underwriter of the SFID No.
2 Bonds, has entered into a retail distribution arrangement with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. As
part of the distribution arrangement, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC may distribute municipal securities to
retail investors through the financial advisor network of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. As part of
this arrangement, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC may compensate Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC for
its selling efforts with respect to the SFID No. 2 Bonds.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK]
79
Additional Information
The purpose of this Official Statement is to supply information to prospective buyers of the
Bonds. Quotations from and summaries and explanations of the Bonds, the Resolutions providing for
issuance of the Bonds, and the constitutional provisions, statutes and other documents referenced herein,
do not purport to be complete, and reference is made to said documents, constitutional provisions and
statutes for full and complete statements of their provisions.
Some of the data contained herein has been taken or constructed from District records.
Appropriate District officials, acting in their official capacities, have reviewed this Official Statement and
have determined that, as of the date hereof, the information contained herein is, to the best of their
knowledge and belief, true and correct in all material respects and does not contain an untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made herein, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. This Official Statement has been
approved by the District.
Any statements in this Official Statement involving matters of opinion, whether or not expressly
so stated, are intended only as such and not as representations of fact. This Official Statement is not to be
construed as a contract or agreement between the District and the purchasers or Owners, beneficial or
otherwise, of any of the Bonds.
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By:
80
/s/ Dr. Robert Leri
Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer
APPENDIX A
LOCATION MAP OF THE DISTRICT AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
A-1
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
RO
UT
E 11
RUSSELL VALLEY RD
HO
M IL
RT
LS
HO
RD
MI LL
S RD
D
RT
R
S
MILLS RD
BIR
CH
RD
TIMBER TRAILS
80
§
¦
¨
Boca Reservoir
BOCA RD
D RE
NO
LAKE RD
BOCA
RD
RAMP
OL
DOG VALLEY RD
AD
ME
BA
G
OW
!
89
IN
LA
BA
R
ST
SP
RE
RD
KE
N
A
HE
RD
GE
C
FO
SA
BO
Independence Lake
O
U
TE
85
WAY
P
HOSE A CT
E
RS
DR
O
EH
W
HIT
WAY
ROYA L
ER
ND
W
AT
LD
CO
BO RO
DR
TH
FOX
DR
JUNI
G
RT
WAY
H SH
OR
E BL
VD
ST WA
Y
AD
IR
M
LA
EL
LE
N
R
MARTIS PEAK
RD
LE
DR
EL
RTE
N
ING
NORT HSTA
R DR
HIG
HLA
ND
S
RD
EW
VI
267
I VI
OD
EW
WO
!
SK
BIG SPRINGS DR
K RD
SODA SPRINGS RD
HILL
GROUSE RIDGE
CREE
MONTREAL
LAND
TRL
DR
RT IS
ER
NTA
LAHO
HO
BASQUE DR
MA
INDIAN
SKIDD
LA
Ice Lakes
LINE
K RD
D
IN
EE
RD
R
AR
R CR
DA
CRE
SO
D
PE
MIRA
A
R
DR
TIMILICK
TEWKSBURY
RA
EN
NIGHTHAWK WAY
DR
E WAY
NTAN
H
IG
H
DR
E ST
S
N
ES
ST
H
RED
LAU
RD
RAM
P
RD
D
AR
RD
M
GH
IR
DA
ER
D
PR
R
SCH
ALDER DR
CO
BU
RN
DR
SS
O
USS
ING
WAY
FIR RD
PARSIMONY LN
HILLSIDE DR
RD
RY
MA
T
LA
BA
LAKE
SE
K
JUDAH ACCESS
ER
DIC
HILL SIDE
RD
SERE
NE
RD
PONDEROSA
R
D
EL
G
AN
KE
LA
LN
T
RIT
ER
SH
DR
BA
M
RD
YU
SO
ADA
L
RD
LA MIR
S
NE WA
Y
CHALET
RD
FO
LN
TO N
KENT DR
WAY
RD
O CI
R
IT
DR
O
LO
ING
MM
IN
WER
NN
SU
IL
ICELAND
ND
EL
DR
CISC
r
SAIL PLAN
NO
M
RD
RA
O
LD
ER
CIR
DO
JOERGER DR
ESTATES DR
BR
OCK
WAY
RD
CABIN
PO
RD
E ST
ive
eR
cke
TruJOERGER DR
DR
RIVERVIEW DR
19
TAIN RD
RT
TH
SAN
WOLFGANG RD
LL
VA
ER
EU
ALDER
CRE
EK RD
SO LVA
NG
WA
Y
EY
RD
AL
IG
ON
MA
G
E LA
KE
YC
RD
TRL
SE RIDG
E
RPO
DR
E AI
LANCE
BERKSHIRE
KE
WAY
ST
TH
LAKE DR
UC
RD
MARTIS CREEK
ST
Lake Van Norden
PAHATSI
RD
ER
267
ER
TR
SAMUEL LP
AY DR
FAI RW
HIGHLAND AVE
GLENSHIRE
E RIV
HINTON
HIRSCHDALE RD
DO
RCHE
STER
DR
DR
MANCHESTER
ROLANDS WAY
S RD
WAT
STATE HWY
RIV
MI LL
SAXON
GROU
LN
W
IO N
LOOKOUT LOOP
DR
RD
EVA
ST
M
O
O
B
J IB
DEERFIELD DR
RE DR
D
DOVE TER
K RD
E
THELIN
TH SHO
AN
RD
SOU
R
UN
EE
P
TAHOE DR
M
RA
RA
MP
RAMP
AM
CR
GLEN RD
SIERRA DR
ER
R
RD
SS
DE
PA SS
O
Y
PIONEER TRAIL
ROCKY LN
PALISADES
ER
PALISADE ST
RD
E IV
GRANITE DR
LN
NN
E AL
RU
DR
LE
RD
ER WAY
UG
KE
AINE
PR
RI AT
NO OTH
SH
MOR
IRIS RD
INBO
W
DR
LA
E DR
SITZMARK WAY
SKI SLOPE WAY
LN
Donner Lake
FIR ST
CONIFER ST
DR
TON
MO
FAWN ST
D
SNOWBIRD
RD
AR
OKS
TIRANO RD
EN
RN
VD
BL
SKY MOUN
E
RD
RD
Cascade Lakes
Palisade Lake
UT
NO
N
RO
N
O
BE
DS
ST
VA
ST
OO
HW
Kidd Lake
KE
RT
RE
DONNER DR
LA
NO
MP
FO
SH
80
DR
Y COPENHAGEN DR
ON WA
ROBIN
LA
DO
§
¦
¨
RD
KIDD LAKES
S
BRO
RD
ER
LN
RD
E
K
LN ST
IS RN
O
SW
BO
M SH
HEIDI WAY LZAN
RA
DE
N AV
AC
P
NN
BA
NA
M
RA
PAT HWA
Y AVE
HANS
EL
MUHL AVE
EBAC
H WA
Y
DR
§
¦
¨
80
EN
TET
LIE
RAM
EY
RD
LL
BEYERS LAKE
TRL
VA
ROCKS RD
BR
BIL
DO
RD
ADE
PA LIS
YUBA DR
RA
HAMPSHI RE
CONIFER
DR
DONNER PASS
RD
P
RD
RAM
OY
TR
AY
RW
RD
NI PE
LAKE
CRYS TAL
IT
EA
D
R
JU
RD
R
ER
AR
NN
0
OS
L RD
RD
ST
DAV
OP
LO
EW
I VI
WAY
CHATEAU
I-8
LE
WAY
RO
SK
OM
TY
LY
RAM P
LEY
AL
AY
W
LO
OS
GLACIER
RE
M P DR
RA ILL
H
Y
E VAL
LEY
R VAL
SL
BU
LAK
NTE
EUE
RD
PE
RD
FILLY LN
CAR
VALLEY
SHIRE
BUCKHORN RIDGE CT
Prosser Creek Reservoir
EUER
CAR
FLORISTON
R
GL EN
T
M
ES
RA
R
Y 89
TE HW
STA
FO
CA
LAKE
MP
VISTA
RD
RIVER RD
RD
NORTH SHORE RD
ENCY
WAY
LORDS
KINGSWO OD
DR
PINEDROP LN
E
NILE ST
RD
TALLAC
YW
AY
VALLEY
SQ
W
UA
CR
EE
D
RD
EN
KS
TAI L
K RD
EE
LN
ND
POLARIS
MA DR
D
DR
BUNKER RD
L
S
RD
TT
O
SC D
HN T R
E
AL
TR
TRL
OO
D
ING S
AG
C
A
ME
L SPR
CR
JO
E
MINERA
GEW
PANORA
EDGEWATER DR
FIR
ALP
IN
RD
ED
RD
FABIAN WAY
LAKE FORE
ST RD
S
E BLVD
HIGHLANDS DR
RD
89
!
OW
N LAK
AD
SA
SQUAW
CR
TIG ER
D
Y
R
NN
S
LA
W
CT
MULETAIL
DR
ST
O
HIGH ST
D
RO
EA
TY
M
PIO
N
EE
R
W
AY
H
DR
HOLLY RD
C
M PI
E AV
E
SEQ UOIA
AVE
LVIS
TA
E DR DR
TA
DR
PIN
PIN
BIG
RD
CLUB
COURCHEVEL
GSTAAD
KITZBUHEL RD
VE
RB
IE
R
R
D
RAWHIDE
DR
W RIVER RD
OLY
W
AR
RD
D
AV
E
W LAK
L LN
AI
QU
D
E BLV
LE
KE
R
S
PA
S
R
L a k e Ta h o e
AY
W
GR AN
D
PA RK AV E
AV E
MADR
Legend
OTA
D
ALPINE AVE
R
ONE
BA
BLVD
KE
W LA
TO AVE
SACRAMEN
SOUTH ST
PINE ST
AVE
10TH
8TH AVE
Y 89
E HW
AD
N
RO
AT
ST
RE
7TH AVE
N FI
BL
VD
ELM ST
KE
GRAY AVE
LA
3RD AVE
AD
ME
W
SO
WIL
SFID
MCKINNEY DR
GROUSE DR
OW
RD
TTUSD
S FIRE ROAD
D
R
U
M
R
D
SFID # 1
DR
MANICINA
E
W
N 42
AV E
S BA
Y AV
14
IE
RT
BA
YV
ST
SIE
EK
ME
SU
NR
ISE
RE
RR
A
DR
SC
BEACH LN
SFID # 2
FO
EN
CR
IC
ES
DR
T
PA
DR
R
AD
IS
E
T
F LA
LN
E RI
NG
RD
Y
HW
89
CA
SC
AD
TE
STA
E RD
ON
.
0
13,000
26,000
52,000 Feet
A-2
FOX ST
BEAVER ST
YACHT
LA
UN
H
O
C
C
EN
D
OL
FR
COON ST
SPECKLED ST
PARK LN
KE
N LA
IT
AVE
E
DEER ST
AV
BEAR ST
RD
AT
AM
BEACH ST
AN
SUDAN
RD
DODOWAH RD
NORTH AVE
AG
BRASSIE
GR
RIM DR
DONNER RD
AVE
AN BAY
RD
CARNELI
RIVER
B ST
CANTERBURY DR
WAY
GUN CLUB
FOREST ROUTE 19
REG
KE
ST
ST
APPENDIX B
FORMS OF OPINIONS OF BOND COUNSEL FOR THE BONDS
Upon issuance and delivery of the SFID No. 1 Bonds, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Bond
Counsel, proposes to render its final approving opinion with respect to the SFID No. 1 Bonds
substantially in the following form
March 31, 2015
Board of Education
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Members of the Board of Education:
We have examined a certified copy of the record of the proceedings relative to the issuance and
sale of $20,000,000 Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (Placer, Nevada and El Dorado Counties,
California) Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement District
No. 1) (Placer and Nevada Counties, California) (the “Bonds”). As to questions of fact material to our
opinion, we have relied upon the certified proceedings and other certifications of public officials
furnished to us without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation.
Based on our examination as bond counsel of existing law, certified copies of such legal
proceedings and such other proofs as we deem necessary to render this opinion, we are of the opinion, as
of the date hereof and under existing law, that:
1. Such proceedings and proofs show lawful authority for the issuance and sale of the
Bonds pursuant to (i) Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government
Code of the State of California, (ii) a 55% vote of the qualified electors of the School Facilities
Improvement District No. 1 (the “Improvement District”) of the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School
District (the “District”) voting at an election held on November 4, 2014, and (iii) a resolution of
the Board of Education of the District (the “Bond Resolution”).
2. The Bonds constitute valid and binding general obligations of the District, payable as
to both principal and interest from the proceeds of a levy of ad valorem taxes on all property
within Improvement District No. 1 subject to such taxes by the District, which taxes are unlimited
as to rate or amount.
3. Under existing statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, interest on the
Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax
preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on
individuals and corporations; however, it should be noted that, with respect to corporations, such
interest on the Bonds may be included as an adjustment in the calculation of alternative minimum
taxable income, which may affect the alternative minimum tax liability of such corporations.
4. Interest on the Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income tax.
5. The difference between the issue price of a Bond (the first price at which a substantial
amount of the Bonds of a maturity is to be sold to the public) and the stated redemption price at
B-1
maturity with respect to such Bonds constitutes original issue discount. Original issue discount
accrues under a constant yield method, and original issue discount will accrue to a Bondowner
before receipt of cash attributable to such excludable income. The amount of original issue
discount deemed received by a Bondowner will increase the Bondowner’s basis in the applicable
Bond. Original issue discount that accrues to the Bondowner is excluded from the gross income
of such owner for federal income tax purposes, is not an item of tax preference for purposes of
the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations, and is exempt from
State of California personal income tax.
6. The amount by which a Bondowner’s original basis for determining loss on sale or
exchange in the applicable Bond (generally, the purchase price) exceeds the amount payable on
maturity (or on an earlier call date) constitutes amortizable Bond premium, which must be
amortized under Section 171 of the of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”); such amortizable Bond premium reduces the Bondowner’s basis in the applicable Bond
(and the amount of tax-exempt interest received), and is not deductible for federal income tax
purposes. The basis reduction as a result of the amortization of Bond premium may result in a
Bondowner realizing a taxable gain when a Bond is sold by the Bondowner for an amount equal
to or less (under certain circumstances) than the original cost of the Bond to the Bondowner.
Purchasers of the Bonds should consult their own tax advisors as to the treatment, computation
and collateral consequences of amortizable Bond premium.
The opinions expressed herein may be affected by actions taken (or not taken) or events occurring
(or not occurring) after the date hereof. We have not undertaken to determine, or to inform any person,
whether any such actions or events are taken or do occur. The Resolution and the Tax Certificate relating
to the Bonds permit certain actions to be taken or to be omitted if a favorable opinion of Bond Counsel is
provided with respect thereto. No opinion is expressed herein as to the effect on the exclusion from gross
income of interest (and original issue discount) for federal income tax purposes with respect to any Bond
if any such action is taken or omitted based upon the advice of counsel other than ourselves. Other than
expressly stated herein, we express no opinion regarding tax consequences with respect to the Bonds.
The opinions expressed herein as to the exclusion from gross income of interest (and original
issue discount) on the Bonds are based upon certain representations of fact and certifications made by the
District and others and are subject to the condition that the District complies with all requirements of the
Code, that must be satisfied subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds to assure that such interest (and
original issue discount) will not become includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
Failure to comply with such requirements of the Code might cause interest (and original issue discount)
on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes retroactive to the date of
issuance of the Bonds. The District has covenanted to comply with all such requirements.
It is possible that subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds there might be federal, state, or local
statutory changes (or judicial or regulatory interpretations of federal, state, or local law) that affect the
federal, state, or local tax treatment of the Bonds or the market value of the Bonds. No assurance can be
given that subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds such changes or interpretations will not occur.
B-2
The rights of the owners of the Bonds and the enforceability thereof may be subject to
bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors’ rights
heretofore or hereafter enacted to the extent constitutionally applicable and their enforcement may also be
subject to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases, and the limitations on legal remedies
against public agencies in the State of California.
Respectfully submitted,
B-3
Upon issuance and delivery of the SFID No. 2 Bonds, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Bond
Counsel, proposes to render its final approving opinion with respect to the SFID No. 2 Bonds
substantially in the following form
March 31, 2015
Board of Education
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Members of the Board of Education:
We have examined a certified copy of the record of the proceedings relative to the issuance and
sale of $19,500,000 Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (Placer, Nevada and El Dorado Counties,
California) Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement District
No. 2) (Placer and El Dorado Counties, California) (the “Bonds”). As to questions of fact material to our
opinion, we have relied upon the certified proceedings and other certifications of public officials
furnished to us without undertaking to verify the same by independent investigation.
Based on our examination as bond counsel of existing law, certified copies of such legal
proceedings and such other proofs as we deem necessary to render this opinion, we are of the opinion, as
of the date hereof and under existing law, that:
1. Such proceedings and proofs show lawful authority for the issuance and sale of the
Bonds pursuant to (i) Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government
Code of the State of California, (ii) a 55% vote of the qualified electors of the School Facilities
Improvement District No. 2 (the “Improvement District”) of the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School
District (the “District”) voting at an election held on November 4, 2014, and (iii) a resolution of
the Board of Education of the District (the “Bond Resolution”).
2. The Bonds constitute valid and binding general obligations of the District, payable as
to both principal and interest from the proceeds of a levy of ad valorem taxes on all property
within the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District School Facilities Improvement District No. 2
subject to such taxes, which taxes are unlimited as to rate or amount.
3. Under existing statutes, regulations, rulings and judicial decisions, interest on the
Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax
preference for purposes of calculating the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on
individuals and corporations; however, it should be noted that, with respect to corporations, such
interest on the Bonds may be included as an adjustment in the calculation of alternative minimum
taxable income, which may affect the alternative minimum tax liability of such corporations.
4. Interest on the Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income tax.
5. The difference between the issue price of a Bond (the first price at which a substantial
amount of the Bonds of a maturity is to be sold to the public) and the stated redemption price at
maturity with respect to such Bonds constitutes original issue discount. Original issue discount
accrues under a constant yield method, and original issue discount will accrue to a Bondowner
before receipt of cash attributable to such excludable income. The amount of original issue
B-4
discount deemed received by a Bondowner will increase the Bondowner’s basis in the applicable
Bond. Original issue discount that accrues to the Bondowner is excluded from the gross income
of such owner for federal income tax purposes, is not an item of tax preference for purposes of
the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations, and is exempt from
State of California personal income tax.
6. The amount by which a Bondowner’s original basis for determining loss on sale or
exchange in the applicable Bond (generally, the purchase price) exceeds the amount payable on
maturity (or on an earlier call date) constitutes amortizable Bond premium, which must be
amortized under Section 171 of the of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”); such amortizable Bond premium reduces the Bondowner’s basis in the applicable Bond
(and the amount of tax-exempt interest received), and is not deductible for federal income tax
purposes. The basis reduction as a result of the amortization of Bond premium may result in a
Bondowner realizing a taxable gain when a Bond is sold by the Bondowner for an amount equal
to or less (under certain circumstances) than the original cost of the Bond to the Bondowner.
Purchasers of the Bonds should consult their own tax advisors as to the treatment, computation
and collateral consequences of amortizable Bond premium.
The opinions expressed herein may be affected by actions taken (or not taken) or events occurring
(or not occurring) after the date hereof. We have not undertaken to determine, or to inform any person,
whether any such actions or events are taken or do occur. The Resolution and the Tax Certificate relating
to the Bonds permit certain actions to be taken or to be omitted if a favorable opinion of Bond Counsel is
provided with respect thereto. No opinion is expressed herein as to the effect on the exclusion from gross
income of interest (and original issue discount) for federal income tax purposes with respect to any Bond
if any such action is taken or omitted based upon the advice of counsel other than ourselves. Other than
expressly stated herein, we express no opinion regarding tax consequences with respect to the Bonds.
The opinions expressed herein as to the exclusion from gross income of interest (and original
issue discount) on the Bonds are based upon certain representations of fact and certifications made by the
District and others and are subject to the condition that the District complies with all requirements of the
Code, that must be satisfied subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds to assure that such interest (and
original issue discount) will not become includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
Failure to comply with such requirements of the Code might cause interest (and original issue discount)
on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes retroactive to the date of
issuance of the Bonds. The District has covenanted to comply with all such requirements.
It is possible that subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds there might be federal, state, or local
statutory changes (or judicial or regulatory interpretations of federal, state, or local law) that affect the
federal, state, or local tax treatment of the Bonds or the market value of the Bonds. No assurance can be
given that subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds such changes or interpretations will not occur.
The rights of the owners of the Bonds and the enforceability thereof may be subject to
bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors’ rights
heretofore or hereafter enacted to the extent constitutionally applicable and their enforcement may also be
subject to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases, and the limitations on legal remedies
against public agencies in the State of California.
Respectfully submitted,
B-5
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
APPENDIX C
THE 2013-14 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE DISTRICT
C-1
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Truckee, California
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2014
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
WITH SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Independent Auditor's Report
1
Management's Discussion and Analysis
4
Basic Financial Statements:
Government-Wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position
15
Statement of Activities
16
Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds
17
Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the
Statement of Net Position
18
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund
Balances - Governmental Funds
19
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Change in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds - to the
Statement of Activities
20
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position - Trust and Agency Funds
21
Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net Position
22
Notes to Financial Statements
23
Required Supplementary Information:
General Fund Budgetary Comparison Schedule
47
Schedule of Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Funding Progress
48
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
49
Supplementary Information:
Combining Balance Sheet - All Non-Major Funds
50
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
WITH SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Supplementary Information: (Continued)
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in
Fund Balances - All Non-Major Funds
51
Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities - Agency
Funds
52
Organization
55
Schedule of Average Daily Attendance
56
Schedule of Instructional Time
57
Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards
58
Reconciliation of Unaudited Actual Financial Report with Audited
Financial Statements
59
Schedule of Financial Trends and Analysis - Unaudited
60
Schedule of Charter Schools
61
Notes to Supplementary Information
62
Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with State Laws and
Regulations
64
Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial
Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an
Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards
66
Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance for Each Major
Federal Program and Report on Internal Control over Compliance
68
Findings and Recommendations:
Schedule of Audit Findings and Questioned Costs
Status of Prior Year Findings and Recommendations
70
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
Board of Trustees
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District
Truckee, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, each
major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Tahoe Truckee Unified School
District, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014 and the related notes to the financial
statements, which collectively comprise Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s basic financial
statements as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial
statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant
to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material
misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We
conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s
judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial
statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor
considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the
financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the
entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes
evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of
significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a
basis for our audit opinions.
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects,
the respective financial position of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the
aggregate remaining fund information of Tahoe Truckee Unified School District, as of June 30,
2014, and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended in accordance
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the
Management’s Discussion and Analysis on pages 4 to 14 and the General Fund Budgetary
Comparison Schedule and Schedule of Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Funding
Progress on pages 47 and 48 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such
information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by Governmental
Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for
placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical
context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information
in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America,
which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and
comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the
basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic
financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information
because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion
or provide any assurance.
Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that
collectively comprise Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s basic financial statements. The
accompanying schedule of expenditure of federal awards as required by U.S. Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations and the other supplementary information listed in the table of contents are
presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial
statements.
The schedule of expenditure of federal awards and other supplementary information as listed in
the table of contents is the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate
directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial
statements. Such information, except for the Schedule of Financial Trends and Analysis, has
been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements
and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly
to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or
to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the
schedule of expenditures of federal awards and other supplementary information as listed in the
table of contents, except for the Schedule of Financial Trends and Analysis, are fairly stated, in
all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The Schedule of Financial Trends and Analysis has not been subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not
express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated
November 13, 2014 on our consideration of Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s internal
control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,
regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to
describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and
the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial
reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance
with Government Auditing Standards in considering Tahoe Truckee Unified School District's
internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Crowe Horwath LLP
Sacramento, California
November 13, 2014
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014
This section of Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District’s annual financial report presents District
management's discussion and analysis of the District’s financial performance during the fiscal
year that ended on June 30, 2014. Please read it in conjunction with the Independent Auditor’s
Report presented on pages 1 to 3, and the District’s financial statements, which immediately
follow this section.
USING THIS ANNUAL REPORT
This annual report consists of a series of financial statements. The Statement of Net Position
and Statement of Activities, presented on pages 15 through 16, provide information about the
activities of the District as a whole and present a longer-term view of the District’s finances.
The fund financial statements for governmental activities, presented on pages 17 through 19,
provide information about how District services were financed in the short-term, and how much
remains for future spending. Fund financial statements also report the District’s operations in
more detail than the government-wide statements by providing information about the District’s
most significant funds. The remaining statements provide financial information about activities
for which the District acts solely as a trustee or agent for the benefit of those outside the
District.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
 The Districts Financial status remains positive. The total net position increased by
$4,832,060 or 5.8%.
 Capital assets, net of depreciation, decreased by $2,035,761 and were financed by
developer Fees, State matching funds, federal grants, and Measure C and Measure R
bond proceeds.
 Long-term debt decreased by $1,617,025 due to the pay down General Obligation
Bonds and Certificates of Participation.
 October Enrollment in the District decreased from 3,756 to 3,740. The related
decrease in funding was immaterial as the District maintained its basic aid status with
property taxes continuing to exceed the State Aid provided under the Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF).
 The District maintains reserves that exceed the state required 3% minimum Reserve
for Economic Uncertainties (REU). The total General Fund REU decreased to 17.42%.
4
THE FINANCIAL REPORT
The full annual financial report consists of three separate parts, including the basic financial
statements, required supplementary information, and Management’s Discussion and Analysis.
The three sections together provide a comprehensive overview of the District. The basic
financial statements are comprised of two kinds of statements that present financial information
from different perspectives, government-wide and funds.
 Government-wide financial statements, which comprise the first two statements,
provide both short-term and long-term information about the District’s overall financial
position.
 Individual parts of the District, which are reported as fund financial statements
comprise the remaining statements.
 Basic services funding is described in the governmental fund statements. These
statements include short-term financing and identify the balance remaining for
future spending.
 Short and long-term financial information about the activities of the District that
operate like businesses are provided in the proprietary fund statements.
 Financial relationships, for which the District acts as an agent or trustee for the
benefit of others to whom the resources belong, are presented in the fiduciary
funds statements.
Notes to the financials, which are included in the financial statements, provide more detailed
data and explain some of the information in the statements. The required supplementary
information provides further explanations and provides additional support for the financial
statement. A comparison of the District’s budget for the year is included.
Reporting the District as a Whole
The District as a whole is reported in the Government-wide statements and uses accounting
methods similar to those used by companies in the private sector. All of the District’s assets
and liabilities are included in the Statement of Net Position. The Statements of Activities reports
all of the current year’s revenues and expenses regardless of when cash is received or paid.
The District’s financial health or position (net position) can be measured by the difference
between the District’s assets and liabilities.
 Increases or decreases in the net position of the District over time are indicators of
whether its financial position is improving or deteriorating, respectively.
 Additional non-financial factors such as the condition of school buildings and other
facilities, and changes in the property tax base of the District need to be considered in
assessing the overall health of the District.
5
In the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities, we divide the District into two
kinds of activities:
Governmental Activities:
The basic services provided by the District, such as regular and special education, adult
education, administration, and transportation are included here, and are primarily financed by
property taxes and state formula aid. Non-basic services, such as child nutrition and child
development are also included here, but are financed by a combination of state and federal
contracts and grants, and local revenues.
Business-type Activities:
The District does not provide any services that should be included in this category.
Reporting the District’s Most Significant Funds:
The District’s fund-based financial statements provide detailed information about the District’s
most significant funds. Some funds are required to be established by State law and bond
covenants. However, the District established many other funds as needed to control and
manage money for specific purposes.
Major Governmental Funds
The major governmental funds of Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District are the General Fund,
and Bond Interest & Redemption Fund. Governmental fund reporting focuses on how money
flows into and out of the funds and the balances that remain at the end of the year. A modified
accrual basis of accounting measures cash and all other financial assets that can readily be
converted to cash. The governmental funds statements provide a detailed short-term view of
the District’s operations and services. Governmental fund information helps to determine the
level of financial resources available in the near future to finance the District’s programs.
All Non-Major Funds
The District provides additional services that are outside of the General Fund and are minor in
nature. These services include Adult Education, Child Development, Cafeteria, Deferred
Maintenance, Building, and Capital Facilities Funds.
Fiduciary Funds
The District is the trustee, or fiduciary, for its student activity funds. All of the District’s
fiduciary activities are reported in separate fiduciary statements. We exclude these activities
from the District’s other financial statements because the District cannot use these assets to
finance their operations. The District is responsible for ensuring that the assets reported in
these funds are used for their intended purposes.
6
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A WHOLE
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
The District’s nets position increased from $83,787,065 at June 30, 2013 to $88,619,125 at
June 30, 2014, or 5.8%.
Table 1
Statement of Net Position
Current and Other Assets
Capital Assets
Total Assets
$
2013/14
37,446,550
142,644,155
180,090,705
$
2012/13
32,915,054
144,679,916
177,594,970
Deferred Outflows of resources
832,415
908,089
Current Liabilities
Other and Long Term Liabilities
Total Liabilities
1,998,816
90,305,179
92,303,995
2,793,790
91,922,204
94,715,994
Invested in captial assets, net of related debt
Restricted
Unrestricted
Subtotal Net Position
Adjustments
Total Net Position
55,209,767
26,306,173
7,103,185
88,619,125
88,619,125
53,180,147
20,557,983
10,048,935
83,787,065
83,787,065
$
$
$
Table includes financial data of the combined government funds
7
$
$
$
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A WHOLE (CONTINUED)
District net position increased by $4,832,060 during fiscal year 2013-14.
Table 2
Changes In Net Position
Revenues
2013/14
Program Revenues:
Charge For Services
Operating Grants
General Revenues:
Property Taxes
Federal & State Aid
Other
$
377,860
6,764,398
2012/13
$
555,740
6,407,648
49,480,732
2,157,313
4,352,273
63,132,576
48,730,736
1,797,336
2,487,581
59,979,041
Program Expenses
Instruction
Instruction Related Services
Pupil Services
General Administration
Plant Services
Ancillary Services
Community Services
Other
27,575,366
6,199,026
6,355,190
2,789,139
10,433,332
560,972
34,196
4,353,295
26,534,011
5,053,779
6,058,818
2,690,410
9,852,393
542,434
13,302
2,566,971
Total Expenses
58,300,516
53,312,118
Increase in Net Position
4,832,060
6,666,923
Net Position- Beginning
83,787,065
77,120,142
Net Position- Ending
$
88,619,125
Table includes financial data of the combined government funds
8
$
83,787,065
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A WHOLE (CONTINUED)
The table below presents the cost of major District activities. The table also shows each
activity’s net cost (total cost less fees generated by the activities and intergovernmental aid
provided for specific programs). The $51,158,258 net cost represents the financial burden that
was placed on the District’s general revenues for providing the services listed. Further detail is
available in the audit report.
Comparative Schedule of Costs of Services
Total Cost of
Services
2013/14
Instruction
Instruction Related Services
Pupil Services
General Administration
Plant Services
Ancillary Services
Community Services
Other
Interest on Long-Term Liabilities
Other Outgo
Totals
$
27,575,366
6,199,026
6,355,190
2,789,139
10,433,332
560,972
34,196
1,899
4,351,396
58,300,516
Net Cost of
Services
2013/14
$
$
23,090,249
5,695,273
4,467,169
2,663,910
10,388,339
560,094
32,001
1,534
4,351,396
(91,707)
51,158,258
Table includes financial data of the combined government funds
In fiscal year 2013-14, program revenues financed 12.3% of the cost of providing the services
listed above, while the remaining 87.7% were financed by general revenues of the District. In
fiscal year 2012-13, program revenues financed 13% of the total cost with the remaining 87%
financed by general revenues.
9
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A WHOLE (CONTINUED)
Summary of Revenues for Governmental Funds
FY 2014
Amount
Revenues
Local Control Funding Formula
State Apportionment
Local Taxes
Total LCFF
2,609,064
32,989,728
35,598,792
4.1%
52.3%
56.4%
Federal Sources
Other State Sources
Other Local Sources
2,616,299
5,672,080
19,245,406
Total Other Revenue
Total Revenues
$
Percent of
Total
$
FY 2013
Amount
697,962
33,353,674
34,051,636
1.2%
55.6%
56.8%
4.1%
9.0%
30.5%
2,619,567
6,159,312
17,148,530
4.4%
10.3%
28.6%
27,533,785
43.6%
25,927,409
43.2%
63,132,577
100.0%
59,979,045
100.0%
10
$
Percent of
Total
$
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A WHOLE (CONTINUED)
Summary of Expenditures for Governmental Funds
FY 2014
Amount
Expenditures
Certificated Salaries
Classified Salaries
Employee Benefits
Books and Supplies
Services/Operating Expenditures
Capital Outlay
Other Outgo
Principal Retirement
Interest
Total Expenditures
Percent of
Total
FY 2013
Amount
Percent of
Total
$
22,190,842
9,633,713
9,417,652
3,164,118
4,653,023
2,677,773
6,427,559
3,661,769
35.9%
15.6%
15.2%
5.1%
7.5%
4.3%
0.0%
10.5%
5.9%
$
19,992,463
8,335,365
9,285,861
3,224,839
5,434,471
1,635,154
4,951
5,596,218
3,059,406
35.3%
14.7%
16.4%
5.7%
9.6%
2.9%
0.0%
9.9%
5.4%
$
61,826,449
100.0%
$
56,568,728
100.0%
11
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A WHOLE (CONTINUED)
Table 3
Capital Assets
2013/14
Land
Improvement of Sites
Buildings
Equipment
Work in Process
$
4,365,750
4,233,028
183,508,810
8,344,039
2,269,463
2012/13
$
% Change
4,365,750
4,158,609
182,253,784
8,105,474
966,580
0.0%
1.8%
0.7%
2.9%
134.8%
Subtotal
202,721,090
199,850,197
1.4%
Less: Accumulated Depreciation
(60,076,935)
(55,170,281)
8.9%
Capital Assets, net
$ 142,644,155
$ 144,679,916
-1.4%
Capital assets, net of depreciation decreased $2,035,761, due to depreciation exceeding the
pace of new construction and modernization projects. These projects are financed by a
combination of developer fees, federal grants, deferred maintenance funds, and matching
Measure C and Measure R bond funds.
Table 4
Long-term Debt
2013/14
Compensated Absences
General Obligation Bonds
Certificates of Participation
Capitalized Lease Obligations
Net OPEB Obligation
Totals
$
$
265,121
83,600,244
2,969,000
3,137,264
333,550
90,305,179
2012/13
$
$
236,394
87,630,951
3,666,500
202,319
186,040
91,922,204
% Change
12.2%
-4.6%
-19.0%
1450.7%
79.3%
-1.8%
The general obligation bonds are financed by the local taxpayers and represent 92.6% of the
District’s total long-term liabilities, and certificates of participation are financed by developer
fees and represent 3.3% of the District’s long-term liabilities. In 2013-14 the District entered
into new Capital Lease agreements in the amount of $3.6 million to finance phone and
communication system upgrades at all campuses. The capital lease obligations outstanding
represent 3.5% of the District’s long-term liabilities. The remaining components account for
0.6% of the District’s long-term liabilities.
12
The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of the financial presentation and
contain more detailed information as to interest, principal, retirement amounts and future debt
retirement dates.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF DISTRICT’S FUNDS
Comparative Schedules of Fund Balances
General
Bond Interest and Redemption
All Non-Major Funds
Totals
Fund Balance
June 30, 2014
Fund Balance
June 30, 2013
Increase/
Decrease
$
14,584,383
14,675,254
7,369,467
$
13,853,320
13,364,828
4,499,824
$
$
36,629,104
$
31,717,972
$ 4,911,132
731,063
1,310,426
2,869,643
The combined fund balances of all the District’s governmental funds increased by $4,911,132.
GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS
The District’s budget is prepared in accordance with California law and is based on the modified
accrual basis of accounting. Over the course of the year, the District revises its budget based
on updated financial information. The Original budget, approved at the end of June for July 1,
is based on May Revise figures and updated 45 days after the State approves its final budget, if
needed. In addition, the District revises its budget at First and Second interim. The Budget to
actual presented on page 42 reflects the original budget, final budget and the actual revenue
and expenditures for the year.
ECONOMIC FACTORS BEARING ON THE DISTRICT’S FUTURE
The District has maintained its basic aid status during fiscal year 2013-14. The property tax
revenue collections continue to exceed the LCFF transition grants funded by the State.
However, there is some uncertainty surrounding the pace of TTUSD property tax revenue
increases in the future. TTUSD has planned for continued deficit spending in the 2014-15
budget which will result in an additional decrease in reserves by June 30, 2015.
TTUSD is subject to many financial risks and situations including, but not limited to: fluctuating
property tax revenue, repeal of basic aid status, parcel tax revenue, charter schools, depletion
of one-time revenues, enrollment increases, declining developer fee revenue and PERS/STRS
rate adjustments.
In recognition of these substantial financial risks, the TTUSD School Board revised Board Policy
#3100, furthering its commitment to maintain reserves that exceed the state required minimum
of 3%. Board Policy #3100 establishes a static reserve for economic uncertainty range of 1016% of total general fund expenditures.
13
CONTACT THE DISTRICT’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
This financial report is designed to provide our citizens, taxpayers, parents, investors, and
creditors with general overview of the District’s finances and to show the District’s
accountability for the money it received. If you have questions regarding this report or need
additional financial information, contact Tom Gemma, Executive Director of Administrative
Services, Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, 11603 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California
96161.
14
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
June 30, 2014
Governmental
Activities
ASSETS
Cash and investments (Note 2)
Receivables
Stores inventory
Prepaid expenses
Non-depreciable capital assets (Note 4)
Depreciable capital assets, net of accumulated
depreciation (Note 4)
$
35,284,991
2,084,159
68,189
9,211
6,635,213
136,008,942
Total assets
180,090,705
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS
OF RESOURCES
Deferred loss on refunding of debt
832,415
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Unearned revenue
Long-term liabilities (Note 5):
Due within one year
Due after one year
1,976,814
22,002
7,054,515
83,250,664
Total liabilities
92,303,995
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets
Restricted (Note 6)
Unrestricted
55,209,767
26,306,173
7,103,185
Total net position
$
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of these financial statements.
15
88,619,125
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Charges
for
Services
Expenses
Governmental activities:
Instruction
Instruction-related services:
Supervision of instruction
Instructional library, media and
technology
School site administration
Pupil services:
Home-to-school transportation
Food services
All other pupil services
General administration:
Data processing
All other general administration
Plant services
Ancillary services
Community services
Enterprise services
Interest on long-term liabilities
Other outgo
Total governmental activities
$
27,575,366
$
131,979
1,282,271
-
1,266,674
3,650,081
-
2,880,756
1,276,072
2,198,362
95,934
2,693,205
10,433,332
560,972
34,196
1,899
4,351,396
$
58,300,516
Program Revenues
Operating
Grants and
Contributions
$
4,353,138
Capital
Grants and
Contributions
$
-
Governmental
Activities
$
(23,090,249)
290,379
-
(991,892)
11,632
80,813
120,929
-
(1,185,861)
(3,517,520)
212,003
11,589
34,292
930,233
699,904
-
(2,846,464)
(133,836)
(1,486,869)
-
114,572
44,993
878
2,195
365
91,707
-
(95,934)
(2,567,976)
(10,388,339)
(560,094)
(32,001)
(1,534)
(4,351,396)
91,707
-
(51,158,258)
10,657
$
Net (Expense)
Revenues and
Changes in
Net Position
377,860
$
6,764,398
$
General revenues:
Taxes and subventions:
Taxes levied for general purposes
Taxes levied for debt service
Taxes levied for other specific purposes
Federal and state aid not restricted to specific purposes
Interest and investment earnings
Interagency revenues
Miscellaneous
34,328,824
9,834,730
5,317,178
2,157,313
304,448
90,174
3,957,651
Total general revenues
55,990,318
Change in net position
4,832,060
Net position, July 1, 2013
Net position, June 30, 2014
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of these financial statements.
16
83,787,065
$
88,619,125
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BALANCE SHEET
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
June 30, 2014
General
Fund
Bond
Interest &
Redemption
Fund
All
Non-Major
Funds
Total
Governmental
Funds
ASSETS
Cash and investments:
Cash in County Treasury
Cash in revolving fund
Cash in bank
Cash with fiscal agent
Receivables
Stores inventory
Due from other funds
Prepaid expenditures
Total assets
$ 13,539,532
20,000
2,000
1,720,789
15,700
154
9,211
$ 14,675,254
-
$
4,775,085
1,000
2,272,120
363,370
52,489
1,341
-
$ 32,989,871
20,000
3,000
2,272,120
2,084,159
68,189
1,495
9,211
$ 15,307,386
$ 14,675,254
$
7,465,405
$ 37,448,045
$
$
$
75,934
19,850
154
LIABILITIES AND
FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Unearned revenue
Due to other funds
Total liabilities
719,510
2,152
1,341
723,003
Fund balances:
Nonspendable
Restricted
Assigned
Unassigned
Total fund balances
Total liabilities and fund balances
-
$
795,444
22,002
1,495
95,938
818,941
44,911
4,261,452
1,881,127
8,396,893
14,675,254
-
52,489
7,316,978
-
97,400
26,253,684
1,881,127
8,396,893
14,584,383
14,675,254
7,369,467
36,629,104
$ 15,307,386
$ 14,675,254
7,465,405
$ 37,448,045
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of these financial statements.
17
$
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RECONCILIATION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS BALANCE SHEET
TO THE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
June 30, 2014
Total fund balances - Governmental Funds
$
36,629,104
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of
net position are different because:
Capital assets used for governmental activities are not financial
resources and, therefore, are not reported as assets in
governmental funds. The cost of the assets is $202,721,090
and the accumulated depreciation is $60,076,935 (Note 4).
Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current
period and, therefore, are not reported as liabilities in the
funds. Long-term liabilities at June 30, 2014 consisted of
(Note 5):
Capitalized lease obligations
General Obligation Bonds
Unamortized premiums
Certificates of Participation
Other postemployment benefits (OPEB) (Note 8)
Compensated absences
142,644,155
$
(3,137,264)
(80,564,124)
(3,036,120)
(2,969,000)
(333,550)
(265,121)
(90,305,179)
In governmental funds, deferred inflows and deferred outflows
of resources resulting from defeasance of debt are not
recorded. In governmental activities, for advance refundings
resulting in defeasance of debt reported in governmental
activities, the difference between reacquisition price and the
net carrying amount of the retired debt are reported as
deferred inflows or deferred outflows of resources.
832,415
In governmental funds, interest on long-term liabilities is not
recognized until the period in which it matures and is paid. In
the government-wide statement of activities, it is recognized
in the period that it is incurred.
Total net position - governmental activities
(1,181,370)
$
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of these financial statements.
18
88,619,125
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Bond
Interest &
Redemption
Fund
General
Fund
Revenues:
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF):
State apportionment
Local sources
$
2,609,064
32,989,728
$
-
All
Non-Major
Funds
$
2,609,064
32,989,728
35,598,792
Federal sources
Other state sources
Other local sources
1,720,856
2,137,044
9,484,247
3,193,523
6,756,682
895,443
341,513
3,004,477
2,616,299
5,672,080
19,245,406
48,940,939
9,950,205
4,241,433
63,132,577
Expenditures:
Certificated salaries
Classified salaries
Employee benefits
Books and supplies
Contract services and operating
expenditures
Capital outlay
Debt service:
Principal retirement
Interest
Total expenditures
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures
Other financing sources (uses):
Operating transfers in
Operating transfers out
Proceeds from issuance of debt
-
$
Total LCFF
Total revenues
-
-
Total
Governmental
Funds
35,598,792
22,190,842
8,746,807
9,097,269
2,731,303
-
886,906
320,383
432,815
22,190,842
9,633,713
9,417,652
3,164,118
4,110,847
640,192
-
542,176
2,037,581
4,653,023
2,677,773
550,314
16,536
5,060,000
3,579,779
817,245
65,454
6,427,559
3,661,769
48,084,110
8,639,779
5,102,560
61,826,449
856,829
1,310,426
(861,127)
1,306,128
71,642
(197,408)
-
-
197,408
(71,642)
3,605,004
269,050
(269,050)
3,605,004
Total other financing sources
(uses)
(125,766)
-
3,730,770
3,605,004
Net change in fund balances
731,063
1,310,426
2,869,643
4,911,132
13,853,320
13,364,828
4,499,824
31,717,972
$ 14,584,383
$ 14,675,254
7,369,467
$ 36,629,104
Fund balances, July 1, 2013
Fund balances, June 30, 2014
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of these financial statements.
19
$
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Net change in fund balances - Total Governmental Funds
$
4,911,132
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of
activities are different because:
Acquisition of capital assets is an expenditure in the
governmental funds, but increases capital assets in the
statement of net position (Note 4).
$
2,870,893
Depreciation of capital assets is an expense that is not
recorded in the governmental funds (Note 4).
(4,906,654)
In governmental funds, deferred inflows and deferred outflows
of resources are not recognized. In the government-wide
statements, deferred inflows and deferred outflows of
resources are amortized over the life of the debt.
(75,674)
In governmental funds, debt issued at a premium is recognized
as an other financing source. In government-wide
statements, debt issued at a premium is amortized as interest
over the life of the debt (Note 5).
196,735
Proceeds from debt are recognized as other financing sources
in the governmental funds, but increases the long-term
liabilities in the statement of net position (Note 5).
(3,605,004)
Repayment of principal on long-term debt is an expenditure in
the governmental funds, but decreases the long-term
liabilities in the statement of net position (Note 5).
6,427,559
Accretion of interest increases long-term liabilities in the
government-wide financial statements and is not recorded in
the fund financial statements (Note 5).
(1,226,028)
In the governmental funds, interest on long-term liabilities is
recognized in the period that it becomes due. In the
government-wide statement of activities, it is recognized in
the period that it is incurred.
415,338
In the statement of activities, expenses related to net OPEB
obligations and compensated absences are measured by
the amounts earned during the year. In the governmental
funds, expenditures are measured by the amount of financial
resources used (Notes 5 and 8).
(176,237)
Change in net position of governmental activities
(79,072)
$
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of these financial statements.
20
4,832,060
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
June 30, 2014
Agency Funds
Student
Body
Account
Warrant
PassThrough
Foundation
Trust
Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments (Note 2):
Cash in County Treasury
Cash on hand and in banks
Receivables
$
Total assets
333,022
-
$
1,509,713
-
$
31,574
30
333,022
1,509,713
31,604
333,022
1,509,713
-
-
333,022
1,509,713
-
LIABILITIES
Due to other agencies
Due to student groups
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Restricted (Note 6)
$
-
$
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of these financial statements.
21
-
$
31,604
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF CHANGE IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Foundation
Trust
Fund
Additions:
Other local sources
$
Net position, July 1, 2013
365
31,239
Net position, June 30, 2014
$
The accompanying notes are an integral
part of these financial statements.
22
31,604
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (the "District") accounts for its financial
transactions in accordance with the policies and procedures of the California
Department of Education's California School Accounting Manual. The accounting
policies of the District conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
The following is a summary of the more significant policies:
Reporting Entity
The Board of Trustees is the level of government which has governance responsibilities
over all activities related to public school education in the District. The Board is not
included in any other governmental "reporting entity" as defined by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board since Board members have decision-making authority, the
power to designate management, the responsibility to significantly influence operations
and primary accountability for fiscal matters.
The District has determined the following represent component units:
The District and the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District Financing Corporation (the
"Corporation") have a financial and operational relationship, which meets the reporting
entity definition criteria of the Codification of Governmental Accounting and Financial
Reporting Standards, Section 2100, for inclusion of the Corporation as a blended
component unit of the District.
The District and the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Facilities Improvement
Districts 1 and 2 (SFIDs) have a financial and operational relationship which meets the
reporting entity definition criteria of Codification of Governmental Accounting and
Financial Reporting Standards, Section 2100, for inclusion of the SFIDs as a component
unit of the District. Accordingly, the financial activities of the SFIDs have been included
in the basic financial statements of the District.
The following are those aspects of the relationship between the District and the
Corporation and the District and the SFIDs which satisfy Codification of Governmental
Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards, Section 2100, as amended by criteria:
A
-
Accountability:
1.
The Corporation and SFIDs' Board of Directors was appointed by the
District's Board of Trustees.
2.
The Corporation and the SFIDs have no employees. The District's
Executive Director functions as the agent of the Corporation and SFIDs
and do not receive additional compensation for work performed in this
capacity.
3.
The District's Board exercises significant influence over operations of the
Corporation and SFIDs as the District is the sole lessee of all facilities
owned by the Corporation and SFIDs.
23
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Reporting Entity (Continued)
A
B
-
-
Accountability: (Continued)
4.
All major financing arrangements, contracts, and other transactions of the
Corporation and SFIDs must have the consent of the District.
5.
Any deficits incurred by the Corporation and SFIDs will be reflected in the
lease payments of the District. Any surpluses of the Corporation and
SFIDs revert to the District at the end of the lease period.
6.
The District's lease payments are the sole revenue source of the
Corporation and SFIDs.
7.
The District has assumed a "moral obligation," and potentially a legal
obligation, for any debt incurred by the Corporation and SFIDs.
Scope of Public Service:
The Corporation and SFIDs were formed for the sole purpose of financially
assisting the District. The Corporation and SFIDs were formed to provide
financing assistance to the District for construction, rehabilitation and
acquisition of major capital facilities to support the student population.
C
-
Financial Presentation:
For financial presentation purposes, the Corporation and SFIDs' financial
activity has been blended with the financial data of the District. The basic
financial statements present the Corporation and SFIDs' financial activity within
the Building and Capital Facilities Funds.
Basis of Presentation - Financial Statements
The basic financial statements include a Management's Discussion and Analysis
(MD & A) section providing an analysis of the District's overall financial position and
results of operations, financial statements prepared using full accrual accounting for all
of the District's activities, including infrastructure, and a focus on the major funds in the
fund financial statements.
Basis of Presentation - Government-Wide Financial Statements
The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities displays information about
the reporting government as a whole. Fiduciary funds are not included in the
government-wide financial statements. Fiduciary funds are reported only in the
Statement of Fiduciary Net Position and the Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net
Position at the fund financial statement level.
24
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Basis of Presentation - Government-Wide Financial Statements (Continued)
The Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities are prepared using the
economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting.
Revenues, expenses, gains, losses, assets and liabilities resulting from exchange and
exchange-like transactions are recognized when the exchange takes place. Revenues,
expenses, gains, losses, assets and liabilities resulting from nonexchange transactions
are recognized in accordance with the requirements of Governmental Accounting
Standards Board Codification Section (GASB Cod. Sec.) N50.118-.121.
Program revenues: Program revenues included in the Statement of Activities derive
directly from the program itself or from parties outside the District's taxpayers or
citizenry, as a whole; program revenues reduce the cost of the function to be financed
from the District's general revenues.
Allocation of indirect expenses: The District reports all direct expenses by function in the
Statement of Activities. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a
function. Depreciation expense is specifically identified by function and is
included in the direct expense of each function. Interest on general long-term
liabilities are considered indirect expenses and is reported separately on the
Statement of Activities.
Basis of Presentation - Fund Accounting
The accounts of the District are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is
considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are
accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets,
liabilities, fund balances, revenues and expenditures. District resources are allocated to
and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purpose for which they are to be
spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.
A
-
Major Funds:
1 -
General Fund:
The General Fund is the general operating fund of the District and
accounts for all revenues and expenditures of the District not
encompassed within other funds. All general tax revenues and other
receipts that are not allocated by law or contractual agreement to some
other fund are accounted for in this fund. General operating expenditures
and the capital improvement costs that are not paid through other funds
are paid from the General Fund.
25
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Basis of Presentation - Fund Accounting (Continued)
A
-
Major Funds: (Continued)
2 -
Bond Interest and Redemption Fund:
The Bond Interest and Redemption Fund is used to account for the
accumulation of resources for, and the payment of, general long-term
debt principal, interest, and related costs.
B
-
Other Funds:
1 -
Special Revenue Funds:
The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of
specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for
specific purposes. This classification includes the Adult Education, Child
Development, Cafeteria and Deferred Maintenance Funds.
2 -
Capital Projects Funds:
The Capital Projects Funds are used to account for resources used for
the acquisition of capital facilities by the District. This classification
includes the Building and Capital Facilities Funds
3 -
Agency Funds:
The Student Body Fund is used to account for the various funds for which
the District has an agency relationship with the activity of the fund. The
Student Body Fund accounts for the receipt and disbursement of monies
from the student activity organizations. The Warrant Pass-Through Fund
represents a payroll clearing account with funds held at the Placer County
Office of Education for the accrued payroll liability as of June 30, 2014
4 -
Foundation Trust Fund:
The Foundation Trust Fund is a Trust Fund used to account for amounts
held by the District as Trustee.
Basis of Accounting
Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures or expenses are
recognized in the accounts and reported in the basic financial statements. Basis of
accounting relates to the timing of the measurement made, regardless of the
measurement focus applied.
26
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Accrual
Governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements and the fiduciary
fund financial statements are presented on the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues
are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred.
Modified Accrual
The governmental funds financial statements are presented on the modified accrual
basis of accounting. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are
recorded when susceptible to accrual; i.e., both measurable and available. "Available"
means collectible within the current period or within 60 days after year end.
Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting
when the related liability is incurred. The exception to this general rule is that principal
and interest on general obligation long-term liabilities, if any, is recognized when due.
Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
By state law, the Board of Trustees must adopt a final budget by July 1. A public
hearing is conducted to receive comments prior to adoption. The Board of Trustees
satisfied these requirements.
Receivables
Receivables are made up principally of amounts due from the State of California for the
Local Control Funding Formula and Categorical programs. The District has determined
that no allowance for doubtful accounts was needed as of June 30, 2014.
Stores Inventory
Inventory is valued at latest invoice cost. Inventory recorded in General the Cafeteria
Funds consists mainly of consumable supplies. Inventory is recorded as an expenditure
at the time individual inventory items are consumed or used in meal production.
Capital Assets
Capital assets purchased or acquired, with an original cost of $5,000 or more, are
recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost. Contributed assets are reported
at fair market value as of the date received. Additions, improvements and other capital
outlay that significantly extend the useful like of an asset are capitalized. Other costs
incurred for repairs and maintenance are expensed as incurred. Capital assets are
depreciated using the straight-line method over 5 - 50 years, depending on asset types.
27
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Compensated Absences
Compensated absences in the amount of $265,121 are recorded as a liability of the
District. The liability is for the earned but unused benefits.
Accumulated Sick Leave
Accumulated sick leave benefits are not recognized as liabilities of the District. The
District's policy is to record sick leave as an operating expenditure in the period taken
since such benefits do not vest nor is payment probable; however, unused sick leave is
added to the creditable service period for calculation of retirement benefits for certain
STRS and CalPERS employees when the employee retires.
Unearned Revenues
Revenues from federal, state and local special projects and programs are recognized
when qualified expenditures have been incurred. Funds received but not earned are
recorded as unearned revenue until earned.
Restricted Net Position
Restrictions of the ending net position indicate the portions of net position not
appropriable for expenditure or amounts legally segregated for a specific future use. The
restriction for unspent categorical program revenues represents the portion of net
position restricted to specific program expenditures. The restriction for special revenues
represents the portion of net position restricted for special purposes. The restriction for
capital projects represents the portion of net position that the District plans to spend on
capital improvements. The restriction for debt service represents the portion of net
position available for the retirement of long-term liabilities. The restriction for Foundation
Trust represents the portion of net position restricted for future foundation activities. It is
the District's policy to use restricted net position first when allowable expenditures are
incurred.
Fund Balance Classifications
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Codification Sections 1300 and 1800, Fund
Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions (GASB Cod. Sec. 1300 and
1800) implements a five-tier fund balance classification hierarchy that depicts the extent
to which a government is bound by spending constraints imposed on the use of its
resources. The five classifications, discussed in more detail below, are nonspendable,
restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned.
A-
Nonspendable Fund Balance:
The nonspendable fund balance classification reflects amounts that are not in
spendable form, such as revolving fund cash, prepaid expenditures and stores
inventory.
28
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Fund Balance Classifications (Continued)
B-
Restricted Fund Balance:
The restricted fund balance classification reflects amounts subject to externally
imposed and legally enforceable constraints. Such constraints may be imposed
by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments,
or may be imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling
legislation. These are the same restrictions used to determine restricted net
position as reported in the government-wide and fiduciary trust fund statements.
C-
Committed Fund Balance:
The committed fund balance classification reflects amounts subject to internal
constraints self-imposed by formal action of the Board of Trustees. The
constraints giving rise to committed fund balance must be imposed no later than
the end of the reporting period. The actual amounts may be determined
subsequent to that date but prior to the issuance of the financial statements.
Formal action by the Board of Trustees is required to remove any commitment
from any fund balance. At June 30, 2014, the District had no committed fund
balances.
D-
Assigned Fund Balance:
The assigned fund balance classification reflects amounts that the District's
Board of Trustees has approved to be used for specific purposes, based on the
District's intent related to those specific purposes. The Board of Trustees can
designate personnel with the authority to assign fund balances, however, as of
June 30, 2014, no such designation has occurred.
E-
Unassigned Fund Balance:
In the General Fund only, the unassigned fund balance classification reflects the
residual balance that has not been assigned to other funds and that is not
restricted, committed, or assigned to specific purposes.
In any fund other than the General Fund, a positive unassigned fund balance is
never reported because amounts in any other fund are assumed to have been
assigned, at least, to the purpose of that fund. However, deficits in any fund,
including the General Fund that cannot be eliminated by reducing or eliminating
amounts assigned to other purposes are reported as negative unassigned fund
balance.
29
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Fund Balance Policy
The District has an expenditure policy relating to fund balances. For purposes of fund
balance classifications, expenditures are to be spent from restricted fund balances first,
followed in order by committed fund balances (if any), assigned fund balances and lastly
unassigned fund balances.
While GASB Cod. Sec. 1300 and 1800 do not require Districts to establish a minimum
fund balance policy or a stabilization arrangement, GASB Cod. Sec. 1300 and 1800 do
require the disclosure of a minimum fund balance policy and stabilization arrangements,
if they have been adopted by the Board of Trustees. At April 9th, 2014, the District has
established a minimum reserve for economic uncertainty policy of 10 to 16% of total
General Fund expenditures. As of June 30, 2014, the District has a reserve of
$8,396,893 or 17.42%.
Property Taxes
Secured property taxes are attached as an enforceable lien on property as of March 1.
Taxes are due in two installments on or before December 10 and April 10. Unsecured
property taxes are due in one installment on or before August 31. The Counties of
Placer, Nevada and El Dorado bill and collect taxes for the District. Tax revenues are
recognized by the District when received.
Encumbrances
Encumbrance accounting is used in all budgeted funds to reserve portions of applicable
appropriations for which commitments have been made. Encumbrances are recorded
for purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments when they are written.
Encumbrances are liquidated when the commitments are paid. All encumbrances are
liquidated at June 30.
Eliminations and Reclassifications
In the process of aggregating data for the Statement of Net Position and the Statement
of Activities, some amounts reported as interfund activity and balances in the funds were
eliminated or reclassified. Interfund receivables and payables were eliminated to
minimize the "grossing up" effect on assets and liabilities within the governmental
activities column.
30
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and
assumptions. These estimates and assumptions 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 revenues and expenditures during the
reporting period. Accordingly, actual results may differ from those estimates.
New Accounting Pronouncements
In March 2012 GASB issued Statement No. 66, Technical Corrections – 2013, an
amendment of GASB Statements No. 10 and No. 61. The objective of this Statement is
to improve accounting and financial reporting for a governmental financial reporting
entity by resolving conflicting guidance that resulted from the issuance of two
pronouncements, Statements No. 64, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund
Type Definitions, and No. 62, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting
Guidance Contained in Pre- November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements.
This Statement amends Statement No. 10, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Risk
Financing and Related Insurance Issues, by removing the provision that limits fund
based reporting of an entity’s risk financing activities to the general fund and the internal
service fund type. As a result, Districts should base their decisions about fund type
classification on the nature of the activity to be reported, as required in Statement No. 54
and Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements-and Management’s Discussion and
Analysis-for State and Local Governments. This Statement also amends Statement No.
62 by modifying the specific guidance on accounting for (1) operating lease payments
that vary from a straight line basis, (2) the difference between the initial investment
(purchase price) and the principal amount of a purchased loan or group of loans, and (3)
servicing fees related to mortgage loans that are sold when the stated service fee rate
differs significantly from a current (normal) servicing fee rate. These changes clarify how
to apply Statement No. 13, Accounting for Operating Leases with Scheduled Rent
Increases, and result in guidance that is consistent with the requirements in Statement
No. 48, Sales and Pledges of Receivables and Future Revenues and Intra-Entity
Transfers of Assets and Future Revenues, respectively. This statement was adopted for
the District’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, with no material impact on the District.
31
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
New Accounting Pronouncements (continued)
In June 2012 GASB issued Statement No. 67, Financial Reporting for Pension Plans.
This Statement replaces the requirements of Statement No. 25, Financial Reporting for
Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans and
Statement No. 50 as they relate to pension plans that are administered through trusts or
similar arrangements meeting certain criteria. The Statement builds upon the existing
framework for financial reports of defined benefit pension plans, which includes a
statement of fiduciary net position (the amount held in a trust for paying retirement
benefits) and a statement of changes in fiduciary net position. Statement 67 enhances
note disclosures and RSI for both defined benefit and defined contribution pension
plans. Statement No. 67 also requires the presentation of new information about annual
money-weighted rates of return in the notes to the financial statements and in 10-year
RSI schedules. This statement was adopted for the District's fiscal year ended June 30,
2014, with no material impact on the District.
In June 2012 GASB issued Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for
Pensions. This Statement replaces the requirements of Statement No. 27, Accounting
for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers and Statement No. 50,
Pension Disclosures, as they relate to governments that provide pensions through
pension plans administered as trusts or similar arrangements that meet certain
criteria. Statement No. 68 requires governments providing defined benefit pensions
to recognize their long-term obligation for pension benefits as a liability for the first
time, and to more comprehensively and comparably measure the annual costs of
pension benefits. The Statement also enhances accountability and transparency
through revised and new note disclosures and required supplementary information
(RSI). This Statement is effective for the District’s financial period ending June 30, 2015.
Management has not determined what impact this GASB statement will have on its
financial statements, however it is expected to be significant.
In November 2013 GASB issued Statement No. 71, Pension Transition for Contributions
Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date. The objective of this Statement is to
address an issue regarding application of the transition provisions of Statement No. 68.
The issue relates to amounts associated with contributions, if any, made by a state or
local government employer or nonemployer contributing entity to a defined benefit
pension plan after the measurement date of the government’s beginning net pension
liability. This Statement amends paragraph 137 of Statement No. 68 to require that, at
transition, a government recognize a beginning deferred outflow of resources for its
pension contributions, if any, made subsequent to the measurement date of the
beginning net pension liability. Statement No. 68, as amended, continues to require that
beginning balances for other deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of
resources related to pensions be reported at transition only if it is practical to determine
all such amounts. The provisions of this Statement are required to be applied
simultaneously with the provisions of Statement No. 68 and are effective for the District’s
fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. Management has not determined what impact this
GASB statement will have on its financial statements.
32
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
2.
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
Cash and investments at June 30, 2014 consisted of the following:
Governmental
Activities
Pooled Funds:
Cash in County Treasury
$ 32,989,871
Deposits:
Cash in revolving fund
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash with Fiscal Agent
Fiduciary
Activities
$
20,000
3,000
2,272,120
Total cash
$ 35,284,991
1,541,287
333,022
$
1,874,309
Pooled Funds
In accordance with Education Code Section 41001, the District maintains substantially
all of its cash in the interest-bearing Placer County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund.
These pooled funds are carried at cost which approximates market value. Interest
earned is deposited monthly into participating funds. Any investment losses are
proportionately shared by all funds in the pool.
Because the District's deposits are maintained in a recognized pooled investment fund
under the care of a third party and the District's share of the Treasurer's Pooled
Investment Fund does not consist of specific, identifiable investment securities owned by
the District, no disclosure of the individual deposits and investments or related custodial
credit risk classifications is required.
In accordance with applicable state laws, the Placer County Treasurer may invest in
derivative securities. However, at June 30, 2014, the Placer County Treasurer has
represented that the Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund contained no derivatives or
other investments with similar risk profiles.
33
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
2.
CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)
Deposits - Custodial Credit Risk
Governmental Activities
The District limits custodial credit risk by ensuring uninsured balances are collaterized by
the respective financial institution. Cash balances held in banks are insured up to
$250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and are collaterized by
the respective financial institution. At June 30, 2014, the carrying amount of the District's
accounts was $23,000 and the bank balance was $99,494, all of which was insured by
the FDIC.
Fiduciary Activities
At June 30, 2014, the carrying amount of the student body accounts was $333,022, and
the bank balances were $427,984, of which $13,782 was uninsured by the FDIC.
Interest Rate Risk
The District does not have a formal investment policy that limits cash and investment
maturities as a means of managing its exposure to fair value losses arising from
increasing interest rates. At June 30, 2014, the District had no significant interest rate
risk related to cash and investments held.
Credit Risk
The District does not have a formal investment policy that limits its investment choices
other than the limitations of state law.
Concentration of Credit Risk
The District does not place limits on the amount it may invest in any one issuer. At
June 30, 2014, the District had no concentration of credit risk.
3.
INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS
Interfund Activity
Transactions between funds of the District are recorded as interfund transfers. The
unpaid balances at year end, as a result of such transactions, are shown as due to and
due from other funds.
34
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
3.
INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS (Continued)
Interfund Receivables/Payables
Individual fund interfund receivable and payable balances at June 30, 2014 were as
follows:
Interfund
Receivables
Fund
Major Fund:
General
$
Non-Major Funds:
Adult Education
Cafeteria
154
Interfund
Payables
$
1,341
-
73
81
1,341
$
1,495
$
1,495
Interfund Transfers
Interfund transfers consist of operating transfers from funds receiving revenue to funds
through which the resources are to be expended.
Interfund transfers for the 2013-2014 fiscal year were as follows:
Transfer from the General Fund to the Child Development Fund to
supplement program revenue.
Transfer from the General Fund to the Cafeteria Fund to
supplement revenues.
Transfer from the Adult Education Fund to the General Fund for
allocation of indirect costs.
Transfer from the Child Development Fund to the General Fund
for allocation of indirect costs.
Transfer from the Cafeteria Fund to the General Fund for
allocation of indirect costs.
$
151,767
73
8,421
63,148
$
35
45,641
269,050
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
4.
CAPITAL ASSETS
A schedule of changes in capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2014 is shown
below:
Balance
July 1,
2013
Non-depreciable:
Land
Work-in-process
Depreciable:
Improvement of sites
Buildings
Equipment
Totals, at cost
Less accumulated depreciation:
Improvement of sites
Buildings
Equipment
Total accumulated
depreciation
Governmental activities
capital assets, net
$
4,365,750
966,580
Transfers
and
Additions
$
1,920,808
Transfers
and
Deductions
$
617,925
Balance
June 30,
2014
$
4,158,609
182,253,784
8,105,474
74,419
1,255,026
238,565
199,850,197
3,488,818
(1,074,965)
(47,891,687)
(6,203,629)
(187,701)
(4,522,117)
(196,836)
-
(1,262,666)
(52,413,804)
(6,400,465)
(55,170,281)
(4,906,654)
-
(60,076,935)
$144,679,916
$ (1,417,836) $
-
4,365,750
2,269,463
4,233,028
183,508,810
8,344,039
617,925
617,925
202,721,090
$142,644,155
Depreciation expense was charged to governmental activities as follows:
Plant services
$
36
4,906,654
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
5.
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
Capitalized Lease Obligations
The District leases certain equipment under a capital lease purchase agreement. The
capitalized value for the equipment was $1,332,884 with accumulated depreciation of $0
as of June 30, 2014. Additionally, the District has an additional $2,272,120 in Cash with
Fiscal Agent to be spent on the remaining purchase contract. Future minimum lease
payments are as follows:
Year Ending
June 30,
Lease
Payments
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020-2024
$
Total
787,827
787,827
320,087
320,087
320,087
800,217
3,336,132
Less amount representing interest
Net minimum lease payments
(198,868)
$
37
3,137,264
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
5.
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (Continued)
Current Interest Bonds
Date
of
Issuance
Interest
Rate
Percent
Maturity
Date
Amount of
Original
Issuance
Outstanding
July 1,
2013
2002
2002
2005
2005
2005
2006
2010
2012
2013
2013
3.25 - 5.50
3.25 - 5.50
3.72 - 4.75
3.75 - 4.75
6.00
4.0 - 7.25
2.0 - 4.00
2.0 - 5.00
2.0 - 5.00
2.0 - 5.00
2021
2021
2024
2024
2020
2030
2018
2030
2025
2031
$ 21,155,000
15,835,000
9,060,000
3,595,000
4,080,000
15,450,000
6,290,000
11,605,000
3,615,000
13,450,000
$ 17,385,000
12,970,000
550,000
225,000
4,080,000
505,000
4,740,000
11,565,000
3,615,000
13,450,000
$ 104,135,000
$
69,085,000
Issued
Current
Year
Redeemed
Current
Year
Outstanding
June 30,
2014
$
-
$ 1,400,000
1,040,000
550,000
225,000
505,000
855,000
40,000
90,000
355,000
$ 15,985,000
11,930,000
4,080,000
3,885,000
11,525,000
3,525,000
13,095,000
$
-
$
$
5,060,000
64,025,000
The annual requirements to amortize the current interest bonds payable, outstanding as
of June 30, 2014 are as follows:
Year Ending
June 30,
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020-2024
2025-2029
2030-2032
$
Principal
Interest
5,390,000 $
5,760,000
6,180,000
6,625,000
7,315,000
21,200,000
8,010,000
3,545,000
2,799,114 $ 8,189,114
2,505,564
8,265,564
2,304,676
8,484,676
2,015,426
8,640,426
1,671,801
8,986,801
3,649,603
24,849,603
1,289,706
9,299,706
134,400
3,679,400
$ 64,025,000
38
$ 16,370,290
Total
$ 80,395,290
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
5.
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (Continued)
Capital Appreciation Bonds
Date
of
Issuance
Interest
Rate
Percent
Maturity
Date
Amount of
Original
Issuance
Outstanding
July 1,
2013
Accreted
Interest
Current Year
1999
1999
2005
2005
8.50 - 8.56
8.54 - 8.55
12.63
11.15
2025
2025
2025
2025
$ 2,123,617
1,573,994
821,340
1,680,084
$ 6,416,131
4,774,936
1,384,980
2,737,049
$
558,019
416,867
88,338
162,804
$ 6,199,035
$ 15,313,096
$ 1,226,028
Redeemed
Current
Year
Outstanding
June 30,
2014
$
-
$ 6,974,150
5,191,803
1,473,318
2,899,853
$
-
$ 16,539,124
The annual requirements to amortize the capital appreciation bonds payable,
outstanding as of June 30, 2014 are as follows:
Year Ending
June 30,
2020-2024
2025-2026
Principal
Interest
Total
$ 10,377,627 $ 1,902,373 $ 12,280,000
6,161,497
16,173,503
22,335,000
$ 16,539,124
$ 18,075,876
$ 34,615,000
Certificates of Participation
In December of 2011, the Corporation issued Certificates of Participation (COPs) in the
amount of $4,388,500, with an interest rate 2.22%, maturing in November 2017, in
order to refinance the 2002 Certificates of Participation.
The Certificates of Participation mature in varying amounts during the succeeding
years through 2018. The annual requirements to retire the certificates outstanding as
of June 30, 2014 are as follows:
Year Ending
June 30,
2015
2016
2017
2018
Principal
$
$
39
Interest
722,500 $
731,500
755,000
760,000
2,969,000
$
Total
58,142 $
41,880
25,364
8,436
780,642
773,380
780,364
768,436
133,822 $
3,102,822
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
5.
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (Continued)
Changes in Long-Term Liabilities
A schedule of changes in long-term liabilities for the year ended June 30, 2014 is as
follows:
Balance
July 1,
2013
Governmental activities:
Capitalized lease obligations $
General Obligation Bonds:
Current interest
Capital appreciation
Unamortized premiums
Certificates of Participation
Net OPEB obligation (Note 8)
Compensated absences
69,085,000
15,313,096
3,232,855
3,666,500
186,040
236,394
$
91,922,204
202,319
Additions
$
3,605,004
Deductions
$
1,226,028
567,727
28,727
$
5,427,486
Balance
June 30,
2014
670,059
$
5,060,000
196,735
697,500
420,217
$
7,044,511
Amounts
Due Within
One Year
3,137,264
$
64,025,000
16,539,124
3,036,120
2,969,000
333,550
265,121
$
90,305,179
745,280
5,390,000
196,735
722,500
-
$
7,054,515
Payments on the capitalized lease obligations are made from the General, Building,
and Capital Facilities Funds. Payments on the General Obligation Bonds are made
from the Bond Interest and Redemption Fund. Payments on the Certificates of
Participation are made from the Capital Facilities Fund. Payments on the net OPEB
obligations are made from the general fund and compensated absences are made
from the fund for which the related employee worked.
6.
NET POSITION / FUND BALANCE
The restricted net position as of June 30, 2014 consist of the following:
Governmental
Activities
Restricted for:
Unspent categorical program revenues
Special revenues
Capital projects
Debt service
$
4,261,452
701,453
6,668,014
14,675,254
$ 26,306,173
Fiduciary
Activities
Restricted for:
Foundation Trust
$
40
31,604
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
6.
NET POSITION / FUND BALANCE (Continued)
Fund balances, by category, at June 30, 2014 consisted of the following:
General
Fund
Nonspendable:
Revolving cash fund
Stores inventory
Prepaid expenditures
$
20,000
15,700
9,211
Subtotal nonspendable
44,911
Restricted:
Unspent categorical revenues
Adult education
Child development
Food service operations
Deferred maintenance
Capital projects
Debt service
Subtotal restricted
Assigned:
Textbook reserve
Other assignments
Total assignments
Unassigned:
Designated for economic
uncertainty
Total fund balances
7.
$
Bond
Interest and
Redemption
Fund
-
$
-
All
Non-Major
Funds
52,489
-
Total
$
20,000
68,189
9,211
52,489
97,400
4,261,452
-
14,675,254
5,111
204,785
8,078
430,990
6,668,014
-
4,261,452
5,111
204,785
8,078
430,990
6,668,014
14,675,254
4,261,452
14,675,254
7,316,978
26,253,684
1,847,205
33,922
-
-
1,847,205
33,922
1,881,127
-
-
1,881,127
8,396,893
-
-
8,396,893
$ 14,584,383
$ 14,675,254
$
7,369,467
$ 36,629,104
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
Qualified employees are covered under multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans
maintained by agencies of the State of California. Certificated employees are members
of the State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS), and classified employees are
members of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).
41
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
7.
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS (Continued)
Plan Description and Provisions
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)
Plan Description
The District contributes to the School Employer Pool under the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), a cost-sharing multiple-employer public
employee retirement system defined benefit pension plan administered by CalPERS.
The plan provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments,
and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. Benefit provisions are
established by state statutes, as legislatively amended, within the Public Employees'
Retirement Law. CalPERS issues a separate comprehensive annual financial report
that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. Copies of
the CalPERS annual financial report may be obtained from the CalPERS Executive
Office, 400 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95811.
Funding Policy
Active plan members are required to contribute 7% of their salary, and the District is
required to contribute an actuarially determined rate. The actuarial methods and
assumptions used for determining the rate are those adopted by the CalPERS Board of
Administration. The required employer contribution rate for fiscal year 2013-2014 was
11.442% of annual payroll. The contribution requirements of the plan members are
established by state statute. The District's contributions to CalPERS for the fiscal years
ending June 30, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were $859,807, $870,870 and $978,191,
respectively, and equal 100% of the required contributions for each year.
State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS)
Plan Description
The District contributes to the State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS), a costsharing multiple-employer public employee retirement system defined benefit pension
plan administered by STRS. The plan provides retirement, disability and survivor
benefits to beneficiaries. Benefit provisions are established by state statutes, as
legislatively amended, within the State Teachers' Retirement Law. STRS issues a
separate comprehensive annual financial report that includes financial statements and
required supplementary information. Copies of the STRS annual financial report may be
obtained from the STRS Executive Office, 100 Waterfront Place, West Sacramento,
California 95605.
42
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
7.
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS (Continued)
Plan Description and Provisions (Continued)
State Teachers' Retirement System (STRS) (Continued)
Funding Policy
Active plan members are required to contribute 8% of their salary. The required
employer contribution rate for fiscal year 2013-2014 was 8.25% of annual payroll. The
contribution requirements of the plan members are established by state statute. The
District's contributions to STRS for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2012, 2013 and
2014 were $1,616,850, $1,608,752 and $1,801,717, respectively, and equal 100% of the
required contributions for each year. On June 24, 2014 the Governor signed Assembly
Bill 1469 which will increase the member contribution to 19.1% over the next seven
years.
8.
POSTEMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS
In addition to the pension benefits discussed at Note 7, the District provides postemployment health care benefits as follows:
Benefit types provided
Duration of Benefits
Required Service
Minimum Age
Dependent Coverage
District Contribution
Percent
District Cap
1
2
3
4
5
4
2
3
3
Certificated
Classified
Confidential
Management
Medical, dental
and vision
Medical, dental
and vision
Medical, dental
and vision
Medical, dental
and vision
To age 65
To age 65
10 years but not
beyond 65
To age 65
20 years
20 years
10 years
5 years
55
55
50
50/55 1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
75% at age 55;
80% at age 56;
90% at age 57;
100% at age 58
or older
100%
100%
Active cap
currently
$708.34 per
month
$708.34 per
month 5
Active cap
currently
$708.34 per
month
Active cap
currently
$708.34 per
month
Depending on retirement system.
Only employees hired prior to September 1, 1988 are eligible.
Only employees hired prior to October 17, 2006 are eligible.
Only employees hired prior to June 30, 1988 are eligible.
Cap for current retirees. Cap is frozen at retirement.
43
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
8.
POSTEMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS (Continued)
The District's annual other postemployment benefit (OPEB) cost (expense) is calculated
based on the annual required contribution of the employer (ARC), an amount actuarially
determined in accordance with the parameters of GASB Cod. Sec. P50.108-.109. The
ARC represents a level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover
normal cost each year and amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities (or funding excess)
over a period not to exceed thirty years. The following table shows the components of
the District's annual OPEB cost for the year, the amount actually contributed to the plan,
and changes in the District's net OPEB obligation:
Annual required contribution
$
Interest on net OPEB obligation
558,425
9,302
Adjustment to annual required contribution
-
Annual OPEB cost (expense)
567,727
Contributions made
420,217
Change in net OPEB obligation
147,510
Net OPEB obligation - beginning of year
186,040
Net OPEB obligation - end of year
$
333,550
The District's annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the
plan, and the net OPEB obligation for the year ended June 30, 2014 and preceding two
years were as follows:
Fiscal Year
Ended
June 30, 2012
June 30, 2013
June 30, 2014
Percentage
of Annual
OPEB Cost
Contributed
Annual
OPEB Cost
$
$
$
559,534
562,592
567,727
89%
82%
74%
Net OPEB
Obligation
$
$
$
83,341
186,040
333,550
As of June 1, 2012, the most recent actuarial valuation date, the plan was 0 percent
funded. The actuarial accrued liability for benefits was $3.5 million, and the actuarial
value of assets was $0, resulting in an unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) of
$3.5 million. The covered payroll (annual payroll of active employees covered by the
Plan) was $6.5 million, and the ratio of the UAAL to the covered payroll was 53.8
percent. The OPEB plan is currently operating as a pay-as-you-go plan.
44
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
8.
POSTEMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS (Continued)
Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of reported
amounts and assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the
future. Examples include assumptions about future employment, mortality, and the
healthcare cost trend. Amounts determined regarding the funded status of the plan and
the annual required contributions of the employer are subject to continual revision as
actual results are compared with past expectations and new estimates are made about
the future. The schedule of funding progress, shown above, presents multiyear trend
information about whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing
over time relative to the actuarial accrued liabilities for benefits.
Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan
(the plan as understood by the employer and the plan members) and include the types
of benefits provided at the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of
benefit costs between the employer and plan members to that point. The actuarial
methods and assumptions used include techniques that are designed to reduce the
effects of short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of
assets, consistent with the long-term perspective of the calculations.
In the June 1, 2012 actuarial valuation, the entry age normal actuarial cost method was
used. The actuarial assumptions included a 5.0 percent investment rate (net of
administrative expenses), which is based on assumed long-term investment returns on
plan assets or the employer's assets, and an annual healthcare cost trend rate of
4.0 percent initially. Both rates included a 3.0 percent inflation assumption. The UAAL
is being amortized as a level percentage of projected payroll. The remaining
amortization period at June 30, 2014, was 8 years.
See required supplementary information following the notes to the basic financial
statements, which presents multi-year trend information on whether assets are
increasing or decreasing over time relative to the plan liabilities.
9.
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS
The District is a member of two Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs), Schools Insurance
Group (SIG) for the common risk management and insurance related to workers'
compensation and property/liability and Tri-County Schools Insurance Group (TRISIG)
for common risk management and insurance related to healthcare. The membership
includes other school districts in Placer, Nevada and Sutter Counties. The JPA's
provide first dollar coverage and insure risk up to statutory limits. Settled claims
resulting from these risks have not exceeded commercial insurance coverage in any of
the past three fiscal years.
45
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Continued)
9.
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS (Continued)
The following is a summary of financial information of SIG as of June 30, 2014 and
TRISIG as of June 30, 2013 (the most recent information available):
SIG
Total assets
Total liabilities
Total net position
Total revenues
Total expenses
$
$
$
$
$
86,315,315 $
31,253,582 $
55,061,733 $
82,124,047 $
80,784,567 $
TRISIG
23,516,814
10,830,643
12,686,171
59,239,629
61,063,082
The relationship between Tahoe Truckee Unified School District and each Joint Powers
Authority is such that the Joint Powers Authorities are not component units of the District
for financial reporting purposes.
10.
CONTINGENCIES
The District is subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course
of business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with respect
to these actions will not materially affect the financial position or results of operations of
the District.
The District has received federal and state funds for specific purposes that are subject to
review and audit by the grantor agencies. Although such audits could result in
expenditure disallowances under terms of the grants, it is management's opinion that
any required reimbursements or future revenue offsets subsequently determined will not
be material.
46
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GENERAL FUND
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Budget
Final
Original
Revenues:
Local Control Funding Formula:
State apportionment
Local sources
$
696,409
32,735,502
$
2,604,292
33,074,896
Actual
$
2,609,064
32,989,728
Variance
Favorable
(Unfavorable)
$
4,772
(85,168)
Total LCFF
33,431,911
35,679,188
35,598,792
(80,396)
Federal sources
Other state sources
Other local sources
2,875,787
3,746,605
8,410,152
1,873,227
2,088,447
9,045,340
1,720,856
2,137,044
9,484,247
(152,371)
48,597
438,907
48,464,455
48,686,202
48,940,939
254,737
21,560,679
7,982,679
8,901,102
3,604,212
22,348,678
8,523,429
9,086,178
3,310,329
22,190,842
8,746,807
9,097,269
2,731,303
157,836
(223,378)
(11,091)
579,026
4,110,847
640,192
327,051
57,330
(75,847)
111,646
(1)
Total revenues
Expenditures:
Certificated salaries
Classified salaries
Employee benefits
Books and supplies
Contract services and operating
expenditures
Capital outlay
Other outgo
Debt service:
Principal retirement
Interest
4,068,498
2,915,072
14,300
Total expenditures
(Deficiency) excess of revenues
(under) over expenditures
Other financing sources (uses):
Operating transfers in
Operating transfers out
Total other financing sources (uses)
Net change in fund balance
Fund balance, July 1, 2013
Fund balance, June 30, 2014
4,437,898
697,522
(75,847)
194,218
16,536
661,960
16,535
550,314
16,536
49,257,296
49,006,682
48,084,110
922,572
1,177,309
(792,841)
(320,480)
856,829
(390,336)
(238,277)
71,642
(197,408)
71,642
40,869
(390,336)
(238,277)
(125,766)
112,511
(1,183,177)
(558,757)
731,063
13,853,320
$
12,670,143
13,853,320
$
13,294,563
13,853,320
$
14,584,383
See independent auditor's report on required supplementary information.
47
1,289,820
$
1,289,820
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF OTHER POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB)
FUNDING PROGRESS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Actuarial
Valuation
Date
June 1, 2009
June 1, 2012
Actuarial
Value of
Assets
$
$
-
Schedule of Funding Progress
Unfunded
Actuarial
Actuarial
Accrued
Accrued
Liability
Liability
Funded
(AAL)
(UAAL)
Ratio
$ 3,800,000
$ 3,500,000
$ 3,800,000
$ 3,500,000
0%
0%
Covered
Payroll
UAAL as a
Percentage
of
Covered
Payroll
$ 8,050,658
$ 6,546,355
47.2%
53.5%
Only two years of actuarial valuation data is provided because the District has only had two valuations
performed.
See independent auditor's report on required supplementary information.
48
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
1.
PURPOSE OF SCHEDULES
A
-
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
The District employs budget control by object codes and by individual
appropriation accounts. Budgets are prepared on the modified accrual basis of
accounting in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board. The budgets are revised during the year by the Board of
Trustees to provide for revised priorities. Expenditures cannot legally exceed
appropriations by major object code. The originally adopted and final revised
budgets for the General Fund are presented as Required Supplementary
Information. The basis of budgeting is the same as GAAP.
Excess of expenditures over appropriations for the year ended June 30, 2014
were as follows:
Excess
Expenditures
Fund
General Fund:
Classified salaries
Employee Benefits
B
-
$
$
223,378
11,091
Schedule of Other Postemployment Benefits Funding Progress
The Schedule of Funding Progress presents multi-year trend information which
compares, over time, the actuarially accrued liability for benefits with the
actuarial value of accumulated plan assets.
49
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
ALL NON-MAJOR FUNDS
June 30, 2014
Adult
Education
Fund
Child
Development
Fund
Cafeteria
Fund
Deferred
Maintenance
Fund
Building
Fund
Capital
Facilities
Fund
Total
442,953
296
-
$ 1,153,146
2,272,120
943
-
$ 3,221,287
500
77,142
-
$ 4,775,085
1,000
2,272,120
363,370
52,489
1,341
$ 3,426,209
$ 3,298,929
$ 7,465,405
$
$
$
ASSETS
Cash in County Treasury
Cash in bank
Cash with fiscal agent
Receivables
Stores inventory
Due from other funds
Total assets
$
5,178
6
-
$
224,678
180
-
$
$
5,184
$
224,858
$
$
-
$
(272,157) $
500
284,803
52,489
1,341
66,976
$
443,249
6,328
81
$
73
223
19,850
-
12,259
-
73
20,073
6,409
12,259
22,579
34,545
95,938
Fund balances:
Nonspendable
Restricted
5,111
204,785
52,489
8,078
430,990
3,403,630
3,264,384
52,489
7,316,978
Total fund balances
5,111
204,785
60,567
430,990
3,403,630
3,264,384
7,369,467
443,249
$ 3,426,209
$ 3,298,929
$ 7,465,405
LIABILITIES AND
FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Unearned revenue
Due to other funds
Total liabilities
Total liabilities and fund
balances
$
5,184
$
224,858
$
66,976
50
$
22,579
-
34,545
-
75,934
19,850
154
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
ALL NON-MAJOR FUNDS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Adult
Education
Fund
Revenues
Federal sources
Other state sources
Other local sources
$
Total revenues
Expenditures:
Classified salaries
Employee benefits
Books and supplies
Contract services and operating
expenditures
Capital outlay
Debt service:
Principal retirement
Interest
Total expenditures
1,658
Child
Development
Fund
$
126,415
16,219
Cafeteria
Fund
$
895,443
73,875
242,312
Deferred
Maintenance
Fund
$
141,223
73,030
Capital
Facilities
Fund
Building
Fund
$
381,850
$
2,289,408
Total
$
895,443
341,513
3,004,477
1,658
142,634
1,211,630
214,253
381,850
2,289,408
4,241,433
1,455
119,439
46,769
6,804
587,173
222,224
422,936
18,146
5,016
-
71,243
20,231
-
90,905
26,143
1,620
886,906
320,383
432,815
-
1,501
-
32,525
21,509
229,835
5,674
4,940
1,925,416
273,375
84,982
542,176
2,037,581
-
-
61,644
-
755,601
65,454
817,245
65,454
258,671
2,083,474
1,298,080
5,102,560
(44,418)
(1,701,624)
1,455
Excess (deficiency) of
revenues over (under)
expenditures
-
174,513
-
1,286,367
203
(31,879)
(74,737)
(73)
45,641
(8,421)
-
151,767
(63,148)
-
-
3,605,004
-
197,408
(71,642)
3,605,004
Total other financing
sources (uses)
(73)
37,220
88,619
-
3,605,004
-
3,730,770
Net change in fund
balances
130
5,341
13,882
(44,418)
1,903,380
991,328
2,869,643
4,981
199,444
46,685
475,408
1,500,250
2,273,056
4,499,824
430,990
$ 3,403,630
$ 3,264,384
$ 7,369,467
Other financing sources (uses):
Operating transfers in
Operating transfers out
Proceeds from issuance of debt
-
Fund balances, July 1, 2013
Fund balances, June 30, 2014
$
5,111
$
204,785
$
60,567
51
$
991,328
(861,127)
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
AGENCY FUNDS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Balance
July 1,
2013
Additions
Balance
June 30,
2014
Deductions
Student Body Funds
Glenshire Elementary
Assets:
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash in county treasury
$
7,635
200
$
-
$
7,629
200
$
6
-
Total assets
$
7,835
$
-
$
7,829
$
6
Liabilities:
Due to student groups
$
7,835
$
-
$
7,829
$
6
$
20,196
-
$
56,817
-
$
77,013
-
$
-
Total assets
$
20,196
$
56,817
$
77,013
$
-
Liabilities:
Due to student groups
$
20,196
$
56,817
$
77,013
$
-
$
3,092
35,916
$
161,507
-
$
132,645
35,916
$
31,954
-
Total assets
$
39,008
$
161,507
$
168,561
$
31,954
Liabilities:
Due to student groups
$
39,008
$
161,507
$
168,561
$
31,954
Truckee Elementary
Assets:
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash in county treasury
Alder Creek Middle
Assets:
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash in county treasury
(Continued)
52
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
AGENCY FUNDS
(Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Balance
July 1,
2013
Additions
Balance
June 30,
2014
Deductions
Student Body Funds (Continued)
North Tahoe Intermediate
Assets:
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash in county treasury
$
(354) $
44,680
72,386
-
$
43,125
44,680
$
28,907
-
Total assets
$
44,326
$
72,386
$
87,805
$
28,907
Liabilities:
Due to student groups
$
44,326
$
72,386
$
87,805
$
28,907
$
5,414
83,322
$
238,665
-
$
171,506
83,322
$
72,573
-
Total assets
$
88,736
$
238,665
$
254,828
$
72,573
Liabilities:
Due to student groups
$
88,736
$
238,665
$
254,828
$
72,573
3,030
$
323
$
3,353
$
-
North Tahoe High
Assets:
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash in county treasury
Sierra High
Assets:
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash in county treasury
$
-
-
-
Total assets
$
3,030
$
323
$
3,353
$
-
Liabilities:
Due to student groups
$
3,030
$
323
$
3,353
$
-
(Continued)
53
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
AGENCY FUNDS
(Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Balance
July 1,
2013
Additions
Balance
June 30,
2014
Deductions
Student Body Funds (Continued)
Tahoe Truckee High
Assets:
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash in county treasury
$
8,478
249,050
$
716,887
-
$
525,783
249,050
$
199,582
-
Total assets
$
257,528
$
716,887
$
774,833
$
199,582
Liabilities:
Due to student groups
$
257,528
$
716,887
$
774,833
$
199,582
$
47,491
413,168
$
1,246,585
-
$
961,054
413,168
$
333,022
-
Total assets
$
460,659
$
1,246,585
$
1,374,222
$
333,022
Liabilities:
Due to student groups
$
460,659
$
1,246,585
$
1,374,222
$
333,022
Total Student Body Funds
Assets:
Cash on hand and in banks
Cash in county treasury
WARRANT PASS-THROUGH
Assets:
Cash in County Treasury
Total assets
$
Liabilities:
Due to other agencies
Total liabilities
1,509,713
-
$
-
$
1,509,713
$
1,509,713
-
$
54
1,509,713
-
1,509,713
$
$
-
1,509,713
1,509,713
$
1,509,713
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ORGANIZATION
June 30, 2014
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District was established in 1949 and is comprised of an
area of approximately 700 square miles located in Placer, Nevada and El Dorado Counties.
There were no changes in the boundaries of the District during the current year. The District is
currently operating five elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one
continuation high school and an adult education program.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Name
Kim Szczurek
Randy Hill
Kirsten Livak
Dianna Driller
Gaylan Larson
Office
Term Expires
President
Clerk
Member
Member
Member
December 2014
December 2016
December 2016
December 2014
December 2014
ADMINISTRATION
Robert J. Leri, Ed.D.
Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer
Thomas Gemma
Executive Director of Administrative Services
Dave Curry
Executive Director of Education Services
Corine Harvey
Executive Director of Student Services
55
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Second
Period
Report
Elementary:
Transitional Kindergarten through Third
Fourth through Sixth
Seventh and Eighth
Secondary:
Ninth through Twelfth
ADA Totals
Annual
Report
1,288
791
486
1,288
791
486
1,286
789
483
2,565
2,565
2,558
949
948
932
3,514
3,513
3,490
See accompanying notes to
supplementary information.
56
Revised
Second Period
Report
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF INSTRUCTIONAL TIME
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Statutory
1986-87
Minutes
Requirement
Reduced
1986-87
Minutes
Requirement
36,000
50,400
50,400
50,400
54,000
54,000
54,000
54,000
54,000
64,800
64,800
64,800
64,800
35,000
49,000
49,000
49,000
52,500
52,500
52,500
52,500
52,500
63,000
63,000
63,000
63,000
Actual
Minutes
Number
of Days
Traditional
Calendar
Status
38,800
50,250
50,250
54,008
54,008
54,008
57,476
57,480
57,480
64,924
64,924
64,924
64,924
178
178
178
178
178
178
178
178
178
178
178
178
178
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
In Compliance
DISTRICT
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
See accompanying notes to
supplementary information.
57
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL AWARDS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Federal
Catalog
Number
Federal Grantor/Pass-Through
Grantor/Program or Cluster Title
PassThrough
Entity
Identifying
Number
Federal
Expenditures
U.S. Department of Education - Passed through California Department
of Education
84.027
84.027A
84.027
84.173
Special Education Cluster:
Special Education - Basic Local Assistance
Entitlement, Part B, Sec 611
Special Ed IDEA: Preschool Local Entitlement
Special Ed IDEA: Mental Health Allocation Plan,
Part B, Section 611
Special Ed IDEA: Preschool Grant, Part B,
Section 619
13379
13682
$
-
96,449
13430
17,908
Subtotal Special Education Cluster
84.010
84.048
84.367
84.365
84.126
NCLB: Title I, Part A, Basic Grants Low Income
and Neglected
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education:
Secondary, Section 131 (Vocational Education)
NCLB: Title II, Part A, Improving Teacher Quality
NCLB: Title III, Language Acquisition
Workability II, Transitions Partnership Program
423,860
52,831
591,048
14329
336,338
14894
14341
14346
10006
20,138
88,301
98,862
64,183
Total U.S. Department of Education
1,198,870
U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Passed through California Department
of Education
97.039
Hazard Mitigation Grant
10041
350,170
Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security
350,170
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Passed through California Department
of Education
10.555
10.665
Child Nutrition: School Program
Forest Reserve
13390
10044
895,443
126,093
Total U.S. Department of Agriculture
Total Federal Programs
1,021,536
$
See accompanying notes to
supplementary information.
58
2,570,576
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RECONCILIATION OF UNAUDITED ACTUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
WITH AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
There were no adjustments proposed to any funds of the District.
See accompanying notes to
supplementary information.
59
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF FINANCIAL TRENDS AND ANALYSIS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
(UNAUDITED)
(Budgeted)
2015
2014
2013
2012
General Fund
Revenues and other
financing sources
$
48,479,830
$
49,012,581
$
47,361,942
$
43,631,453
Expenditures
Other uses and transfers out
51,778,324
372,780
48,084,110
197,408
45,040,702
329,406
43,692,555
406,527
Total outgo
52,151,104
48,281,518
45,370,108
44,099,082
Change in fund balance
$
(3,671,274) $
Ending fund balance
$
10,913,109
Available reserves
$
Designated for economic
uncertainties
$
Undesignated fund balance
$
Available reserves as a
percentage of total outgo
Total long-term liabilities
Average daily attendance
at P-2, excluding classes
for adults
731,063
$
1,991,834
$
$
14,584,383
$
13,853,320
$
11,861,486
5,787,931
$
8,396,893
$
8,493,359
$
7,030,162
5,787,931
$
8,396,893
$
8,493,359
$
7,030,162
-
$
11.1%
$
83,250,664
-
$
17.4%
$
90,305,179
3,513
3,522
-
$
18.7%
$
91,922,204
3,513
(467,629)
-
15.9%
$
95,215,965
3,503
The General Fund fund balance has increased by $2,255,268 over the past three years. The District has
budgeted a decrease of $3,671,274 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. For a district this size, the
State of California recommends available reserves of at least three percent of total General Fund
expenditures, transfers out and other uses be maintained. The District met this requirement.
The District has incurred an operating surplus in two of the past three years, and anticipates incurring an
operating deficit during the 2014-2015 fiscal year.
Total long-term liabilities have decreased by $4,910,786 over the past two years due to payment of longterm liabilities.
Average daily attendance has increased by 10 over the past two years. The District anticipates an
increase of 9 ADA for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.
See accompanying notes to
supplementary information.
60
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2014
Charter Schools Chartered by District
Sierra Expeditionary Learning
Included in District
Financial Statements, or
Separate Report
Separate report
61
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
1.
PURPOSE OF SCHEDULES
A
-
Schedule of Average Daily Attendance
Average daily attendance is a measurement of the number of pupils attending
classes of the District. The purpose of attendance accounting from a fiscal
standpoint is to provide the basis on which apportionments of state funds are
made to school districts. This schedule provides information regarding the
attendance of students at various grade levels and in different programs.
B
-
Schedule of Instructional Time
The District has received incentive funding for increasing instructional time as
provided by the Incentives for Longer Instructional Day. This schedule presents
information on the amount of instructional time offered by the District and
whether the District complied with the provisions of Education Code Sections
46201 through 46206.
C
-
Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards
OMB Circular A-133 requires a disclosure of the financial activities of all
Federally funded programs. This schedule was prepared to comply with A-133
requirements, and is presented on the modified accrual basis of accounting.
The following schedule provides a reconciliation between revenues reported on
the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balances and
the related expenditures reported on the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal
Awards. The reconciling amounts represent Federal funds that have been
recorded as revenues that have not been expended by June 30, 2014.
CFDA
Number
Description
Total Federal revenues, Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures and Change
in Fund Balances
Less: E-rate not expended
Less: Medi-Cal Billing Option funds
not spent
Total Schedule of Expenditure of Federal
Awards
62
Amount
$
2,616,299
84.010
(2,552)
93.778
(43,171)
$
2,570,576
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTES TO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
(Continued)
1.
PURPOSE OF SCHEDULES (Continued)
D
-
Reconciliation of Unaudited Actual Financial Report with Audited Financial
Statements
This schedule provides the information necessary to reconcile the Unaudited
Actual Financial Report to the audited financial statements.
E
-
Schedule of Financial Trends and Analysis (Unaudited)
This schedule provides trend information on the District's financial condition
over the past three years and its anticipated condition for the 2014-2015 fiscal
year. The information in this schedule has been derived from audited
information.
F
-
Schedule of Charter Schools
This schedule provides information for the California Department of Education
to monitor financial reporting by Charter Schools.
2.
EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Education Code Section 14503 requires certain disclosure in the financial statements of
districts which adopt Early Retirement Incentive Programs pursuant to Education Code
Sections 22714 and 44929. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, the District did not
adopt this program.
63
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
ON COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Board of Trustees
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District
Truckee, California
Report on Compliance with State Laws and Regulations
We have audited Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s compliance with the types of compliance
requirements described in the State of California's Standards and Procedures for Audits of California K12 Local Educational Agencies (the "Audit Guide") to the state laws and regulations listed below for the
year ended June 30, 2014.
Description
Attendance Reporting
Teacher Certification and Misassignments
Kindergarten Continuance
Independent Study
Continuation Education
Instructional Time
Instructional Materials
Ratio of Administrative Employees to Teachers
Classroom Teacher Salaries
Early Retirement Incentive Program
Gann Limit Calculation
School Accountability Report Card
Juvenile Court Schools
Local Control Funding Formula Certification
California Clean Energy Jobs Act
After School Education and Safety Program:
General requirements
After school
Before school
Education Protection Account Funds
Common Core Implementation Funds
Unduplicated Local Control Funding Formula Pupil Counts
Contemporaneous Records of Attendance, for charter schools
Mode of Instruction, for charter schools
Nonclassroom-Based Instruction/Independent Study,
for charter schools
Determination of Funding for Nonclassroom-Based
Instruction, for charter schools
Annual Instructional Minutes - Classroom-Based,
for charter schools
Charter School Facility Grant Program
64
Audit Guide
Procedures
Procedures
Performed
6
3
3
23
10
10
8
1
1
4
1
3
8
1
3
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, see below
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, see below
Yes
Yes
No, see below
Yes
Yes
4
5
6
1
3
3
8
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No, see below
No, see below
15
No, see below
3
No, see below
4
1
No, see below
No, see below
The District's reported ADA for Independent Study was below the materiality level that requires testing;
therefore, we did not perform any testing of Independent Study ADA.
The District does not offer an Early Retirement Incentive Program; therefore, we did not perform any
procedures related to this program.
The District does not have any Juvenile Court Schools, therefore, we did not perform any procedures
related to Juvenile Court Schools.
The District does not have any Charter Schools; therefore, we did not perform any of the testing required
by Article 4 of the Audit Guide.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of state laws and regulations, as listed
above.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with state laws and regulations as listed above,
of Tahoe Truckee Unified School District. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to
financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the
United States; and the State of California's Standards and Procedures for Audits of California K-12 Local
Educational Agencies. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether noncompliance with the state laws and regulations listed above occurred. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about Tahoe Truckee Unified School District's
compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary
in the circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance with state laws and
regulations. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of Tahoe Truckee Unified School
District's compliance.
Opinion with State Laws and Regulations
In our opinion, Tahoe Truckee Unified School District complied, in all material respects, with the state
laws and regulations referred to above for the year ended June 30, 2014. Further, based on our
examination, for items not tested, nothing came to our attention to indicate that Tahoe Truckee Unified
School District had not complied with the state laws and regulations.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report on compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and
the results of that testing based on the requirements of the State of California’s Standards and
Procedures for Audits of California K-12 Local Educational Agencies. Accordingly, this report is not
suitable for any other purpose.
Crowe Horwath LLP
Sacramento, California
November 13, 2014
65
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL
REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN
AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Board of Trustees
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District
Truckee, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Tahoe Truckee Unified
School District as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial
statements, which collectively comprise Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s basic financial
statements, and have issued our report thereon dated November 13, 2014.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered Tahoe Truckee Unified
School District's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the
financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Tahoe
Truckee Unified School District’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a
timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control
that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged
with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material
weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
66
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether Tahoe Truckee Unified School District's
financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain
provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a
direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an
opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other
matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial
reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the
effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit
performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control
and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Crowe Horwath LLP
Sacramento, California
November 13, 2014
67
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAM
AND REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE
Board of Trustees
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District
Truckee, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s compliance with the types of compliance
requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and
material effect on each of Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s major federal programs for the year
ended June 30, 2014. Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s major federal programs are identified in
the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and
grants applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of Tahoe Truckee Unified School
District’s major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to
above. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133,
Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular
A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and
material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence about Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s compliance with those requirements and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major
federal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of Tahoe Truckee Unified
School District’s compliance.
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
In our opinion, Tahoe Truckee Unified School District complied, in all material respects, with the types of
compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its
major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2014.
68
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of Tahoe Truckee Unified School District is responsible for establishing and maintaining
effective internal control over compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In
planning and performing our audit of compliance, we considered Tahoe Truckee Unified School District’s
internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct and material
effect on each major federal program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program
and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not
for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of Tahoe Truckee Unified School
District’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over
compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a
federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a
deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a
reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal
program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in
internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material
weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged
with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over
compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However,
material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our
testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of
OMB Circular A-133. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Crowe Horwath LLP
Sacramento, California
November 13, 2014
69
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF AUDIT FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
Year Ended June 30, 2014
SECTION I - SUMMARY OF AUDITOR'S RESULTS
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Type of auditor's report issued:
Unmodified
Internal control over financial reporting:
Material weakness(es) identified?
Significant deficiency(ies) identified not considered
to be material weakness(es)?
Noncompliance material to financial statements
noted?
Yes
X
No
Yes
X
None reported
Yes
X
No
Yes
X
No
Yes
X
None reported
X
No
FEDERAL AWARDS
Internal control over major programs:
Material weakness(es) identified?
Significant deficiency(ies) identified not considered
to be material weakness(es)?
Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for
major programs:
Unmodified
Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be
reported in accordance with Circular A-133,
Section .510(a)?
Yes
Identification of major programs:
CFDA Number(s)
84.027, 84.027A, 84.173
84.010
Name of Federal Program or Cluster
Special Education Cluster
NCLB: Title I, Part A, Basic Grants Low Income and
Neglected
Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A
and Type B programs:
Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee?
$
300,000
X
Yes
STATE AWARDS
Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for
state programs:
Unmodified
70
No
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF AUDIT FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)
Year Ended June 30, 2014
SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS
No matters were reported.
71
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF AUDIT FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)
Year Ended June 30, 2014
SECTION III - FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
No matters were reported.
72
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCHEDULE OF AUDIT FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
(Continued)
Year Ended June 30, 2014
SECTION IV - STATE AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
No matters were reported.
73
STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Year Ended June 30, 2014
Finding/Recommendation
2013-01
Current Status
Implemented
Alder Creek Middle School:

No periodic bank reconciliation is
performed.

Financial statements are not prepared
and provided to student clubs for
review.
Truckee High School:
No periodic bank reconciliation is
performed.

Financial statements are not prepared
and provided to student clubs for
review.

Transactions should be reconciled to
bank statements on a monthly basis and
reviewed by a secondary person.
Monthly financial statements should be
prepared on a monthly basis and provided
to student clubs for review.
2013-02
Implemented
At North Tahoe High School, one student
was improperly counted as present for
one day.
We recommend the District ensure
attendance taking procedures are
followed to accurately record student
absences at each school site.
74
District Explanation
If Not Implemented
APPENDIX D
FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATES FOR THE BONDS
This Continuing Disclosure Certificate (the “Disclosure Certificate”) is executed and delivered by
the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District (the “District”) in connection with the issuance of
[$20,000,000][$19,500,000] of the District’s Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District Election of 2014
General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities Improvement District No. [1][2]) (the “Bonds”).
The Bonds are being issued pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Education of the District adopted on
February 25, 2015. The District covenants and agrees as follows:
SECTION 1. Purpose of the Disclosure Certificate. This Disclosure Certificate is being executed
and delivered by the District for the benefit of the Holders and Beneficial Owners of the Bonds and in
order to assist the Participating Underwriter in complying with S.E.C. Rule 15c2-12(b)(5).
SECTION 2. Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth in the Resolution, which apply
to any capitalized term used in this Disclosure Certificate unless otherwise defined in this Section, the
following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings:
“Annual Report” shall mean any Annual Report provided by the District pursuant to, and as
described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Certificate.
“Beneficial Owner” shall mean any person which (a) has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote
or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, any Bonds (including persons holding Bonds
through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), or (b) is treated as the owner of any Bonds for
federal income tax purposes.
“Dissemination Agent” shall mean initially Keygent LLC, or any successor Dissemination Agent
designated in writing by the District (which may be the District) and which has filed with the District a
written acceptance of such designation.
“Holders” shall mean the registered owners of the Bonds.
“Improvement District” shall mean the School Facilities Improvement District No. [1][2] of
Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District..
“Listed Events” shall mean any of the events listed in Section 5(a) or 5(b) of this Disclosure
Certificate.
“Official Statement” shall mean the Official Statement, dated as of March 10, 2015, relating to
the offer and sale of the Bonds.
“Participating Underwriter” shall mean [Fidelity Capital Markets][ Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.]
or any of the original underwriters of the Bonds required to comply with the Rule in connection with
offering of the Bonds.
“Repository” shall mean, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, which can be found at
http://emma.msrb.org/, or any other repository of disclosure information that may be designated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission as such for purposes of the Rule in the future.
D-1
“Rule” shall mean Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time.
“State” shall mean the State of California.
SECTION 3. Provision of Annual Reports.
(a)
The District shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent to, not later than nine months
after the end of the District’s fiscal year (presently ending June 30), commencing with the report for the
2014-15 Fiscal Year, provide to the Repository an Annual Report which is consistent with the
requirements of Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate. The Annual Report may be submitted as a single
document or as separate documents comprising a package, and may cross-reference other information as
provided in Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate; provided that the audited financial statements of the
District may be submitted separately from the balance of the Annual Report and later than the date
required above for the filing of the Annual Report if they are not available by that date. If the District’s
fiscal year changes, it shall give notice of such change in the same manner as for a Listed Event under
Section 5(b).
(b)
Not later than thirty (30) days (nor more than sixty (60) days) prior to said date the
Dissemination Agent shall give notice to the District that the Annual Report shall be required to be filed
in accordance with the terms of this Disclosure Certificate. Not later than fifteen (15) Business Days
prior to said date, the District shall provide the Annual Report in a format suitable for reporting to the
Repository to the Dissemination Agent (if other than the District). If the District is unable to provide to
the Repository an Annual Report by the date required in subsection (a), the District shall send a notice to
the Repository in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A with a copy to the Dissemination Agent.
The Dissemination Agent shall not be required to file a Notice to Repository of Failure to File an Annual
Report.
(c)
The Dissemination Agent shall file a report with the District stating it has filed the
Annual Report in accordance with its obligations hereunder, stating the date it was provided.
SECTION 4. Content and Form of Annual Reports. (a) The District’s Annual Report shall
contain or include by reference the following:
1.
The audited financial statements of the District for the prior fiscal year, prepared
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as promulgated to apply to
governmental entities from time to time by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. If
the District’s audited financial statements are not available by the time the Annual Report is
required to be filed pursuant to Section 3(a), the Annual Report shall contain unaudited financial
statements in a format similar to the financial statements contained in the final Official Statement,
and the audited financial statements shall be filed in the same manner as the Annual Report when
they become available.
2.
Material financial information and operating data with respect to the District of
the type included in the Official Statement in the following categories (to the extent not included
in the District’s audited financial statements):
(a)
State funding received by the District for the last completed fiscal year;
(b)
average daily attendance of the District for the last completed fiscal year;
D-2
(c)
outstanding District indebtedness;
(d)
summary financial information on revenues, expenditures and fund balances for
the District’s general fund reflecting adopted budget for the current fiscal year;
(e)
assessed value of taxable property in the District and the Improvement District,
as shown on the most recent equalized assessment roll for the then-current fiscal year;
(f)
secured property tax charges and corresponding delinquencies for the portion of
the Improvement District located within Placer County for the most recently completed fiscal
year, except to the extent the Teeter Plan, as adopted by Placer County, applies to both the 1%
general purpose ad valorem property tax levy and to the tax levy for general obligation bonds of
the District; and.
Any or all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other documents,
including official statements of debt issues of the District or related public entities, which have been
submitted to the Repository or the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the document included by
reference is a final official statement, it must be available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board. The District shall clearly identify each such other document so included by reference.
(b)
The Annual Report shall be filed in an electronic format, and accompanied by identifying
information, as prescribed by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
SECTION 5. Reporting of Significant Events.
(a)
Pursuant to the provisions of this Section 5(a), the District shall give, or cause to be
given, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds in a timely
manner not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of the event:
1.
principal and interest payment delinquencies.
2.
tender offers.
3.
defeasances.
4.
rating changes.
5.
adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed
or final determinations of taxability, or Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB).
6.
unscheduled draws on the debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties.
7.
unscheduled draws on credit enhancement reflecting financial difficulties.
8.
substitution of the credit or liquidity providers or their failure to perform.
9.
bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event (within the meaning of the
Rule) of the District. For the purposes of the event identified in this Section 5(a)(9), the event is
considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent
or similar officer for the District in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other
proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed
jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the District, or if such jurisdiction
D-3
has been assumed by leaving the existing governmental body and officials or officers in
possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the
entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or
governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or
business of the District.
(b)
Pursuant to the provisions of this Section 5(b), the District shall give, or cause to
be given, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material:
1.
non-payment related defaults.
2.
modifications to rights of Bondholders.
3.
optional, contingent or unscheduled Bond calls.
4.
unless described under Section 5(a)(5) above, material notices or determinations
with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the
Bonds.
5.
release, substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds.
6.
the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the
District or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the District, other than in the ordinary
course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the
termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms.
7.
Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or paying agent with respect to
the Bonds or the change of name of such a trustee or paying agent.
(c)
Whenever the District obtains knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event under
Section 5(b) hereof, the District shall as soon as possible determine if such event would be material under
applicable federal securities laws.
(d)
If the District determines that knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event under
Section 5(b) hereof would be material under applicable federal securities laws, the District shall (i) file a
notice of such occurrence with the Repository in a timely manner not in excess of 10 business days after
the occurrence of the event or (ii) provide notice of such reportable event to the Dissemination Agent in
format suitable for filing with the Repository in a timely manner not in excess of 10 business days after
the occurrence of the event. The Dissemination Agent shall have no duty to independently prepare or file
any report of Listed Events. The Dissemination Agent may conclusively rely on the District’s
determination of materiality pursuant to Section 5(c).
SECTION 6. Termination of Reporting Obligation. The District’s obligations under this
Disclosure Certificate shall terminate upon the legal defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all
of the Bonds. If such termination occurs prior to the final maturity of the Bonds, the District shall give
notice of such termination in the same manner as for a Listed Event under Section 5(a) or Section 5(b), as
applicable.
SECTION 7. Dissemination Agent. The District may, from time to time, appoint or engage a
Dissemination Agent (or substitute Dissemination Agent) to assist it in carrying out its obligations under
this Disclosure Certificate, and may discharge any such Agent, with or without appointing a successor
D-4
Dissemination Agent. The Dissemination Agent may resign upon fifteen (15) days written notice to the
District. Upon such resignation, the District shall act as its own Dissemination Agent until it appoints a
successor. The Dissemination Agent shall not be responsible in any manner for the content of any notice
or report prepared by the District pursuant to this Disclosure Certificate and shall not be responsible to
verify the accuracy, completeness or materiality of any continuing disclosure information provided by the
District. The District shall compensate the Dissemination Agent for its fees and expenses hereunder as
agreed by the parties. Any entity succeeding to all or substantially all of the Dissemination Agent’s
corporate trust business shall be the successor Dissemination Agent without the execution or filing of any
paper or further act.
SECTION 8. Amendment; Waiver. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Disclosure
Certificate, the District may amend this Disclosure Certificate, and any provision of this Disclosure
Certificate may be waived, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
(a)
If the amendment or waiver relates to the provisions of Sections 3(a), 4, 5(a) or
5(b), it may only be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change
in legal requirements, change in law, or change in the identity, nature or status of an obligated
person with respect to the Bonds, or the type of business conducted;
(b)
The undertaking, as amended or taking into account such waiver, would, in the
opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, have complied with the requirements of the Rule
at the time of the original issuance of the Bonds, after taking into account any amendments or
interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances;
(c)
The amendment or waiver does not, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond
counsel, materially impair the interests of the Holders or Beneficial Owners of the Bonds; and
(d)
No duties of the Dissemination Agent hereunder shall be amended without its
written consent thereto.
In the event of any amendment or waiver of a provision of this Disclosure Certificate, the District shall
describe such amendment in the next Annual Report, and shall include, as applicable, a narrative
explanation of the reason for the amendment or waiver and its impact on the type (or in the case of a
change of accounting principles, on the presentation) of financial information or operating data being
presented by the District. In addition, if the amendment relates to the accounting principles to be followed
in preparing financial statements, (i) notice of such change shall be given in the same manner as for a
Listed Event under Section 5(b), and (ii) the Annual Report for the year in which the change is made
should present a comparison (in narrative form and also, if feasible, in quantitative form) between the
financial statements as prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on the
basis of the former accounting principles.
SECTION 9. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Certificate shall be deemed to
prevent the District from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth
in this Disclosure Certificate or any other means of communication, or including any other information in
any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event, in addition to that which is required by this
Disclosure Certificate. If the District chooses to include any information in any Annual Report or notice
of occurrence of a Listed Event in addition to that which is specifically required by this Disclosure
Certificate, the District shall have no obligation under this Certificate to update such information or
include it in any future Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event.
D-5
SECTION 10. Default. In the event of a failure of the District to comply with any provision of
this Disclosure Certificate any Holder or Beneficial Owner of the Bonds may take such actions as may be
necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the
District to comply with its obligations under this Disclosure Certificate. A default under this Disclosure
Certificate shall not be deemed an event of default under the Resolution, and the sole remedy under this
Disclosure Certificate in the event of any failure of the District to comply with this Disclosure Certificate
shall be an action to compel performance.
SECTION 11. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Dissemination Agent. The Dissemination
Agent shall have only such duties as are specifically set forth in this Disclosure Certificate. The
Dissemination Agent acts hereunder solely for the benefit of the District; this Disclosure Certificate shall
confer no duties on the Dissemination Agent to the Participating Underwriter, the Holders and the
Beneficial Owners. The District agrees to indemnify and save the Dissemination Agent, its officers,
directors, employees and agents, harmless against any loss, expense and liabilities which it may incur
arising out of or in the exercise or performance of its powers and duties hereunder, including the costs and
expenses (including attorneys fees) of defending against any claim of liability, but excluding liabilities
due to the Dissemination Agent’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The obligations of the District
under this Section shall survive resignation or removal of the Dissemination Agent and payment of the
Bonds. The Dissemination Agent shall have no liability for the failure to report any event or any financial
information as to which the District has not provided an information report in format suitable for filing
with the Repository. The Dissemination Agent shall not be required to monitor or enforce the District’s
duty to comply with its continuing disclosure requirements hereunder.
SECTION 12. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Certificate shall inure solely to the benefit of the
District, the Dissemination Agent, the Participating Underwriter and Holders and Beneficial Owners from
time to time of the Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or entity.
Dated: March 31, 2015
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By:
Authorized Officer
D-6
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO REPOSITORY OF FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORT
Name of District: THE TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Name of Bond Issue: Election of 2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A (School Facilities
Improvement District No. [1][2]
Date of Issuance: March 31, 2015
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the District has not provided an Annual Report with respect to the
above-named Bonds as required by the Continuing Disclosure Certificate relating to the Bonds. The
District anticipates that the Annual Report will be filed by _____________.
Dated:_______________________
TAHOE-TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
By
D-A-1
[form only; no signature required]
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
APPENDIX E
ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE COUNTIES OF PLACER,
NEVADA AND EL DORADO
The following information concerning the Counties is included only for the purpose of supplying
general information regarding the community. The Bonds are not an obligation of the Counties.
General
El Dorado County is located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Northern California,
encompassing 1,805 square miles of rolling hills and mountainous terrain. Well-known as the location of
Lake Tahoe and Squaw Valley, the County is a major destination for outdoor activities. The County has a
Board of Supervisors comprised of five members, one elected from each County district. The Board of
Supervisors has authority to perform all the duties vested in it by the Constitution, general law, and the
charter.
Placer County stretches from the suburbs of Sacramento to Lake Tahoe and the border with
Nevada. Rapid expansion of Greater Sacramento has made the County population one of the most
fastest-growing in the state. Between 2005 and 2014, the population grew from 307,710 to 366,115, a
gain of nearly 20%. The county seat is in Auburn.
Nevada County is located in the Gold Country of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The rural
geography of mountains, forest, rivers and lakes was one of the main destinations of the 1849 Gold Rush.
The largest incorporated settlements in Nevada County are Truckee and Grass Valley. The County seat is
in Nevada City.
Population
The following table summarizes population estimates for the Counties and State from 2005
through 2014.
POPULATION ESTIMATES
The Counties of El Dorado, Nevada and Placer, and the State of California
2005-2014
Year(1)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010(2)
2011
2012
2013
2014
El Dorado County
Population % Change
171,739
174,218
1.4%
176,226
1.2
177,897
0.9
179,150
0.7
181,058
1.1
180,483
(0.3)
181,711
0.7
181,997
0.2
182,404
0.2
Nevada County
Population % Change
97,454
98,068
0.6%
98,408
0.3
98,581
0.2
98,558
0.0
98,764
0.2
97,944
(0.8)
97,366
(0.6)
97,165
(0.2)
97,225
0.1
(1)
As of January 1.
As of April 1.
Source: California Department of Finance.
(2)
E-1
Placer County
Population % Change
307,710
317,437
3.2%
325,985
2.7
333,805
2.4
340,995
2.2
348,432
2.2
351,463
0.9
355,449
1.1
360,802
1.5
366,115
1.5
State of California
Population % Change
35,869,173
-36,116,202
0.7%
36,399,676
0.8
36,704,375
0.8
36,966,713
0.7
37,253,956
0.8
37,427,946
0.5
37,668,804
0.6
37,984,138
0.8
38,340,074
0.9
Personal Income
The following tables summarize per capita personal income for the Counties, State of California
and United States for the most recent ten-year period.
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME(1)
The Counties of El Dorado, Placer and Nevada, the State of California and the United States
2004-2013
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
El Dorado
County
$42,472
44,808
47,402
49,153
50,461
48,500
49,653
53,236
56,823
57,520
Nevada
County
$38,038
39,618
42,929
44,829
44,617
41,808
43,080
45,864
48,980
50,148
Placer County
$43,057
44,904
47,398
48,575
49,417
47,033
47,758
50,449
53,760
54,924
California
$37,156
38,964
41,623
43,152
43,608
41,587
42,282
44,749
47,505
48,434
United States
$34,300
35,888
38,127
39,804
40,873
39,379
40,144
42,332
44,200
44,765
(1)
Per capita personal income is the total personal income divided by the total mid-year population estimates of the U.S.
Bureau of the Census. All dollar estimates are in current dollars (not adjusted for inflation).
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Commercial Activity
The following tables summarize taxable sales within the Counties from 2005 through 2012.
TAXABLE SALES
El Dorado County
(Dollars in Thousands)
2005-2012
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Retail and
Food Permits
2,628
2,579
2,507
2,778
3,831
3,928
3,849
3,939
Retail and Food
Taxable Transactions
$1,292,107
1,310,701
1,303,337
1,230,164
1,073,469
1,119,482
1,189,421
1,267,343
Total Permits
6,421
6,216
6,122
6,132
5,592
5,702
5,589
5,627
Total Outlets Taxable
Transactions
$1,851,231
1,898,805
1,896,995
1,787,804
1,527,935
1,561,471
1,651,689
1,740,172
Note:
In 2009, retail permits expanded to include permits for food services.
Source: “Taxable Sales in California (Sales & Use Tax)” - California State Board of Equalization.
E-2
TAXABLE SALES
Nevada County
(Dollars in Thousands)
2005-2012
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Retail and
Food Permits
1,669
1,746
1,708
1,846
2,580
2,654
2,629
2,709
Retail and Food
Taxable Transactions
$846,860
877,506
883,818
789,653
682,575
702,470
740,362
762,019
Total Permits
4,359
4,291
4,228
4,176
3,871
3,938
3,890
3,986
Total Outlets Taxable
Transactions
$1,273,632
1,354,634
1,320,841
1,187,429
983,220
1,011,819
1,074,759
1,105,485
Note:
In 2009, retail permits expanded to include permits for food services.
Source: “Taxable Sales in California (Sales & Use Tax)” - California State Board of Equalization.
TAXABLE SALES
Placer County
(Dollars in Thousands)
2005-2012
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Retail and
Food Permits
5,055
5,218
5,065
5,841
7,819
8,110
7,803
8,272
Retail and Food
Taxable Transactions
$5,539,337
5,710,898
5,553,447
5,009,849
4,453,186
4,678,785
5,112,781
5,613,981
Total Permits
11,488
11,623
11,676
12,104
11,135
11,439
11,120
11,621
Total Outlets Taxable
Transactions
$7,232,568
7,531,225
7,431,405
6,634,810
5,796,644
6,017,542
6,568,195
7,065,597
Note:
In 2009, retail permits expanded to include permits for food services.
Source: “Taxable Sales in California (Sales & Use Tax)” - California State Board of Equalization.
E-3
Employment
The following table summarizes the labor force, employment and unemployment figures over the
past six years for the Counties and the State.
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
The Counties of El Dorado, Placer and Nevada, and the State of California
2008-2013(1)
Year
2008
Area
El Dorado County
Placer County
Nevada County
State of California
Labor Force
90,800
177,300
50,440
18,207,300
Employment(2)
84,400
165,900
47,140
16,893,900
Unemployment(3)
6,300
11,400
3,300
1,313,500
Unemployment
Rate (%)
6.9%
6.4
6.5
7.2
2009
El Dorado County
Placer County
Nevada County
State of California
91,700
179,800
50,420
18,220,100
81,600
161,100
45,120
16,155,000
10,200
18,700
5,290
2,065,100
11.1%
10.4
10.5
11.3
2010
El Dorado County
Placer County
Nevada County
State of California
92,200
177,400
50,720
18,336,300
80,700
157,100
44,930
16,068,400
11,500
20,300
5,790
2,267,900
12.4%
11.4
11.4
12.4
2011
El Dorado County
Placer County
Nevada County
State of California
90,600
178,500
50,960
18,417,900
79,800
159,400
45,540
16,249,600
10,800
19,200
5,420
2,168,300
11.9%
10.7
10.6
11.8
2012
El Dorado County
Placer County
Nevada County
State of California
89,900
180,100
50,330
18,519,000
80,600
163,200
45,620
16,589,700
9,300
16,800
4,700
1,929,300
10.3%
9.3
9.3
10.4
2013
El Dorado County
Placer County
Nevada County
State of California
89,300
179,200
49,760
18,596,800
81,700
165,600
45,900
16,933,300
7,600
13,600
3,860
1,663,500
8.5%
7.6
7.7
8.9
(1)
Data is based on annual averages, unless otherwise specified, and is not seasonally adjusted.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department. March 2013
Benchmark.
E-4
Industry
The following tables summarize the average annual industry employment in the Counties from
2009 through 2013.
LABOR FORCE AND INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ANNUAL AVERAGES
El Dorado County
2009-2013
Type of Employment
Total Farm
Mining and Logging
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business Services
Education and Health Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total
2009
300
100
3,400
1,700
800
5,500
600
600
3,500
5,800
6,800
7,000
1,800
11,100
49,000
2010
300
100
3,000
1,600
700
5,500
500
500
3,500
5,700
6,300
7,200
1,700
10,800
47,400
2011
300
100
3,000
1,600
800
5,400
500
400
3,500
5,600
6,500
7,400
1,600
10,500
47,200
2012
400
100
3,100
1,500
900
5,400
500
500
3,700
5,600
6,900
7,500
1,700
10,300
48,100
2013
400
100
3,200
1,600
800
5,400
700
500
4,000
5,600
7,200
8,000
1,800
10,300
49,500
Note:
Items may not add to total due to independent rounding.
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. March 2010 Benchmark.
LABOR FORCE AND INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ANNUAL AVERAGES
Nevada County
2009-2013
Type of Employment
Total Farm
Mining, Logging and Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business Services
Education and Health Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total
2009
70
2,270
1,840
360
3,810
460
370
1,380
2,510
4,350
4,100
1,040
5,630
28,170
2010
80
2,080
1,730
370
3,670
440
330
1,360
2,330
4,160
4,380
1,050
6,160
28,130
2011
90
2,200
1,780
410
3,680
450
300
1,350
2,260
4,320
4,480
1,100
6,130
28,530
2012
90
2,340
1,630
410
3,720
480
300
1,420
2,070
4,520
4,360
1,250
5,940
28,530
2013
80
2,520
1,410
430
3,740
490
300
1,480
2,080
4,790
4,640
1,370
5,910
29,220
Note:
Items may not add to total due to independent rounding.
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. March 2013 Benchmark.
E-5
LABOR FORCE AND INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ANNUAL AVERAGES
Placer County
2009-2013
Type of Employment
Total Farm
Mining and Logging
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business Services
Education and Health Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total
2009
300
100
9,200
7,000
4,000
19,000
3,000
2,500
10,000
12,800
18,100
18,000
4,700
18,700
127,300
2010
300
100
8,400
6,600
3,700
19,300
3,000
2,500
9,700
13,000
19,100
18,100
4,500
18,900
127,200
2011
400
0
8,100
6,600
3,700
19,800
2,800
2,300
9,700
13,300
20,200
18,500
4,700
18,200
128,300
2012
300
0
8,600
6,300
4,100
20,500
2,900
2,300
10,300
13,900
21,400
19,000
5,100
18,700
133,500
2013
400
0
9,700
6,200
4,100
21,400
3,100
2,200
11,200
15,000
23,000
20,000
5,500
19,100
140,700
Note:
Items may not add to total due to independent rounding.
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. March 2010 Benchmark.
Largest Employers
The following tables identify the largest employers in El Dorado County and Placer County.
LARGEST EMPLOYERS
El Dorado County
2014
Rank #
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Name of Business
El Dorado County
Blue Shield of California
Marshall Medical Center
Red Hawk Casino
DST Output
U.S. Government
State of California
Barton Health
El Dorado County Office of Education
Sierra-at-Tahoe Resort LLC
El Dorado Union High School District
Raley’s Inc.
Lake Tahoe Unified School District
Buckeye Union Elementary School
District
El Dorado Irrigation District
No. of County
Employees(1)
1,850
1,839
1,502
1,400
850
800
693(2)
604
600
600
595
504
400
365
220
(1)
Type of Business
County government
Health insurance
Health care
Casino and entertainment
Cross-media customer communications
Government
Government
Health care
Education
Snowsports resort
Education
Retail grocery
School district
School district
Water, wastewater, and hydroelectric
water provider
Full-time employees.
Source: Sacramento Business Journal, Book of Lists 2015 (originally published May 16, 2014).
E-6
LARGEST EMPLOYERS
Placer County
2014
Rank #
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
No. of County
Employees
3,890
3,826
2,500
2,391
2,300
2,230(1)
1,254
1,164
Name of Business
Sutter Health
Kaiser Permanente
Squaw Valley Resort
Thunder Valley Casino Resort
Placer County
Hewlett-Packard Co.
City of Roseville
Pride Industries
Roseville City School District
State of California
Raley’s Inc.
Wells Fargo & Co.
Adventist Health System/West dba
Adventist Health
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Western Placer Unified School District
1,006
940
909
800
767
Type of Business
Health care
Health care
Hospitality, ski industry, tourism
Casino/hotel, hospitality
County government
Information technology products
Local government
Manufacturing and logistics services,
rehabilitation services
Public school district
State government
Retail grocery
Financial services
Health care system
671
600
Gas and electric service provider
School district
(1)
Estimate based on previously published sources.
Source: Sacramento Business Journal, Book of Lists 2015 (originally published June 6, 2014).
Construction Activity
The following tables identify the number of new building permits, and valuations in the Counties.
BUILDING PERMITS AND VALUATIONS
El Dorado County
2011-2013
Valuation ($000)
Residential
Non-Residential
TOTAL(1)
New Dwelling Units
Single Family
Multiple Family
TOTAL(1)
2011
$85,112
71,691
$156,803
2012
$134,324
17,694
$154,030
2013
$172,133
92,297
$266,443
137
0
137
123
115
238
293
46
339
(1)
Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.
Note:
Data for prior years is currently unavailable.
Source: Construction Industry Research Board.
E-7
BUILDING PERMITS AND VALUATIONS
Placer County
2009-2013
Valuation ($000)
Residential
Non-Residential
TOTAL(1)
New Dwelling Units
Single Family
Multiple Family
TOTAL(1)
2009
$324,704
113,576
$438,281
2010
$334,235
108,644
$442,879
2011
$284,470
123,694
$408,164
2012
$478,461
86,756
$567,229
2013
$435,723
161,350
$599,086
1,056
259
1,315
1,088
83
1,171
802
28
830
1,209
111
1,320
1,249
227
1,476
(1)
Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Construction Industry Research Board.
BUILDING PERMITS AND VALUATIONS
Nevada County
2011-2013
Valuation ($000)
Residential
Non-Residential
TOTAL(1)
New Dwelling Units
Single Family
Multiple Family
TOTAL(1)
2011
$42,053
26,724
$68,777
2012
$38,904
21,845
$62,761
2013
$65,900
21,166
$89,079
91
0
91
91
0
91
173
0
173
(1)
Columns may not add to totals due to rounding.
Note:
Data for prior years is currently unavailable.
Source: Construction Industry Research Board.
E-8
APPENDIX F
PLACER COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL
The following information concerning the Placer County Investment Pool (the “Investment
Pool”) has been provided by the Treasurer and Tax Collector (the “Treasurer”) of Nevada County (the
“County”), and has not been confirmed or verified by the District, the Financial Advisor or the
Underwriters. The District and the Underwriters have not made an independent investigation of the
investments in the Investment Pool and have made no assessment of the current County investment policy.
The value of the various investments in the Investment Pool will fluctuate on a daily basis as a result of a
multitude of factors, including generally prevailing interest rates and other economic conditions.
Additionally, the Treasurer, with the consent of the County Board of Supervisors may change the County
investment policy at any time. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the values of the various
investments in the Investment Pool will not vary significantly from the values described herein. Finally,
none of the District, the Financial Advisor or the Underwriters make any representation as to the
accuracy or adequacy of such information or as to the absence of material adverse changes in such
information subsequent to the date hereof, or that the information contained or incorporated hereby by
reference is correct as of any time subsequent to its date. Additional information regarding the
Investment Pool may be obtained from the Treasurer at http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/tax;
however, the information presented on such website is not incorporated herein by any reference.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK]
F-1