Insured California Intermediate Term Portfolio Series 11
File No. 33-49703
Delaware Portfolio Series 13
File No. 33-49595
Maryland Portfolio Series 15
File No. 33-40710
Investment Company Act No. 811-3676
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 4
TO FORM S-6
For Registration Under the Securities Act of 1933 of Securities
of Unit Investment Trusts Registered on Form N-8B-2
A. Exact name of Trust:
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO
SERIES 11
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
B. Name of Depositor:
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC.
C. Complete address of Depositor's principal executive
office:
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC.
Two World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
D. Name and complete address of agent for service:
Mr. Michael D. Browne
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
Unit Trust Department
Two World Trade Center, 59th Floor
New York, New York 10048
<PAGE>
Copy to:
Kenneth W. Orce, Esq.
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
80 Pine Street
New York, New York 10005
Check box if it is proposed that this filing should
/x/ become effective immediately upon filing pursuant to
paragraph(b) of Rule 485.
Pursuant to Rule 429(b) under the Securities Act of
1933, the Registration Statement and prospectus con-
tained herein relates to Registration Statements
Nos.:
33-49703
33-49595
33-40710
<PAGE>
Cross Reference Sheet
Pursuant to Rule 404(c) of Regulation C
under the Securities Act of 1933
(Form N-8B-2 Items required by Instruction 1
as to Prospectus on Form S-6)
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
I. Organization and General Information
1. a) Name of Trust Front Cover
b) Title of Securities issued
2. Name and address of Depositor Table of Contents
3. Name and address of Trustee Table of Contents
4. Name and address of principal Table of Contents
Underwriter
5. Organization of Trust Introduction
6. Execution and termination of In- Introduction; Amendment
denture and Termination of the
Indenture
7. Changes of name *50
8. Fiscal Year Included in Form N-8B-2
9. Litigation *50
II. General Description of the Trust
and Securities of the Trust
10. General Information regarding
Trust's Securities and Rights of
Holders
a) Type of Securities Rights of Unit Holders
(Registered or Bearer)
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
b) Type of Securities Administration of the
(Cumulative or Distribu- Trust-Distribution
tive)
c) Rights of Holders as to Redemption; Public Of-
Withdrawal or Redemption fering of Units-
Secondary Market
d) Rights of Holders as to Public Offering of
conversion, transfer, etc. Units-Secondary Market;
Exchange Option; Redemp-
tion; Rights of Unit
Holders-Certificates
e) Lapses or defaults with re- *50
spect to periodic payment
plan certificates
f) Voting rights as to Securi- Rights of Unit Holders-
ties under the Indenture Certain Limitations
g) Notice to Holders as to Amendment and Termina-
change in: tion of the Indenture
1) Assets of Trust Administration of the
Trust-Reports to Unit
Holders; The Trust-
Summary Description of
the Portfolios
2) Terms and Conditions Amendment and Termina-
of Trust's Securities tion of the Indenture
3) Provisions of Trust Amendment and Termina-
tion of the Indenture
4) Identity of Depositor Sponsor; Trustee
and Trustee
h) Security Holders consent
required to change:
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
1) Composition of assets Amendment and Termina-
of Trust tion of the Indenture
2) Terms and conditions Amendment and Termina-
of Trust's Securities tion of the Indenture
3) Provisions of Inden- Amendment and Termina-
ture tion of the Indenture
4) Identity of Depositor *50
and Trustee
i) Other Provisions Cover of Prospectus; tax
status
11. Type of securities comprising The Trust-Summary De-
units scription of the Portfo-
lios; Objectives and Se-
curities Selection; The
Trust-Special Considera-
tions
12. Type of securities comprising *50
periodic payment certificates
13. a) Load, fees, expenses, etc. Summary of Essential In-
formation; Public Offer-
ing of Units-Public Of-
fering Price;-Profit of
Sponsor;-Volume Dis-
count; Expenses and
Charges
b) Certain information regard- *50
ing periodic payment cer-
tificates
c) Certain percentages Summary of Essential In-
formation; Public Offer-
ing of Units-Public Of-
fering Price; -Profit of
Sponsor; -Volume Dis-
count
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
d) Price differentials Public Offering of Units
- Public Offering Price
e) Certain other fees, etc. Rights of Unit Holders -
payable by holders Certificates
f) Certain profits receivable Redemption _ Purchase by
by depositor, principal un- the Sponsors of Units
derwriters, trustee or af- Tendered for Redemption
filiated persons
g) Ratio of annual charges to *50
income
14. Issuance of trust's securities Introduction; Rights of
Unit Holders - Certifi-
cates
15. Receipt and handling of payments Public Offering of
from purchasers Units-Profit of Sponsor
16. Acquisition and disposition of Introduction; Amendment
underlying securities and Termination of the
Indenture; Objectives
and Securities Selec-
tion; The Trust-Summary
Description of the Port-
folio; Sponsor-
Responsibility
17. Withdrawal or redemption by Se- Redemption; Public Of-
curity Holders fering of Units-
Secondary Market
18. a) Receipt and disposition of Administration of the
income Trust; Reinvestment Pro-
grams
b) Reinvestment of distribu- Reinvestment Programs
tions
c) Reserves or special fund Administration of the
Trust-Distribution
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
d) Schedule of distribution *50
19. Records, accounts and report Administration of the
Trust-Records and Ac-
counts; Reports to Unit
Holders
20. Certain miscellaneous provisions Amendment and Termina-
of the Indenture tion of the Indenture;
Sponsor-Limitation on
Liability
-Resignation; Trustee-
-Limitation on Liability
-Resignation
21. Loans to security holders *50
22. Limitations on liability Sponsor, Trustee;
Evaluator - Limitation
on Liability
23. Bonding arrangements Included on Form N-8B-2
24. Other material provisions of the *50
Indenture
III. Organization Personnel and
Affiliated Persons of Depositor
25. Organization of Depositor Sponsor
26. Fees received by Depositor Expenses and Charges-
fees; Public Offering of
Units-Profit of Sponsor
27. Business of Depositor Sponsor and Included in
Form N-8B-2
28. Certain information as to offi- Included in Form N-8B-2
cials and affiliated persons of
Depositor
29. Voting securities of Depositor Included in Form N-8B-2
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
30. Persons controlling Depositor *50
31. Payments by Depositor for cer- *50
tain other services
32. Payments by Depositor for cer- *50
tain other services rendered to
trust
33. Remuneration of employees of De- *50
positor for certain services
rendered to trust
34. Remuneration of other persons *50
for certain services rendered to
trust
IV. Distribution and Redemption of Securities
35. Distribution of trust's securi- Public Offering of
ties by states Units-Public Distribu-
tion
36. Suspension of sales of trust's *50
securities
37. Revocation of authority to dis- *50
tribute
38. a) Method of distribution Public Offering of Units
b) Underwriting agreements
c) Selling agreements
39. a) Organization of principal Sponsor
underwriter
b) N.A.S.D. membership of
principal underwriter
40. Certain fees received by princi- Public Offering of
pal underwriter Units-Profit of Sponsor
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
41. a) Business of principal un- Sponsor
derwriter
b) Branch officers of princi- *50
pal underwriter
c) Salesman of principal un- *50
derwriter
42. Ownership of trust's securities *50
by certain persons
43. Certain brokerage commissions *50
received by principal under-
writer
44. a) Method of valuation Public Offering of Units
b) Schedule as to offering *50
price
c) Variation in offering price Public Offering of
to certain persons Units-Volume Discount;
Exchange option
45. Suspension of redemption rights *50
46. a) Redemption valuation Public Offering of
Units-Secondary Market;
Redemption
b) Schedule as to redemption *50
price
47. Maintenance of position in un- See items 10(d), 44 and
derlying securities 46
V. Information concerning the Trustee or Custodian
48. Organization and regulation of Trustee
Trustee
49. Fees and expenses of Trustee Expenses and Charges
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
50. Trustee's lien Expenses and Charges
VI. Information concerning Insurance
of Holders of Securities
51. a) Name and address of Insur- *50
ance Company
b) Type of policies *50
c) Type of risks insured and *50
excluded
d) Coverage of policies *50
e) Beneficiaries of policies *50
f) Terms and manner of cancel- *50
lation
g) Method of determining pre- *50
miums
h) Amount of aggregate premi- *50
ums paid
i) Who receives any part of *50
premiums
j) Other material provisions *50
of the Trust relating to
insurance
VII. Policy of Registrant
52. a) Method of selecting and Introduction; Objectives
eliminating securities from and Securities Selec-
the Trust tion; The Trust-Summary
Description of the Port-
folio; Sponsor-
Responsibility
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
Form N-8B-2 Form S-6
Item Number Heading in Prospectus
b) Elimination of securities *50
from the Trust
c) Policy of Trust regarding Introduction, Objectives
substitution and elimina- and Securities Selec-
tion of securities tion; Sponsor _ Respon-
sibility
d) Description of any funda- *50
mental policy of the Trust
53. Taxable status of the Trust Cover of Prospectus; Tax
Status
VIII. Financial and Statistical Information
54. Information regarding the *50
Trust's past ten fiscal years
55. Certain information regarding *50
periodic payment plan certifi-
cates
56. Certain information regarding *50
periodic payment plan certifi-
cates
57. Certain information regarding *50
periodic payment plan certifi-
cates
58. Certain information regarding *50
periodic payment plan certifi-
cates
59. Financial statements Statement of Financial
(Instruction 1(c) to Form S-6) Condition
____________________
*50 Not applicable, answer negative or not required.
<PAGE>
LOGO
DEAN WITTER SELECT
MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
Standard & Poor's Corporation Rating: AAA
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
(Intermediate-Long Term Maturity)
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
(Intermediate-Long Term Maturity)
(Unit Investment Trusts)
These Trusts were formed for the purpose of providing interest
income which in the opinion of bond counsel is, under existing
law, excludable from gross income for Federal income tax pur-
poses (except in certain instances depending on the Unit Hold-
ers) and, in the case of a State Trust, is exempt from state
income taxes to individual Unit Holders resident in the state
for which the State Trust is named, through investment in a
fixed portfolio consisting primarily of investment grade inter-
mediate-long term (or intermediate term, in the case of the In-
sured California Intermediate Term Trust) state, municipal and
public authority debt obligations. The value of the Units of
each of the Trusts will fluctuate with the value of the portfo-
lio of underlying Securities. The portfolio of the Insured
California Intermediate Term Trust was structured as of the
Date of Deposit to return to Unit Holders each year beginning
in 2001, approximately 20% of the per Unit principal amount of
the Securities included in the Trust. (See: "Schedule of
Portfolio Securities".) The Units of the Insured California
Intermediate Term Trust only are rated AAA by Standard & Poor's
Corporation because all of the Securities in such Trust have
been irrevocably insured by insurance either provided by the
respective Issuers thereof or obtained by third parties. Mini-
mum Purchase: 1 Unit for the Delaware Uninsured and Maryland
Uninsured Trusts and $1,000 for the Insured California Interme-
diate Term Trust.
<PAGE>
This Prospectus consists of two parts. Part A contains a Sum-
mary of Essential Information and descriptive material relating
to the Trusts, and the portfolio and financial statements of
each Trust. Part B contains a general description of the
Trusts. Part A may not be distributed unless accompanied by
Part B.
The Initial Public Offering of Units in the Trusts has been
completed. The Units offered hereby are issued and outstanding
Units which have been acquired by the Sponsor either by pur-
chase from the Trustee of Units tendered for redemption or in
the Secondary Market.
Sponsor: LOGO DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC.
THESE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ANY STATE SECURITIES
COMMISSION NOR HAS THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR
ANY STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR
ADEQUACY OF THIS PROSPECTUS. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE
CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
Read and retain both parts of this Prospectus for future refer-
ence.
Units of the Trusts are not deposits or obligations of, or
guaranteed or endorsed by, any bank, and the Units are not fed-
erally insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Federal Reserve Board, or any other agency.
Prospectus Part A dated December 11, 1997
<PAGE>
THIS PROSPECTUS DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE INVESTMENT COMPANY SET FORTH IN ITS REGISTRATION
STATEMENT AND EXHIBITS RELATING THERETO WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED
WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT
OF 1940, AND TO WHICH REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE.
THE USE OF THE TERM "INSURED" IN THE NAME OF A TRUST DOES NOT
MEAN THAT THE TRUST UNITS ARE INSURED BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL OR
PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. THE TRUST UNITS ARE NOT INSURED.
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART A
Table of Contents..................................... A-1
Summary of Essential Information...................... A-3
The Insured California Intermediate Term Trust... A-13
The Delaware Uninsured Trust..................... A-22
The Maryland Uninsured Trust..................... A-33
Independent Auditor's Report.......................... F-1
PART B
Introduction.......................................... 1
The Trust............................................. 2
Special Considerations........................... 2
Summary Description of the Portfolios............ 3
Insurance on the Securities in an Insured Trust....... 21
Objectives and Securities Selection................... 25
The Units............................................. 26
Tax Status............................................ 27
Public Offering of Units.............................. 32
Public Offering Price............................ 32
Public Distribution.............................. 33
Secondary Market................................. 34
Profit of Sponsor................................ 35
Volume Discount.................................. 35
Exchange Option....................................... 36
Reinvestment Programs................................. 37
Redemption............................................ 38
Tender of Units.................................. 38
Computation of Redemption Price per Unit......... 39
A-1
<PAGE>
Page
Purchase by the Sponsor of Units Tendered 39
for Redemption .................................
Rights of Unit Holders................................ 40
Certificates..................................... 40
Certain Limitations.............................. 40
Expenses and Charges.................................. 40
Initial Expenses................................. 40
Fees............................................. 40
Other Charges.................................... 41
Administration of the Trust........................... 42
Records and Accounts............................. 42
Distribution..................................... 42
Distribution of Interest and Principal........... 42
Reports to Unit Holders.......................... 44
Sponsor............................................... 45
Trustee............................................... 47
Evaluator............................................. 48
Amendment and Termination of the Indenture............ 49
Legal Opinions........................................ 50
Auditors.............................................. 50
Bond Ratings.......................................... 50
Federal Tax Free vs. Taxable Income................... 54
Sponsor:
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
Two World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
Evaluator:
Kenny S&P Evaluation Services
A Division of J.J. Kenny Co., Inc.
65 Broadway
New York, New York 10006
Trustee:
The Bank of New York
101 Barclay Street
New York, New York 10286
NO PERSON IS AUTHORIZED TO GIVE ANY INFORMATION OR TO MAKE ANY
REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS INVESTMENT COMPANY NOT
CONTAINED IN THIS PROSPECTUS; AND ANY INFORMATION OR
REPRESENTATION NOT CONTAINED HEREIN MUST NOT BE RELIED UPON AS
HAVING BEEN AUTHORIZED. THIS PROSPECTUS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN
A-2
<PAGE>
OFFER TO SELL, OR A SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY, SECURITIES
IN ANY STATE TO ANY PERSON TO WHOM IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO MAKE
SUCH OFFER IN SUCH STATE.
A-3
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL INFORMATION
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
As of September 30, 1997
<S> <C> <S> <C>
FACE AMOUNT OF SECURITIES $3,225,000.00 DAILY RATE AT WHICH ESTIMATED NET
INTEREST ACCRUES PER 1,000 UNITS .0115%
NUMBER OF UNITS 3,218,376
ESTIMATED CURRENT RETURN (based on
FRACTIONAL UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE Public Offering Price)<F2> 4.028%
TRUST REPRESENTED BY EACH UNIT 1/3,218,376th
ESTIMATED LONG TERM RETURN (based on
PUBLIC OFFERING PRICE Public Offering Price)<F2> 3.607%
Aggregate bid side evaluation MONTHLY INTEREST DISTRIBUTIONS
of Securities in the Trust $3,236,867.00
Estimated net annual interest rate
Divided by 3,218,376 Units per 1,000 Units times $1,000 $41.54
multiplied by 1,000 $ 1,005.74 Divided by 12 $ 3.46
Plus sales charge of 2.480% of RECORD DATE: The ninth day of each month
Public Offering Price (2.543%
of net amount invested in DISTRIBUTION DATE: The fifteenth
Securities) 25.58 day of each month
Public Offering Price per 1,000 Units 1,031.32 MINIMUM PRINCIPAL DISTRIBUTION: No
distribution need be made from the
Plus undistributed net investment Principal Account if balance therein
income and accrued interest 13.04<F1> is less than $1 per 1,000 Units
outstanding
Adjusted Public Offering Price
(per 1,000 Units) $ 1,044.36 TRUSTEE'S ANNUAL FEE AND EXPENSES
(including estimated expenses and
Evaluator's fee) $1.85 per $1,000
SPONSOR'S REPURCHASE PRICE AND face amount of underlying Securities $ 1.85
REDEMPTION PRICE PER 1,000 UNITS
(based on bid side evaluation of SPONSOR'S ANNUAL PORTFOLIO SUPERVISION
underlying Securities, $25.58 FEE: Maximum of $.25 per $1,000
less than Adjusted Public Offering face amount of underlying Securities .25
Price per 1,000 Units) $ 1,018.78
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENSES PER
1,000 UNITS $ 2.10
CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED NET
ANNUAL INTEREST RATE PER 1,000 UNITS EVALUATOR'S FEE FOR EACH EVALUATION:
(based on face amount of $1 per Unit) $.40 per issue of Security
Annual interest rate per 1,000 Units 4.364% EVALUATION TIME: 4:00 P.M. New York Time
Less estimated annual expenses per MANDATORY TERMINATION DATE: December 31, 2033
1,000 Units ($2.10) expressed as
a percentage .210% DISCRETIONARY LIQUIDATION AMOUNT: The Trust
may be terminated by the Sponsor if the
Estimated net annual interest rate value of the portfolio of the Trust at any
per 1,000 Units 4.154% time is less than $1,500,000.
<F1>Figure shown includes interest accrued (net of expenses) on the underlying Securities to the expected
date of settlement (normally three business days after purchase) for Units purchased on September 30, 1997.
<F2>The estimated current return and estimated long term return are increased for transactions entitled to a
reduced sales charge. (See "The Units - Estimated Annual Income and Current Return" and "Public Offering of
Units - Volume Discount" in Part B of this Prospectus.)
A-3
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL INFORMATION
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
As of September 30, 1997
<S> <C> <S> <C>
FACE AMOUNT OF SECURITIES $2,085,000.00 DAILY RATE AT WHICH ESTIMATED NET
INTEREST ACCRUES PER UNIT .0122%
NUMBER OF UNITS 2,085
ESTIMATED CURRENT RETURN (based on
Public Offering Price)<F13> 4.242%
FRACTIONAL UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE
TRUST REPRESENTED BY EACH UNIT 1/2,085th ESTIMATED LONG TERM RETURN (based on
Public Offering Price)<F13> 3.953%
PUBLIC OFFERING PRICE
MONTHLY INTEREST DISTRIBUTIONS
Aggregate bid side evaluation
of Securities in the Trust $2,084,582.00 Estimated net annual interest rate
per Unit times $1,000 $43.98
Divided by 2,085 Units $ 999.80 Divided by 12 $ 3.66
Plus sales charge of 3.574% of RECORD DATE: The ninth day of each month
Public Offering Price (3.706%
of net amount invested in DISTRIBUTION DATE: The fifteenth
Securities) 37.05 day of each month
Public Offering Price per Unit 1,036.85 MINIMUM PRINCIPAL DISTRIBUTION: No
distribution need be made from the
Plus undistributed net investment Principal Account if balance therein
income and accrued interest 14.88<F12> is less than $1 per Unit outstanding
Adjusted Public Offering Price $ 1,051.73 TRUSTEE'S ANNUAL FEE AND EXPENSES
(including estimated expenses and
Evaluator's fee) $2.48 per $1,000
SPONSOR'S REPURCHASE PRICE AND face amount of underlying Securities $ 2.48
REDEMPTION PRICE PER UNIT
(based on bid side evaluation of SPONSOR'S ANNUAL PORTFOLIO SUPERVISION
underlying Securities, $37.05 FEE: Maximum of $.25 per $1,000
less than Adjusted Public Offer- face amount of underlying Securities .25
ing Price per Unit) $ 1,014.68
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENSES
PER UNIT $ 2.73
CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED NET
ANNUAL INTEREST RATE PER UNIT EVALUATOR'S FEE FOR EACH EVALUATION:
(based on face amount of $1,000 Minimum of $.40 per issue of Security
per Unit)
Annual interest rate per Unit 4.671% EVALUATION TIME: 4:00 P.M. New York Time
Less estimated annual expenses per MANDATORY TERMINATION DATE: December 31, 2033
Unit ($2.73) expressed as a
percentage .273% DISCRETIONARY LIQUIDATION AMOUNT: The Trust
may be terminated by the Sponsor if the
Estimated net annual interest rate value of the portfolio of the Trust at any
per Unit 4.398% time is less than $834,000.
<F12>Figure shown includes interest accrued (net of expenses) on the underlying Securities to the expected
date of settlement (normally three business days after purchase) for Units purchased on September 30, 1997.
<F13>The estimated current return and estimated long term return are increased for transactions entitled to a
reduced sales charge. (See "The Units - Estimated Annual Income and Current Return" and "Public Offering of
Units - Volume Discount" in Part B of this Prospectus.)
A-4
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL INFORMATION
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
As of September 30, 1997
<S> <C> <S> <C>
FACE AMOUNT OF SECURITIES $2,305,000.00 DAILY RATE AT WHICH ESTIMATED NET
INTEREST ACCRUES PER UNIT .0115%
NUMBER OF UNITS 2,294 ESTIMATED CURRENT RETURN (based on
Public Offering Price)<F22> 4.067%
FRACTIONAL UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE
TRUST REPRESENTED BY EACH UNIT 1/2,294th ESTIMATED LONG TERM RETURN (based on
Public Offering Price)<F22> 3.862%
PUBLIC OFFERING PRICE
MONTHLY INTEREST DISTRIBUTIONS
Aggregate bid side evaluation
of Securities in the Trust $2,273,634.00 Estimated net annual interest rate
per Unit times $1,000 $41.61
Divided by 2,294 Units $ 991.12 Divided by 12 $ 3.46
Plus sales charge of 3.133% of RECORD DATE: The ninth day of each month
Public Offering Price (3.235%
of net amount invested in DISTRIBUTION DATE: The fifteenth
Securities) 32.06 day of each month
Public Offering Price per Unit 1,023.18 MINIMUM PRINCIPAL DISTRIBUTION: No
distribution need be made from the
Plus undistributed net investment Principal Account if balance therein
income and accrued interest 14.21<F21> is less than $1 per Unit outstanding
Adjusted Public Offering Price $ 1,037.39 TRUSTEE'S ANNUAL FEE AND EXPENSES
(including estimated expenses and
Evaluator's fee) $2.05 per $1,000
SPONSOR'S REPURCHASE PRICE AND face amount of underlying Securities $ 2.05
REDEMPTION PRICE PER UNIT
(based on bid side evaluation of SPONSOR'S ANNUAL PORTFOLIO SUPERVISION
underlying Securities, $32.06 FEE: Maximum of $.25 per $1,000
less than Adjusted Public Offering face amount of underlying Securities .25
Price per Unit) $ 1,005.33
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENSES
CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED NET PER UNIT $ 2.30
ANNUAL INTEREST RATE PER UNIT
(based on face amount of $1,000 EVALUATOR'S FEE FOR EACH EVALUATION:
per Unit) $.40 per issue of Security
Annual interest rate per Unit 4.391% EVALUATION TIME: 4:00 P.M. New York Time
Less estimated annual expenses per MANDATORY TERMINATION DATE: December 31, 2033
Unit ($2.30) expressed as a
percentage .230% DISCRETIONARY LIQUIDATION AMOUNT: The Trust
may be terminated by the Sponsor if the
Estimated net annual interest rate value of the portfolio of the Trust at any
per Unit 4.161% time is less than $1,206,000.
<F21>Figure shown includes interest accrued (net of expenses) on the underlying Securities to the expected
date of settlement (normally three business days after purchase) for Units purchased on September 30, 1997.
<F22>The estimated current return and estimated long term return are increased for transactions entitled to a
reduced sales charge. (See "The Units - Estimated Annual Income and Current Return" and "Public Offering of
Units - Volume Discount" in Part B of this Prospectus.)
A-5
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
SUMMARY OF ESSENTIAL INFORMATION
(Continued)
THE TRUSTS -- The Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust,
Insured California Intermediate Term Portfolio Series 11 (the
"Insured California Intermediate Term Trust"), Delaware Portfo-
lio Series 13 (Intermediate-Long Term Maturity) (the "Delaware
Uninsured Trust") and Maryland Portfolio Series 15
(Intermediate-Long Term Maturity) (the "Maryland Uninsured
Trust") are three separate unit investment trusts
(collectively, the "Trusts" or the "State Trusts") created on
October 18, 1993 (the "Date of Deposit") under the laws of the
State of New York pursuant to an Indenture as defined in
Part B. Each of the Trusts is composed of "investment grade"
intermediate-long term or, in the case of the Insured Califor-
nia Intermediate Term Trust, intermediate term, inter-
est-bearing municipal bonds (the "Securities"). (For a de-
scription of the meaning of "investment grade" securities, see:
"Bond Ratings", in Part B.) The objectives of each Trust are:
(1) the receipt of income which, under existing law, is exclud-
able from gross income for Federal income tax purposes (except
in certain instances depending on the Unit Holders) and, in the
case of a State Trust, is exempt from state income taxation to
individual Unit Holders resident in the state for which the
State Trust is named; and (2) the conservation of capital. The
portfolio of the Insured California Intermediate Term Trust was
structured as of the Date of Deposit to return to Unit Holders
each year beginning in 2001, approximately 20% of the per Unit
principal amount of the Securities included in the Trust.
(See: "Schedule of Portfolio Securities".) The payment of in-
terest and the preservation of principal of the Trusts is de-
pendent on the continuing ability of the respective Issuers of
the Securities or the bond insurers thereof to meet their obli-
gations to pay principal and interest on the Securities.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that the objectives of the
Trusts will be achieved. All of the Securities in each of the
Trusts are obligations of the state for which such State Trust
is named or of the counties, municipalities or public authori-
ties thereof, or of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Interest
on the Securities, in the opinion of bond counsel or special
tax counsel to the Issuers thereof, under existing law, is ex-
cludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes
(except in certain instances depending on the Unit Holders)
and, in the case of a State Trust, is exempt from state income
taxes when owned by individual Unit Holders resident in the
state for which the State Trust is named. (For a discussion of
certain tax aspects of the Trusts, see: "Tax Status", in
Part B. For a discussion of certain state tax aspects of a
particular Trust, see: "Special Considerations Regarding Cali-
A-5
<PAGE>
fornia Securities -- California Tax Status", "Special Consid-
erations Regarding Delaware Securities -- Delaware Tax Status"
and "Special Considerations Regarding Maryland Securities --
Maryland Tax Status", herein.)
OFFERS TO SELL OR THE SOLICITATION OF ORDERS TO BUY
MAY ONLY BE MADE IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS IN WHICH THE UNITS OF
EACH TRUST HAVE BEEN REGISTERED. INVESTORS SHOULD CONTACT
ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES OF THE SPONSOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
UNITS OF A PARTICULAR TRUST HAVE BEEN REGISTERED FOR SALE IN
THE STATE IN WHICH THEY RESIDE.
INSURANCE -- A policy of insurance guaranteeing the
scheduled payment of principal and interest ("Bond Insurance")
has been obtained from the bond insurers indicated on the re-
spective "Schedule of Portfolio Securities", herein, and paid
for by the Issuers of the Securities, or by third parties, for
all the Securities in the Insured California Intermediate Term
Trust. The policies of Bond Insurance are non-cancellable and
cover default in the payment of principal and interest on the
Securities so insured so long as such Securities remain out-
standing, whether they are held in the Insured California In-
termediate Term Trust or not. Bond Insurance on all Securities
in the Insured California Intermediate Term Trust relates only
to the Securities in such Insured California Intermediate Term
Trust and not to the Units offered hereby. No representation
is made herein as to any bond insurer's ability to meet its ob-
ligations under a policy of Bond Insurance relating to a Secu-
rity in the Insured California Intermediate Term Trust. How-
ever, as a result of such Bond Insurance, the Securities, as
well as the Units of the Insured California Intermediate Term
Trust only, are rated "AAA" by Standard & Poor's Corporation.
There can be no assurance that such "AAA" ratings will be re-
tained. (See: "Insurance on the Securities in an Insured
Trust", in Part B.)
MONTHLY DISTRIBUTIONS -- Monthly distributions of
principal, premium, if any, and interest received by each Trust
will be made, on or shortly after the fifteenth day of each
month to Unit Holders of record on the ninth day of such month.
Alternatively, Unit Holders may elect to have their monthly
distributions reinvested in either of the Reinvestment Programs
of the Sponsor, neither of which are insured. (See:
"Reinvestment Programs", in Part B.)
PUBLIC OFFERING PRICE -- The Public Offering Price
per Unit of each Trust is calculated daily, and is equal to the
aggregate bid side evaluation of the underlying securities, di-
vided by the number of Units outstanding, plus a sales charge
A-6
<PAGE>
which may be calculated by reference to "Sales Charge/Volume
Discount", below, plus the per Unit balance in the Interest and
Principal Accounts. Units are offered at the Public Offering
Price, plus accrued interest. (See: "Public Offering of
Units", in Part B.)
ESTIMATED CURRENT RETURN -- The Estimated Current Re-
turn shows the return based on the Public Offering Price and is
computed by multiplying the estimated net annual interest rate
per Unit (which shows the return based on a $1,000 face amount)
by $1,000 and dividing the result by the Public Offering Price
(not including accrued interest). The net annual interest rate
per Unit will vary with changes in the fees and expenses of the
Trustee, the Sponsor and the Evaluator and with the exchange,
redemption, sale or maturity of the underlying Securities. In
addition, the Public Offering Price will also vary with fluc-
tuations in the bid side evaluation of the underlying Securi-
ties. Therefore, it can be expected that the Estimated Current
Return will fluctuate in the future. (See: "The Units -- Es-
timated Annual Income and Current Return", in Part B.)
MARKET FOR UNITS -- The Sponsor, though not obligated
to do so, intends to maintain a market for the Units based on
the aggregate bid side evaluation of the underlying Securities,
as more fully described in Part B -- "Public Offering of Units
-- Secondary Market". If such market is not maintained, a Unit
Holder will be able to dispose of its Units through redemption
at prices based on the aggregate bid side evaluation of the un-
derlying Securities. (See: "Redemption", in Part B.) Market
conditions may cause such prices to be greater or less than the
amount paid for Units.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS -- An investment in Units of
the Trusts should be made with an understanding of the risks
which an investment in fixed rate intermediate-long term or in-
termediate term debt obligations may entail, including the risk
that the value of the Units will decline with increases in in-
terest rates. The Maryland Uninsured Trust is considered to be
concentrated in General Obligation Securities, 55.17% of the
aggregate market value of the Maryland Uninsured Trust Portfo-
lio). (See: "The Trust -- Special Considerations" and "The
Trust -- Summary Description of the Portfolios", in Part B.
See also: "The Insured California Intermediate Term Trust",
"The Delaware Uninsured Trust" or "The Maryland Uninsured
Trust", herein, for a discussion of additional risks relating
to Units of such Trust.)
LADDERED MATURITIES -- The portfolio of the Insured
California Intermediate Term Trust was structured as of the
A-7
<PAGE>
Date of Deposit to return to Unit Holders each year beginning
in 2001, approximately 20% of the per Unit principal amount of
the Securities included in the Trust. (See: "Schedule of
Portfolio Securities".) If interest rates rise, Unit Holders
may be able to reinvest their principal distributions as re-
ceived in higher-yielding obligations. Conversely, however, if
interest rates decline, Unit Holders will be receiving payments
of principal at times when only lower-yielding investments of
comparable quality are available. Reinvesting at such time may
result in an over-all lower yield than would result from a sin-
gle investment maturing at the close of the life of the Trust.
Such return of 20% of principal each year may not be achieved
due to various factors including the sale of bonds by the Trust
to meet redemptions of Units or for other permitted reasons,
and the bankruptcy of an issuer where the insurance company in-
suring the bond does not make the scheduled principal payment.
Consequently, a Unit Holder may receive less than 20% of the
principal amount in one or more years.
PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION -- Sales of Units may be made
pursuant to distribution arrangements with certain banks and/or
other entities subject to regulation by the Office of the Comp-
troller of the Currency which are acting as agents for their
customers. These banks and/or entities are making Units of the
Trust available to their customers on an agency basis. A por-
tion of the sales charge paid by these customers is retained by
or remitted to such banks or entities in an amount equal to the
fee customarily received by an agent for acting in such capac-
ity in connection with the purchase of Units. The Glass Stea-
gall Act prohibits banks from underwriting certain securities,
including Units of the Trust; however, this Act does permit
certain agency transactions, and banking regulators have not
indicated that these particular agency transactions are imper-
missible under this Act. In Texas, as well as certain other
states, any bank making Units available must be registered as a
broker-dealer in that State.
OTHER INFORMATION -- The Securities in the Portfolio
of each Trust were chosen in part on the basis of their respec-
tive maturity dates. An intermediate-term Trust contains obli-
gations maturing in 3 to 10 years from the Date of Deposit and
on intermediate-long term trust contains obligations maturing
in 10 to 15 years from the Date of Deposit. The maturity date
of each of the Trusts is December 31, 2033. The latest matur-
ity of a Security in the Insured California Intermediate Term
Trust is September 2005; and the average life to maturity (or
date of pre-refunding of a bond) of the Portfolio of Securities
therein is 5.759 years. The latest maturity of a Security in
the Delaware Uninsured Trust is January 2009; and the average
A-8
<PAGE>
life to maturity (or date of pre-refunding of a bond) of the
Portfolio of Securities therein is 9.313 years. The latest ma-
turity of a Security in the Maryland Uninsured Trust is Septem-
ber 2007; and the average life to maturity (or date of pre-
refunding of a bond) of the Portfolio of Securities therein is
7.873 years. The actual maturity dates of each of the Securi-
ties contained in each Trust are shown on the respective
"Schedule of Portfolio Securities", herein.
The range of maturities of Securities in the Insured
California Intermediate Term Trust is from September 1, 2001 to
September 1, 2005. The dollar weighted average portfolio ma-
turity of the Trusts in the Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust,
Insured California Intermediate Term Series is more than three
years but not more than 10 years. The range of maturities of
Securities in the Delaware Uninsured Trust is from July 1, 2004
to January 15, 2009. The range of maturities of Securities in
the Maryland Uninsured Trust is from July 1, 2003 to September
1, 2007.
The Trustee shall receive annually 72 cents per
$1,000 principal amount of Securities in each Trust for its
services as Trustee. See: "Expenses and Charges", in Part B,
for a description of other fees and charges which may be in-
curred by a Trust.
SALES CHARGE/VOLUME DISCOUNT -- The Public Offering
Price per Unit will be computed by dividing the aggregate of
the bid prices of the Securities in a Trust by the number of
Units outstanding and then adding the appropriate sales charge
described below.
The sales charge will reflect different rates depend-
ing upon the maturities of the various underlying Securities.
The sales charge per Unit in the secondary market (the
"Effective Sales Charge") will be computed by multiplying the
Evaluator's determination of the bid side evaluation of each
Security by a sales charge determined in accordance with the
table set forth below based upon the number of years remaining
to the maturity of each such Security, totaling all such calcu-
lations, and dividing this total by the number of Units then
outstanding. In calculating the date of maturity, a Security
will be considered to mature on its stated maturity date un-
less: (a) the Security has been called for redemption or funds
or securities have been placed in escrow to redeem it on an
earlier call date, in which case the call date will be deemed
the date on which such Security matures; or (b) the Security is
subject to a mandatory tender, in which case the mandatory ten-
A-9
<PAGE>
der date will be deemed the date on which such Security ma-
tures.
(as % of bid (as % of Public
Time to Maturity side evaluation) Offering Price)
Less than one year............ 0% 0%
1 year to less than 2 years... 0.756% 0.75%
2 years to less than 4 years.. 1.523% 1.50%
4 years to less than 7 years.. 2.564% 2.50%
7 years to less than 11 3.627% 3.50%
years.......................
11 years to less than 15 4.712% 4.50%
years.......................
15 years and greater.......... 5.820% 5.50%
The Effective Sales Charge per Unit for a sale in the
secondary market, as determined above, will be reduced on a
graduated scale for sales to any single purchaser on a single
day of the specified number of Units (or dollar amount with re-
spect to the Insured California Intermediate Term Trust) of a
Trust set forth below.
Delaware Unin- Dealer
sured
and Insured California Concession
Maryland Unin- Intermediate Term % of as % of
sured
Trusts Trust Effective Effective
Number of Units Dollar Amount Sales Charge Sales
Charge
1-99........... $1-$99,999......... 100% 65%
100-249........ $100,000-$249,999.. 95% 62%
250-499........ $250,000-$499,999.. 85% 55%
500-999........ $500,000-$999,999.. 70% 45%
1,000 or more.. $1,000,000 or more. 55% 35%
To qualify for the reduced sales charge and conces-
sion applicable to quantity purchases, the selling dealer must
confirm that the sale is to a single purchaser, as described in
"Volume Discount" in Part B of the Prospectus.
Units purchased at an Effective Sales Charge (before
volume purchase discount) of less than 3.00% of the Public Of-
fering Price (3.093% of the bid side evaluation of the Securi-
ties) will not be eligible for exchange at a reduced sales
charge described under the Exchange Option.
A-10
<PAGE>
Dealers purchasing certain dollar amounts of Units
during the life of the Trusts may be entitled to additional
concessions. The Sponsor reserves the right, at any time and
from time to time, to change the level of dealer concessions.
For further information regarding the volume dis-
count, see: "Public Offering of Units -- Volume Discount", in
Part B.
Note: "Auditors" in Part B is amended so that
"Deloitte & Touche" is replaced with "Deloitte & Touche LLP",
and "Evaluator" in Part B is amended so that "Kenny S&P Evalua-
tion Services, a division of Kenny Information Systems, Inc."
is replaced with "Kenny S&P Evaluation Services, a Division of
J.J. Kenny Co., Inc." The reference to the fifth and five
business day in "Redemption -- Computation of Redemption Price
per Unit" and "Administration of the Trust -- Distribution of
Interest and Principal" in Part B is amended to read third and
three, respectively.
A-11
<PAGE>
THE INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM TRUST
The Portfolio of the Insured California Intermediate
Term Trust consists of eight issues of Securities, all of which
were issued by Issuers located in California. Two issues of
Securities are each a general obligation of an Issuer. Six is-
sues of Securities, while not backed by the taxing power of the
Issuer, are payable from revenues or receipts derived from spe-
cific projects or other available sources. The Insured Cali-
fornia Intermediate Term Trust contains the following catego-
ries of Securities:
Percentage of Aggregate
Market Value of Trust Portfolio
Category of Security (as of November 20, 1997)
Electric and Power........... 16.64%
General Obligation........... 8.94%
General Revenue Lease........
Payment...................... 20.34%
Higher Education............. 21.86%
State Budget Appropriationa.. 16.58%
Tax Allocation............... 12.50%
Water and Sewer.............. 3.14%
Original Issue Discount...... 26.22%
See: "The Trust -- Summary Description of the Port-
folios", in Part B, for a summary of the investment risks asso-
ciated with the type of Securities contained in the Insured
California Intermediate Term Trust. See: "Tax Status", in
Part B, for a discussion of certain tax considerations with re-
gard to Original Issue Discount.
Of the Original Issue Discount bonds in the Insured
California Intermediate Term Trust, approximately 3.88% of the
aggregate principal amount of the Securities in the Insured
California Intermediate Term Trust (or 2.74% of the market
value of all Securities in the Insured California Intermediate
Term Trust on November 20, 1997) are zero coupon bonds
(including bonds known as multiplier bonds, money multiplier
a The bonds in this category are issued by various state
agencies and authorities and are payable from amounts to
be appropriated by the state legislature from available
state revenue.
A-12
<PAGE>
bonds, capital accumulator bonds, compound interest bonds and
discount maturity payment bonds).
On November 20, 1997, based on the bid side of the
market, the aggregate market value of the Securities in the In-
sured California Intermediate Term Trust was $3,225,068.11.
The Securities in the Insured California Intermediate
Term Trust are insured to maturity by the insurance obtained by
the Issuers or by third parties from the following insurance
companies: AMBAC: 3.14%; FSA: 12.50%a; FGIC: 8.94%; and MBIA:
75.42%.b
On November 20, 1997, all of the Securities in the
Insured California Intermediate Term Trust were rated "AAA" by
Standard & Poor's Corporation because of the Bond Insurance
policies issued in respect of such Securities. (See: the re-
spective "Schedule of Portfolio Securities", herein, and "Bond
Ratings", in Part B.) A Security in the Portfolio may subse-
quently cease to be rated or the rating assigned may be reduced
below the minimum requirements of the Insured California Inter-
mediate Term Trust for the acquisition of Securities. While
such events may be considered by the Sponsor in determining
whether to direct the Trustee to dispose of the Security (see:
"Sponsor -- Responsibility", in Part B), such events do not
automatically require the elimination of such Security from the
Portfolio.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING CALIFORNIA SECURITIES
The State Trust will be affected by any political,
economic or regulatory developments affecting the ability of
California issuers to pay interest or repay principal on their
obligations. Various developments regarding the California
a Percentage shown for FSA includes Securities originally
insured by CGIC. In December 1995, CGIC became a subsidi-
ary of FSA, and all policies issued by CGIC became covered
by the intercompany pooling agreement among the FSA group
of insurance companies, as a result of which all policies
issued by CGIC are backed by the same claims-paying re-
sources as policies issued by FSA.
b Percentages computed on the basis on the aggregate bid
side evaluation of the Securities in the Insured Califor-
nia Intermediate Term Trust on November 20, 1997.
A-13
<PAGE>
Constitution and State statutes which limit the taxing and
spending authority of California governmental entities may im-
pair the ability of California issuers to maintain debt service
on their obligations. The following information constitutes
only a brief summary and is not intended as a complete descrip-
tion.
In 1978, Proposition 13, an amendment to the Califor-
nia Constitution, was approved, limiting real property valua-
tion for property tax purposes and the power of local govern-
ments to increase real property tax revenues and revenues from
other sources. Legislation adopted after Proposition 13 pro-
vided for assistance to local governments, including their dis-
tribution of the then-existing surplus in the General Fund, re-
allocation of revenues to local governments, and assumption by
State of certain local government obligations. However, more
recent legislation reduced such state assistance. There can be
no assurance that any particular level of State aid to local
governments will be maintained in future years. In Nordinger
v. Hahn, the United States Supreme Court upheld certain provi-
sions of Proposition 13 against claims that it violated the
equal protection clause of the Constitution.
In 1979, an amendment was passed adding Article XIIIB
to the State Constitution. As amended in 1990, Article XIIB
imposes an "appropriations limit" on the spending authority of
the State and local government entities. In general, the ap-
propriations limit is based on certain 1978-79 expenditures,
adjusted annually to reflect changes in the cost of living,
population and certain services provided by State and local
government entities. The "appropriations limit" does not in-
clude appropriations for qualified capital outlay projects,
certain increases in transportation-related taxes, and certain
emergency appropriations.
If a government entity raises revenues beyond its
"appropriation limit" in any year, a portion of the excess
which cannot be appropriated within the following year's limit
must be returned to the entity's taxpayers within two subse-
quent fiscal years, generally by a tax credit, refund or tempo-
rary suspension of tax rates or fee schedules. "Debt service"
is excluded from these limitations, and is defined as
"appropriations required to pay the cost of interest and re-
demption charges, including the funding of any reserve or sink-
ing fund required in connection therewith, on indebtedness ex-
isting or legally authorized as of January 1, 1979 or on bonded
indebtedness thereafter approved [by the voters]." In addi-
tion, Article XIIIB requires the State Legislature to establish
a prudent State reserve, and to require the transfer of 50% of
A-14
<PAGE>
excess revenue to the State School Fund; any amounts allocated
to the State School Fund will increase the appropriations
limit.
In 1986, California voters approved an initiative
statute known as Proposition 62. This initiative (i) requires
that any tax for general governmental purposes imposed by local
governments be approved by resolution or ordinance adopted by a
two-thirds vote of the governmental entity's legislative body
and by a majority vote of the electorate of the governmental
entity, (ii) requires that any special tax (defined as tax lev-
ied for other than general governmental purposes) imposed by
local governmental entity be approved by a two-thirds vote of
the voters within that jurisdiction, (iii) restricts the use of
revenues from a special tax to the purposes or for the service
for which the special tax was imposed, (iv) prohibits the impo-
sition of ad valorem taxes on real property by local governmen-
tal entities except as permitted by the Proposition 13 amend-
ment, (v) prohibits the imposition of transaction taxes and
sales taxes on the sale of real property by local governments,
(vi) requires that any tax imposed by a local government on or
after August 1, 1985, be ratified by a majority vote of the
electorate within two years of the adoption of the initiative
or be terminated by November 15, 1989, (vii) requires that, in
the event a local government fails to comply with the provi-
sions of this measure, a reduction of the amount of property
tax revenue allocated to such local government occurs in an
amount equal to the revenues received by such entity attribut-
able to the tax levied in violation of the initiative, and
(viii) permits these provisions to be amended exclusively by
the voters of the State of California.
In September 1995, the California Supreme court up-
held the constitutionality of Proposition 62, creating uncer-
tainty as to the legality of certain local taxes enacted by
noncharter cities in California without voter approval. It is
not possible to predict the impact of the decision.
In November 1988, California voters approved Proposi-
tion 98. This initiative requires that revenues in excess of
amounts permitted to be spent and which would otherwise be re-
turned by revisions of tax rates or fee schedules, be trans-
ferred and allocated (up to a maximum of 40%) to the State
School Fund and be expended solely for purposes of instruc-
tional improvement and accountability. No such transfer or al-
location of funds will be required if certain designated state
officials determine that annual student expenditures and class
size meet certain criteria as set forth in Proposition 98. All
funds allocated to the State School Fund shall cause the appro-
A-15
<PAGE>
priation limits to be annually increased for any such alloca-
tion made in the prior year. Proposition 98 also requires the
State of California to provide a minimum level of funding for
public schools and community colleges. The initiative permits
the enactment of legislation, by a two-thirds vote, to suspend
the minimum funding requirement for one year.
In November 1996, California voters approved Proposi-
tion 218. This initiative applied the provisions of Proposi-
tion 62 to all entities, including charter cities. It requires
that all taxes for general purposes obtain a simple majority
popular vote and that taxes for special purposes obtain a two-
thirds majority vote. Prior to the effectiveness of Proposi-
tion 218, charter cites could levy certain taxes such a tran-
sient occupancy taxes and utility user's taxes without a popu-
lar vote. Proposition 218 will also limit the authority of lo-
cal governments to impose property-related assessments, fees
and charges, requiring that such assessments be limited to the
special benefit conferred and prohibiting their use for general
governmental services. Proposition 218 also allows voters to
use their initiative power to reduce or repeal previously-
authorized taxes, assessments, fees and charges.
Certain tax-exempt securities in which the State
Trust may invest, may be obligations payable solely from the
revenues of specific institutions, or may be secured by spe-
cific institutions, or may be secured by specific properties,
which are subject to provisions of California law that could
adversely affect the holders of such obligations. For example,
the revenues of California health care institutions may be sub-
ject to state laws, and California law limits the remedies of a
creditor secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on real prop-
erty.
Form 1990 to 1993, California (the "State") faced the
worst economic, fiscal and budget conditions since the 1930s.
Construction, manufacturing (especially aerospace), exports and
financial services, among others, were severely affected. Job
losses were the worst of any post-war recession and have been
estimated to exceed 800,000. California's economy has been re-
covering and growing steadily stronger since the stare of 1994.
The rate of economic growth in California in 1996, in terms of
job gains, exceeded that of the rest of the United States. The
State added nearly 350,000 jobs during 1996, surpassing its
pre-recession employment peak of 12.7 million jobs. Another
380,000 jobs are expected to be created in 1997. The unemploy-
ment rate, while still higher than the national average, fell
to the low 6 percent range in mid-1997, compared to over 10
percent during the recession. Many of the new jobs were cre-
A-16
<PAGE>
ated in such industries as computer services, software design,
motion pictures and high technology manufacturing. Business
services, export trade and other manufacturing also experienced
growth. All major economic regions of the State grew, with
particularly large gains in the Silicon Valley region of North-
ern California. Personal income grew by over 7 percent of $55
billion in 1996. The residential construction sector of the
State's economy remained weak in 1996, with permits for new
housing increasing modestly form the previous year. In addi-
tion, the restructuring and consolidation occurring in Califor-
nia's aerospace and financial services industries, while aimed
at making the companies involved more efficient and competitive
in the longer term, has produced some negative economic conse-
quences in the shorter term, including uncertain job outlook
for many workers.
The recession affected State tax revenues, which mir-
ror economic conditions. It has also caused increased expendi-
tures for health and welfare programs. The State has also been
facing a structural imbalance in its budget with the largest
programs supported by the General Fund (K-12 schools and commu-
nity colleges, health, welfare and corrections) growing at
rates higher than the growth rates for the principal revenue
sources of the General Fund. (The General Fund, the State's
main operating fund, consists of revenues which are not re-
quired to be credited to any other fund.) As a result, the
State has experienced recurring budget deficits. With the end
of the recession, the State's financial condition has improved
in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years, with a combination of
better than expected revenues, slowdown in growth of social
welfare programs, and continued spending restraint. As of
June 30, 1997, the State's budget reserve had a positive cash
balance of $281 million. No deficit borrowing has occurred at
the end of the last two fiscal years and the State's cash flow
borrowing was limited to $3 billion in 1996-97.
On December 6, 1994, Orange County, California (the
"County"), together with its pooled investment funds (the
"Pools"), filed for protection under Chapter 9 of the federal
Bankruptcy Code. On June 12, 1996, Orange County emerged from
bankruptcy after the successful sale of $880 million in munici-
pal bonds allowed the county to pay off the last of its credi-
tors. On January 7, 1997, Orange County returned to the mu-
nicipal bond market with a $136 million bond issue maturing in
13 years at an insured yield of 7.23 percent.
Los Angeles County, the nation's largest county is
also experiencing financial difficulty. In August 1995 the
credit rating of the County's long-term bonds was downgraded
A-17
<PAGE>
for the third time since 1992 as a result of, among other
things, severe operating deficits for the County's health care
system. In addition, the County was affected by an ongoing
loss of revenue caused by state property tax shift initiatives
in 1993 through 1995. In June, 1997, the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors approved an approximately $12 billion
1997-98 budget containing measures to eliminate a $157 million
deficit. The County's budgetary difficulties have continued
and their effect, as well as the effect of the improving Cali-
fornia economy, on the 1997-1998 budget is still uncertain.
1997-98 Fiscal Year Budget
On August 18, 1997, the Governor signed the 1997-98
Budget Act. The Budget Act anticipates General Fund revenues
and transfers of $52.5 billion (a 6.8 percent increase over the
final 1996-97 levels), and expenditures of $52.8 billion (an
8.0 percent increase from the 1996-97 levels). On a budgetary
basis, the budget reserve (SFEU) is projected to decrease from
$408 million at June 30, 1997 to $112 million at June 30, 1998.
The Budget Act also includes Special Fund expenditures of
$14.4 billion (as against estimated Special Fund revenues of
$14.0 billion), and $2.1 billion of expenditures from various
Bond Funds. Following enactment of the Budget Act, the State
implemented its annual cash flow borrowing program, issuing
$3 billion of notes which mature on June 30, 1998.
The following are major features of 1997-98 Budget Act:
1. For the second year in a row, the Budget contains
a large increase in funding for K-14 education, reflecting
strong revenues which have exceeded initial budgeted
amounts. Part of the nearly $1.75 billion in increased
spending is allocated to prior fiscal years.
2. The Budget Act reflects a $1.235 billion pension
case judgment payment, and returns funding of the State's
pension contribution to the quarterly basis existing prior
to the deferral actions invalidated by the courts. In
may, 1997, the California Supreme Court in PERS v. Wilson
made final a judgment against the State requiring an imme-
diate payment from the General Fund to the Public Employ-
ees Retirement Fund ("PERF") to make up certain deferrals
in annual retirement fund contributions which had been
legislated in earlier years for budget savings, and which
the courts found to be unconstitutional. On July 30,
1997, at the Governor's direction, the Controller trans-
ferred $1.235 billion from the General Fund to the PERF in
satisfaction of the judgment, representing the principal
A-18
<PAGE>
amount of the improperly deferred payments from 1995-96
and 1996-97. No provision exists for any additional pay-
ments relating to this court case.
3. Continuing the third year of a four-year
"compact" which the State Administration has made with
higher education units, funding from the General Fund for
the University of California and California State Univer-
sity has increased by about 6 percent ($121 million and
$107 million, respectively), and there was no increase in
student fees.
4. Because of the effect of the pension payment,
most other State programs were continued at 1996-97 lev-
els.
5. Health and welfare costs are contained, continu-
ing generally the grant levels from prior years, as part
of the initial implementation of the new CalWORKs reform
program.
6. Unlike prior years, this Budget Act does not de-
pend on uncertain federal budget actions. About
$300 million in federal funds, already included in the
federal FY 21997 and 1998 budgets, is included in the
Budget Act, to offset incarceration costs for illegal im-
migrants.
7. The Budget Act contains no tax increased, and no
tax reductions. The Renters Tax Credit was suspended for
another year, saving approximately $500 million.
After enactment of the Budget Act, and prior to the
end of the Legislative Session on September 13, 1997, the Leg-
islature and the Governor reached certain agreements related to
State expenditures and taxes. The Legislature passed a bill
restoring $203 million of education-related expenditures which
the Governor had vetoed in the original Budget Act, based
agreement with the Governor on an education testing program.
The Legislature also passed a bill to restore $48 million of
welfare cost savings which had been part of earlier legislation
vetoed by the Governor. The Legislature also passed several
bills encompassing a coordinated package of fiscal reforms,
mostly to take effect after the 1997-98 Fiscal Year. Included
in the legislation already signed by the Governor are a variety
of phased-in tax cuts, conformity with certain provisions of
the federal tax reform law passed earlier in the year, and re-
form of funding for county trial courts, with State to assume
greater financial responsibility.
A-19
<PAGE>
THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION OF THE 1997-98 FISCAL YEAR
BUDGET IS BASED IN LARGE PART ON STATEMENTS MADE IN A RECENT
"PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT" DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IN THAT DOCUMENT, THE STATE INDICATED THAT ITS
DISCUSSION OF THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET IS BASED ON ESTIMATES AND
PROJECTIONS OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL
YEAR AND MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED AS STATEMENTS OF FACT. THE
STATE NOTED FURTHER THAT THE ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS ARE
BASED UPON VARIOUS ASSUMPTIONS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY
NUMEROUS FACTORS, INCLUDING FUTURE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE
STATE AND THE NATION, AND THAT THERE CAN BE NO ASSURANCE THAT
THE ESTIMATES WILL BE ACHIEVED.
State Indebtedness
As of November 1, 1997, the State had over
$18.25 billion aggregate amount of its general obligation bonds
outstanding. General obligation bond authorizations in an ag-
gregate amount of approximately $7.26 billion remained unissued
as of November 1, 1997. The State also builds and acquires
capital facilities through the use of lease purchase borrowing.
As of November 1, 1997, the State had approximately
$6.09 billion of outstanding Lease-Purchase Debt.
In addition to the general obligation bonds, State
agencies and authorities had approximately $22.24 billion ag-
gregate principal amount of revenue bonds and notes outstanding
as of September 30, 1997. Revenue bonds represent both obliga-
tions payable from State revenue-producing enterprises and pro-
jects, which are not payable from the General Fund, and conduit
obligations payable only from revenues paid by private users of
facilities financed by such revenue bonds. Such enterprises
and projects include transportation projects, various public
works and exposition projects, educational facilities
(including the California State University and University of
California systems), housing, health facilities and pollution
control facilities.
Litigation
The State is a party to numerous legal proceedings,
many of which normally occur in governmental operations. In
addition, the State is involved in certain other legal proceed-
ings that, if decided against the State, might require the
State to make significant future expenditures or impair future
revenue sources.
A-20
<PAGE>
Ratings
Because of the State's continuing budget problems,
the State's General Obligation bonds were downgraded in July
1994 to A1 from Aa by Moody's, to A from A+ by Standard &
Poor's, and to A from AA by Fitch. All three rating agencies
expressed uncertainty in the State's ability to balance the
budget by 1996. However, 1996, citing California's improving
economy and budget situation, both Fitch and Standard & Poor's
raised their ratings from A to A+. In October 1997, Fitch
raised its rating from A+ to AA- referring to California's fun-
damental strengths, the extent of economic recovery and the re-
turn of financial stability.
The Sponsor believes the information summarized above
describes some of the more significant aspects relating to the
California Trust. The sources of such information are Prelimi-
nary Official Statements and Official Statements relating to
the State's general obligation bonds and the State's revenue
anticipation notes, or obligations of other issuers located in
the State of California, or other publicly available documents.
Although the Sponsor has not independently verified this infor-
mation, it has no reason to believe that such information is
not correct in all material respects.
California Tax Status
On the Date of Deposit, special California counsel
for the Sponsor rendered an opinion under the then existing
California state income tax law which read as follows:
The Insured Trust is not an association taxable as a
corporation under the income tax laws of the State of
California;
The income, deductions and credits against tax of the
Insured Trust will be treated as the income, deductions
and credits against tax of the holders of Units in the In-
sured Trust under the income tax laws of the State of
California;
Interest on the bonds held by the Insured Trust to
the extent that such interest is exempt from taxation un-
der California law will not lose its character as tax-
exempt income merely because that income is passed through
to the holders of Units; however, a corporation subject to
the California franchise tax is required to include that
interest income in its gross income for purposes of deter-
mining its franchise tax liability;
A-21
<PAGE>
Each holder of a Unit in the Insured Trust will have
a taxable event when the Insured Trust disposes of a bond
(whether by sale, exchange, redemption or payment at ma-
turity) or when the Unit holder redeems or sells his
Units. The total tax cost of each Unit to a holder of a
Unit in the Insured Trust is allocated among each of the
bond issues held in the Insured Trust (in accordance with
the proportion of the Insured Trust comprised by each bond
issue) in order to determine the holder's per Unit tax
cost for each bond issue, and the tax cost reduction re-
quirements relating to amortization of bond premium will
apply separately to the per Unit tax cost of each bond is-
sue. Therefore, under some circumstances, a holder of a
Unit may realize taxable gain when the Insured Trust dis-
poses of a bond or the holder's Units are sold or redeemed
for an amount equal to or less than his original cost of
the bond or Unit;
Each holder of a Unit in the Insured Trust is deemed
to be the owner of a pro rata portion of the Insured Trust
under the personal property tax laws of the State of Cali-
fornia;
Each Unit holder's pro rata ownership of the bonds
held by the Insured Trust, as well as the interest income
therefrom, is exempt from California personal property
taxes; and
Amounts paid in lieu of interest on defaulted bonds
held by the Trustee under policies of insurance issued
with respect to such bonds will be excludable from gross
income for California income tax purposes if, and to the
same extent as, those amounts would have been so exclud-
able if paid as interest by the respective issuer.
In the opinion of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker,
LLP, special California counsel to the Sponsor, no change in
law has occurred since the Date of Deposit which would require
a change in the above opinion.
New York Tax Status
In the opinion of Messrs. Cahill Gordon & Reindel,
special New York counsel on New York tax matters, as of the
date of this Prospectus, under existing law:
Interest on the underlying debt obligations which is
exempt from tax under the laws of the State and City of
New York when received by the New York Trust will retain
A-22
<PAGE>
its status as tax-exempt interest to its Unit Holders.
(Interest on the underlying obligations in the New York
Trust is, however, not excludable from income in determin-
ing the amount of the income-based (i) New York State
franchise taxes on business and financial corporations or
(ii) the New York City general corporation tax and the New
York City financial corporation tax.) The minimum income
taxes imposed by New York State and New York City on indi-
viduals, estates and trusts exclude from their taxable
bases the Federal tax preference item with respect to tax-
exempt interest.
Non-residents of New York City will not be subject to
the City personal income tax on gains derived with respect
to their Units. Non-residents of the State will not be
subject to New York State personal income tax on such
gains unless the Units are employed in a business, trade
or occupation carried on in New York State. A New York
State or City resident should determine his basis and
holding period for his Units in the same manner for New
York State and City personal income tax purposes as for
Federal income tax purposes.
THE DELAWARE UNINSURED TRUST
The Portfolio of the Delaware Uninsured Trust con-
sists of eight issues of Securities, seven of which were issued
by Issuers located in Delaware and one of which (approximately
3.39% of the aggregate market value of the Delaware Uninsured
Trust Portfolio) was issued by authority of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Two issues of Securities are each a general obli-
gation of an Issuer. Six issues of Securities, while not
backed by the taxing power of the Issuer, are payable from
revenues or receipts derived from specific projects or other
available sources. The Delaware Uninsured Trust contains the
following categories of Securities:
Percentage of Aggregate
Market Value of Trust Portfolio
Category of Security (as of November 20, 1997)
General Obligation............ 19.50%
Health Care and Hospital...... 19.72%
Higher Education.............. 17.64%
Highway and Transportation.... 24.04%
Water and Sewer............... 19.10%
Original Issue Discount....... 54.08%
A-23
<PAGE>
See: "The Trust -- Summary Description of the Port-
folios", in Part B, for a summary of the investment risks asso-
ciated with the type of Securities contained in the Delaware
Uninsured Trust. See: "Tax Status", in Part B, for a discus-
sion of certain tax considerations with regard to Original Is-
sue Discount.
Of the Original Issue Discount bonds in the Delaware
Uninsured Trust, approximately 4.80% of the aggregate principal
amount of the Securities in the Delaware Uninsured Trust (or
3.39% of the market value of all Securities in the Delaware Un-
insured Trust on November 20, 1997) are zero coupon bonds
(including bonds known as multiplier bonds, money multiplier
bonds, capital accumulator bonds, compound interest bonds and
discount maturity payment bonds).
On November 20, 1997, based on the bid side of the
market, the aggregate market value of the Securities in the
Delaware Uninsured Trust was $2,080,416.55.
On November 20, 1997, Standard & Poor's Corporation
rated five of the Securities in the Delaware Uninsured Trust as
follows: 43.76%-AAA, 17.65%-AA and 3.39%-A; and Moody's Inves-
tors Service rated three of the Securities as follows: 35.20%-
A. (See: the respective "Schedule of Portfolio Securities",
herein, and "Bond Ratings", in Part B.) A Security in the
Portfolio may subsequently cease to be rated or the rating as-
signed may be reduced below the minimum requirements of the
Delaware Uninsured Trust for the acquisition of Securities.
While such events may be considered by the Sponsor in determin-
ing whether to direct the Trustee to dispose of the Security
(see: "Sponsor -- Responsibility", in Part B), such events do
not automatically require the elimination of such Security from
the Portfolio.
Note: The second paragraph on page 16 in Part B is
amended by deleting the first four sentences and replacing them
with the following: The Puerto Rican economy is affected by a
number of Commonwealth and Federal investment incentive pro-
grams. For example, prior to 1996, Section 936 of the Internal
Revenue Code generally provided deferral of Federal income
taxes for U.S. companies operating on the island until profits
are repatriated. Section 936 was repealed by the Small Busi-
ness Job Protection Act of 1996. It is expected that the re-
peal of Section 936 will have a strongly negative impact on
Puerto Rico's economy.
A-24
<PAGE>
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING DELAWARE SECURITIES
The Sponsor believes the information summarized below
describes some of the more significant developments relating to
the general economic conditions of the State of Delaware and in
particular to the State government itself. This information
may be relevant to the Securities (i) of or supported by the
State of Delaware; or (ii) of municipalities or other political
subdivisions or instrumentalities of the State of Delaware that
rely, in whole or in part, on ad valorem real property taxes
and other general or special funds of such municipalities or
political subdivisions. The sources of such information in-
clude publicly available documents, including the Official
Statements of the State. The Sponsor has not independently
verified any of the information contained in such Official
Statements and other publicly available documents, and is not
aware of any facts that would render such information inaccu-
rate.
Economic Base
The growth experienced in most sectors of Delaware's
economy for the past ten years has been considerably greater
than the average growth rates in the other forty-nine states.
Population grew by 22% in Delaware, compared with the national
growth of 17% and 5% in the other states in the region
(Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania). Delaware's
1995 population exceeded the 1995 head count by 1.1%, the
growth rate for the U.S. was 0.9%, and the growth in the
mideast region was 0.1%. Similarly, Delaware's employment
growth from 1986 through 1996 of 25% exceeded the 20% and 5%
growth rates of the nation and the region, respectively.
During the same period, unemployment rates declined
from a level higher than the national average, to one lower
than the U.S. Delaware's October 1997 unemployment rate of
3.6% was lower than the national rate of 4.7%. The October av-
erage of the other states in the mideast region was 5.3%. For
1996, Delaware's unemployment rate averaged 5.2%, lower than
the 5.4% rate for the U.S. and the 5.9% regional average rate
for the same year.
Personal income in the State advanced 92% from 1986
through 1996, compared with 80% for the nation and 72% in the
region. The 1995 poverty rate in the State was 10.3%, consid-
erably lower than the national rate of 13.8%. In July 1995
State Policy Reports ranked states by gross state product per
capita. Delaware ranked second of all the states, with Alaska
A-25
<PAGE>
as the only state that exceeded Delaware. Delaware exceeded
the average state in the value of per capita production by 46%.
These indicators of above average economic perform-
ance resulted in part from financial decisions made by the
State in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They include
1) reducing the top marginal personal income tax rate from
19.8% to 7.7%, and a further reduction effective January 1997
that lowered the top rate to 6.9%, 2) broadening the employment
base to reduce the influence of the manufacturing sector on
Delaware's economy (from 25% of all jobs in 1986 to 15% in
1997), 3) reducing regulations on business - especially banking
through the Financial Center Development Act of 1981, and
4) following fiscally conservative taxing policies. In 1993,
further deregulatory legislation was enacted, which increased
competitive options for telecommunications providers and ex-
panded the powers of limited liability partnerships in Dela-
ware. In 1997, the Financial Center Development Act was
amended to allow limited-purpose trust companies to manage out-
of-state trust assets in Delaware.
Since the national recession in the early 1990s, em-
ployment has grown steadily in Delaware. Compared with one
year earlier, Delaware's employment in October 1997 had in-
creased by 15,000 (3.9%), while the nation's employment grew by
2.4% and the other states in the region saw an increase of
1.7%.
Delaware's manufacturing employment continues to be
negatively impacted by the downsizing and restructuring of the
chemical industry. In October 1997 there were 22,800 chemical
workers in Delaware, 10,600 fewer than in the peak year of
1990. When comparing October 1997 with October one year ear-
lier, Delaware's loss of chemical employment was 2%, with a 1%
loss in the region and a negligible loss in the nation. Since
the spring of 1997, the General Motors assembly plant in North-
ern Delaware has served as an overflow facility, producing the
Chevrolet Malibu, a mid-sized sedan. Their current employment
is 2,900, with average wages of $19 per hour. After two years,
GM will use the plant to build the Saturn Innovate. GM expects
to assemble 250,000 cars annually and maintain their current
employment level.
Chrysler, the owner of the only other auto assembly
plant in the State, employs 3,000 workers. Chrysler recently
retooled its entire facility, at a cost of $500 million. That
plant now produces a sport utility vehicle, called the Dodge
Durango. By 1998, the Chrysler plant expects to be producing
109,000 such vehicles annually. October 1997 manufacturing em-
A-26
<PAGE>
ployment in Delaware increased nearly 7% compared with one year
ago, due primarily to the increased auto production. The U.S.
manufacturing employment grew by 1% and the regional manufac-
turing employment was unchanged over the same period.
The State's per capita personal income of $27,622 in
1996 was 14% higher than the national average, ranking Delaware
5th in the U.S. For 1996, Delaware's total personal income ad-
vanced by 6.2%, relative to one year earlier, compared with
4.5% in the U.S. and 4.2% in the region. For the first half of
1997, Delaware's personal income grew by 7.3%, compared with
growth rates of 5.8% and 5.2% for the nation and region, re-
spectively.
In the past ten years (1986-96) there has been a 52%
growth in net new business firms established in Delaware, com-
pared with 22% in the U.S. and 14% in the region. In 1996
there were 22,000 firms operating in the State, a growth rate
for the year that was 5th highest in the nation, and two and
one half times that of the U.S. and five times that of the re-
gion. The business failure numbers also paint Delaware as an
attractive place to own a successful company. In 1995, only 45
Delaware businesses ceased to operate, the lowest number of
failures since 1989. In 1995, only 22 businesses failed in
Delaware for each 10,000 firms in existence, compared with
failure rates of 86 and 90 per 10,000 firms for the region and
the U.S., respectively.
Franchise tax revenue and fees derived from companies
incorporated in Delaware represent the second largest source
(20%) of State General Fund revenue (the largest contributor is
the personal income tax). There were 51,300 new incorporations
in Delaware in 1996, bringing the number of domestic corpora-
tions using the State as their legal home to nearly 300,000.
New incorporations in Delaware increased by 7% in 1996, com-
pared with 1995. Although the State is the legal home of only
5% of the corporations in the U.S., among those are half of the
companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Delaware was
also the corporate home of 56% of the companies listed in the
"Fortune 500" in 1997.
The value of Delaware's construction contracts (as
measured by McGraw-Hill) decreased 10% in 1996 compared with
1995. This decrease compares with the U.S. increase of 8%.
Delaware's strengths were in the nonresidential building
(office space), nonbuilding (highway) and government building
categories. For the first ten months of 1997, the value of
Delaware's construction contracts was 15% higher than the com-
parable period of 1996. The value of highway and bridge con-
A-27
<PAGE>
tracts nearly doubled, accounting for most of the increase.
Construction employment in October 1997 was nearly 9% higher
than one year earlier, compared with 4% growth in the U.S. and
the region.
Delaware's new private housing authorizations de-
creased by 5% in 1996, compared with 1995. U.S. and the re-
gion's single-family private housing authorizations were 7% and
9% higher, respectively, for the same period. For the first
ten months of 1997, Delaware's housing authorizations were up
by 9%, compared with virtually no growth in the region and in
the nation. There were 1% more Delaware home sales in 1996
than in 1995, compared with an 8% increase for the whole coun-
try, and a 2% decline for the region. The nominal dollar value
of Delaware's housing starts was 6% higher in 1996 than the
previous year, compared with increases of 8% in the region and
11% nationally.
Newly leased office space in the greater Wilmington
market increased by 40% in 1996 compared with the prior year,
and was 30% higher than the average of the last five years.
The vacancy rate for Wilmington's Class "A" buildings was 7%
compared with the national average of 14% in the fall of 1997.
At the same time, the quoted rental price for this downtown of-
fice space was $21 per square foot, compared to $25 in the av-
erage central business district nationally. Operating costs on
these properties averaged $7 per square foot at the end of
1996. These costs were approximately the same as those nation-
wide, but considerably less than in neighboring cities. MBNA,
one of the largest banks in the State, has recently completed
construction of two office buildings totaling 615,000 square
feet and an adjoining parking garage adjacent to the central
square in the City of Wilmington.
The financial services industry continued to expand
in Delaware, employing 47,800 workers in October 1997. Those
workers in financial services held 3,700 more jobs than one
year earlier, a year-over-year growth rate of 8%, in spite of
the ongoing bank consolidations. The number of national fi-
nance-related jobs grew by nearly 3% and the number in the re-
gion increased by 1%. Financial institutions currently number
fifty-seven, including twenty major credit card companies.
Last year, the Delaware credit card institutions were responsi-
ble for issuing 40% of all credit card debt issued in the U.S.
In 1995, the State approved limited expansion powers for out-
of-state banks that want to establish operations in Delaware.
The Port of Wilmington handled 4.6 million tons of
waterborne cargo in 1996, an increase of 21% compared with the
A-28
<PAGE>
prior year. For the first three months of fiscal 1998, gross
Port revenue of $4.3 million was 3% higher than in the first
three months of fiscal 1997. The composition of the imports
has changed since last year, with increases in wet bulk imports
and reductions in steel, dry bulk and refrigerated cargo. The
wet bulk (primarily oil) cargo pays a monthly fee for Port us-
age, regardless of tonnage, while payment for the other cargo
is based on weight. Wilmington's Port exports more American-
made cars than any other port in the U.S. New Port contracts
include substantial imports of Chilean fruit, Australian beef
and Volkswagen cars. In 1996 the Port of Wilmington led all
the Delaware River ports and terminals with 376 ship calls, ac-
cording to the Delaware River and Bay Maritime Exchange. In
December 1997, the Port will open a meat inspection facility,
with on-site USDA inspectors. In 1995 the State agreed to pur-
chase the Port for $40 million, payable over 30 years. The
State invested $30 million in capital improvements in the Port
and assumed $66 million of Port debt. The State has had the
full operating responsibility for the Port in September 1996.
State Finances
Fiscal 1997. General Fund expenditures were $1,766
million, an increase of 7% over the previous year, with the
growth primarily for mandated, caseload and inflation adjust-
ments in social service programs. The fiscal 1997 revenue was
$1,779 million, also an increase of 7%. The fiscal 1997 cumu-
lative cash balance was $390 million, 22% of the operating
budget. Nationally, cash balances as a percent of operating
spending averaged 6%, according to the National Association of
State Budget Officers. The State's Budget Reserve Fund (see
"Fiscal Controls" below) remained fully funded at the 5% level
and held balances of $93 million.
Delaware finances transportation projects primarily
through the Transportation Trust Fund, created in 1987 and
funded by dedicated revenue sources including the motor fuel
tax, Turnpike tolls and concessions, motor vehicle document and
registration fees, miscellaneous transportation related revenue
(titling fees, operator license fees, etc.), and investment
earnings on Trust Fund balances. Transportation operating ex-
penses and debt service were $161 million for fiscal 1996, a
slight decrease over the previous year. The capital program
spent another $182 million. The State enacted increases in mo-
tor vehicle gasoline and diesel taxes, vehicle document fees,
and tolls on Interstate 95 to replace some of the anticipated
bond-financed capital spending. These "user fees" for trans-
portation purposes are expected to provide $178 million of
A-29
<PAGE>
capital for transportation projects through 1999, and became
effective September 1993.
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Delaware in a case involving intangible abandoned property,
stating that Delaware is entitled to receive abandoned property
held by brokers incorporated in the State. In 1994, Delaware
negotiated a settlement with New York which allows Delaware to
draw down the $220 million windfall during the next four years.
The fiscal 1997 budget authorized the use of these funds (named
the Twenty-first Century Fund) to create public/private part-
nerships to enhance the competitiveness of the State. Specifi-
cally allocated in fiscal 1997 were $80 million for agricul-
tural land preservation, educational technology investments and
economic development projects.
Fiscal 1998. The Delaware Economic and Financial Ad-
visory Council ("DEFAC"), composed of 33 private and public-
sector members appointed by the Governor, provides revenue and
expenditure forecasts for the General Assembly and the Governor
a minimum of six times each year. The most recent DEFAC fore-
cast (September 1997) called for General Fund revenue of $1,898
million for fiscal 1998, a growth of nearly 7% over the fiscal
1997 revenue. Fiscal 1998 expenditures are expected to be
$1,938, an increase of nearly 10% compared with fiscal 1997.
Operating expenditures and debt service from the Transportation
Trust Fund are expected to be $166 million, approximately the
same as the previous year. The capital spending budgets in-
clude $125 million for transportation projects and $217 million
for other capital improvements supported by the General Fund
and the Twenty-first Century Fund.
Fiscal 1999. The September 1997 DEFAC estimate for
revenue in the General Fund was $1,988 million (+5%) and $267
million in the Transportation Trust Fund, a 7% increase over
the previous year. A budget for fiscal 1999 is currently under
consideration, and is expected to pass by June 30, 1998.
Fiscal Controls. A constitutional limit requires a
three-fifths vote of each house of the General Assembly to pass
or increase any tax or license fee. Appropriation of more than
98% of estimated General Fund revenue plus unencumbered General
Fund balances from the previous fiscal year also requires a
three-fifths vote of both houses.
Excess unencumbered General Fund revenue at the end
of a fiscal year must be placed in a Budget Reserve Account,
until that Account accumulates to 5% of estimated General Fund
revenue, according to the State Constitution. That Account
A-30
<PAGE>
provides a cushion against unanticipated revenue shortfalls and
funds for tax reductions. The Budget Reserve Account currently
holds $87 million and is fully funded.
Until 1991 the authorization of additional General
Fund debt was restricted to 75% of the principal retirement of
general obligation debt in the prior fiscal year plus any deau-
thorized debt in the same year. Legislation effective in July
1991 replaced that debt limitation. The revised limitations
are three: a) annual tax supported debt authorizations cannot
exceed 5% of estimated General Fund revenue, b) debt service
payments of all tax supported debt (including the Transporta-
tion Authority, certificates of participation and long-term
leases) will be limited to 15% of General Fund plus Transporta-
tion Trust Fund revenue, and c) General Obligation debt service
payments will be limited to the projected cumulative cash bal-
ance for the same fiscal year. These debt limits supported the
reduction of per capita General Obligation debt from $784 in
fiscal 1987 to $734 in fiscal 1997.
Delaware Tax Status
On the date of the Prospectus, in the opinion of Pot-
ter Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, Delaware, Special Delaware
counsel on tax matters, with respect to the Delaware Trust:
8. So long as, for federal income tax purposes, the
Delaware Trust is treated as a grantor trust and its income is
treated as the income of the Unit Holders so that the Delaware
Trust is not recognized as a taxable entity, the Delaware Trust
will not be subject to Delaware income taxation and, for Dela-
ware income tax purposes, the income of the Delaware Trust will
be treated as income of the Unit Holders.
9. The following discussion addresses the Delaware
taxation of the various potential Delaware Unit Holders.
a. The State of Delaware (sometimes the
"State") imposes an income tax upon the taxable income of resi-
dent individuals, trust and estates. For purposes of this tax,
the taxable income of a resident individual, trust or estate is
defined as the resident individual, trust or estate's adjusted
gross income for federal income tax purposes subject to certain
specified modifications. No such modification requires the ad-
dition of interest on obligations of the State and its politi-
cal subdivisions or authorities thereof. Accordingly, so long
as interest income received by the Delaware Trust from obliga-
tions of the State and its political subdivisions or authori-
ties thereof is excluded from adjusted gross income for federal
A-31
<PAGE>
income tax purposes, all such interest income will be excluded
from taxable income for the purposes of Delaware income taxes
on a resident individual, trust or estate. Such interest in-
come may also be excluded from taxable income of a Delaware
resident, trust or estate under the enabling legislation pursu-
ant to which the obligation was issued. Conversely, to the ex-
tent that any gain (or loss) from the sale of obligations held
by the Delaware Trust (whether as a result of the sale of such
obligations by the Delaware Trust or as the result of the sale
of a Unit by a Unit Holder) is includable in (or deductible in)
the calculation of a resident individual, trust or estate's ad-
justed gross income for federal income tax purposes, any such
gain (or loss) will be includable in (or deductible in) the
calculation of taxable income for the purposes of Delaware in-
come taxes on a resident individual, trust or estate.
b. The State of Delaware imposes an income tax
upon the taxable income of corporations which transact or con-
duct business within the State. For purposes of this tax, the
taxable income of a corporation is defined as its "entire net
income" allocable to business activities carried on or property
located within the State and its "entire net income" is defined
as its federal taxable income subject to certain specified
modifications. No such modification requires the addition of
interest on obligations of the State or its political subdivi-
sions or authorities thereof. Accordingly, so long as interest
income received by the Delaware Trust from obligations of the
State and its political subdivisions or authorities thereof is
excluded from taxable income of a corporation for federal in-
come tax purposes, all such interest income will be excluded
from taxable income for the purposes of Delaware corporate in-
come taxes. Such interest income may also be excluded from
taxable income of a corporation under the enabling legislation
pursuant to which the obligation was issued. In addition, in
determining a corporation's entire net income, one of the modi-
fications from federal taxable income is the elimination of
gains or losses from the sale or other disposition of securi-
ties issued by the State or political subdivisions thereof.
Thus, any gain or loss from the sale of such obligations held
by the Delaware Trust (whether as the result of the sale of
such obligations by the Delaware Trust or as the result of the
sale of a Unit by a Unit Holder) is not includable in the cal-
culation of taxable income for the purposes of Delaware corpo-
rate income taxes.
c. The State of Delaware requires every corpo-
ration which transacts or conducts business within the State
and which is an S corporation for federal income tax purposes
that has any shareholders who are non-residents of the State to
A-32
<PAGE>
pay on behalf of each such non-resident shareholder a tax in an
amount equal to the highest rate of Delaware personal income
tax multiplied by such non-resident shareholder's distributive
share of the income of such corporation from Delaware sources
entering into his federal taxable income subject to certain
specified modifications. No such modification requires the ad-
dition of interest on obligations of the State or its political
subdivisions or authorities thereof. Accordingly, so long as
interest income received by the Delaware Trust from obligations
of the State and its political subdivisions or authorities
thereof is excluded from adjusted gross income for federal in-
come tax purposes, all such interest income will be excluded
from taxable income for the purposes of the Delaware income
taxes that an S corporation must pay on behalf of a non-
resident shareholder. Such interest income may also be ex-
cluded from taxable income of a non-resident shareholder of an
S corporation under the enabling legislation pursuant to which
the obligation was issued. Conversely, to the extent that any
gain (or loss) from the sale of obligations held by the Dela-
ware Trust (whether as a result of the sale of such obligations
by the Delaware Trust or as the result of the sale of a Unit by
a Unit Holder) is includable in (or deductible in) the calcula-
tion of a non-resident shareholder's distributive share of
Delaware sourced income of an S corporation for federal income
tax purposes, any such gain (or loss) will be includable in (or
deductible in) the calculation of taxable income for purposes
of the Delaware income taxes that an S corporation must pay on
behalf of a non-resident shareholder.
d. 48 U.S.C. S 745 provides that all bonds is-
sued by the government of Puerto Rico, or by its authority,
shall be exempt from taxation by any state, or by any county,
municipality or other municipal subdivision of any state. Ac-
cordingly, interest income received by the Delaware Trust from
obligations issued by Puerto Rico, or by its authority, would
be exempt from the Delaware individual, trust and estate, and
corporate income taxes, including the income tax required to be
paid by an S corporation on behalf of certain non-resident
shareholders as described in paragraph c above. To the extent
that any gain (or loss) from the sale of such obligations held
by the Delaware Trust (whether as a result of the sale of such
obligations by the Delaware Trust or as the result of the sale
of a Unit by a Unit Holder) is includable in (or deductible in)
the calculation of adjusted gross income (in the case of indi-
vidual Unit Holders) or taxable income (in the case of trust,
estate and corporate Unit Holders) for federal income tax pur-
poses, any such gain (or loss) will be includible in (or de-
ductible in) the calculation of taxable income for purposes of
(i) Delaware income taxes on resident individuals, trusts and
A-33
<PAGE>
estates and (ii) Delaware corporate income taxes including the
income tax required to be paid by an S corporation on behalf of
certain non-resident shareholders as described in paragraph c
above.
No opinion is expressed regarding the Delaware tax
consequences of Unit Holders other than Delaware resident indi-
viduals, trusts and estates, and corporations conducting or
transacting business in Delaware.
Tax counsel should be consulted as to the other
Delaware tax consequences not specifically considered herein,
such as the Delaware franchise tax imposed upon the taxable in-
come of certain banking organizations and upon the net income
of certain building and loan associations. In addition, no
opinion is being rendered as to the Delaware consequences re-
sulting from any proposed or future federal or State tax legis-
lation.
THE MARYLAND UNINSURED TRUST
The Portfolio of the Maryland Uninsured Trust con-
sists of nine issues of Securities, all of which were issued by
Issuers located in Maryland. Four issues of Securities are
each a general obligation of an Issuer. Five issues of Securi-
ties, while not backed by the taxing power of the Issuer, are
payable from revenues or receipts derived from specific proj-
ects or other available sources. The Maryland Uninsured Trust
contains the following categories of Securities:
Percentage of Aggregate
Market Value of Trust Portfolio
Category of Security (as of November 20, 1997)
General Obligation............ 55.17%
Health Care and Hospital...... 16.43%
Higher Education.............. 15.44%
Parking Revenue............... 9.78%
Water and Sewer............... 3.18%
Original Issue Discount....... 19.61%
See: "The Trust -- Summary Description of the Port-
folios", in Part B, for a summary of the investment risks asso-
ciated with the type of Securities contained in the Maryland
Uninsured Trust. See: "Tax Status", in Part B, for a discus-
sion of certain tax considerations with regard to Original Is-
sue Discount.
A-34
<PAGE>
Of the Original Issue Discount bonds in the Maryland
Uninsured Trust, approximately 4.99% of the aggregate principal
amount of the Securities in the Maryland Uninsured Trust (or
3.18% of the market value of all Securities in the Maryland Un-
insured Trust on November 20, 1997) are zero coupon bonds
(including bonds known as multiplier bonds, money multiplier
bonds, capital accumulator bonds, compound interest bonds and
discount maturity payment bonds).
On November 20, 1997, based on the bid side of the
market, the aggregate market value of the Securities in the
Maryland Uninsured Trust was $2,266,374.63.
On November 20, 1997, Standard & Poor's Corporation
rated six of the Securities in the Maryland Uninsured Trust as
follows: 31.79%-AAA, 0%-AA and 31.81%-A; and Moody's Investors
Service rated three of the Securities as follows: 36.40%-Aa and
0%-A. (See: the respective "Schedule of Portfolio Securi-
ties", herein, and "Bond Ratings", in Part B.) A Security in
the Portfolio may subsequently cease to be rated or the rating
assigned may be reduced below the minimum requirements of the
Maryland Uninsured Trust for the acquisition of Securities.
While such events may be considered by the Sponsor in determin-
ing whether to direct the Trustee to dispose of the Security
(see: "Sponsor -- Responsibility", in Part B), such events do
not automatically require the elimination of such Security from
the Portfolio.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING MARYLAND SECURITIES
The Sponsor believes the information summarized below
describes some of the more significant developments relating to
Securities of (i) municipalities or other political subdivi-
sions or instrumentalities of the State of Maryland (the
"State") which rely, in whole or in part, on ad valorem real
property taxes and other general funds of such municipalities
or political subdivisions or (ii) the State, which are general
obligations of the State payable from appropriations from the
State's General Fund. The sources of such information include
the official statements of the State, as well as other publicly
available documents. The Sponsor has not independently veri-
fied any of the information contained in such official state-
ments and other publicly available documents, but is not aware
of any facts which would render such information inaccurate.
Economic Factors. The principal sectors of the Mary-
land economy are services, government and wholesale and retail
trade and manufacturing. While government employment grew at a
rate of less than one-third of total State employment from 1976
A-35
<PAGE>
to 1996, it remains a significant factor in the State economy.
In contrast to the nation as a whole, considerably more people
in Maryland are employed in government than in manufacturing,
and manufacturing accounted for only 7.9% of wage and salary
employment in Maryland in 1996 (compared to 15.5% nationally).
Food and kindred products is the primary manufacturing indus-
try. While the Port of Baltimore is one of the larger foreign
trade ports in the United States and in the world, its opera-
tions are subject to fluctuations in general economic condi-
tions, and the demand for imported or exported goods. Mary-
land's population in 1990 increased 13.8% from 1980.
State Finances. The consolidated balances of the
State's general, special revenue, debt service and capital pro-
jects funds were (on a GAAP-basis) approximately $246 million,
$291 million, $529 million, $1.117 billion and $1.360 billion
for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and
1996, respectively.
On April 3, 1996, the General Assembly approved the
budget for fiscal year 1997. The budget included, among other
things: (i) sufficient funds to meet all specific statutory
funding requirements; (ii) sufficient funds to meet the actuar-
ial recommended contributions for the seven retirement systems,
determined on a basis consistent with prior years' practice;
(iii) sufficient general funds for the annuity Bond Fund to
maintain the State property tax rate at 21c per $100 of as-
sessed valuation; (iv) $2.9 billion in aid to local governments
(reflecting a $121.5 million increase over fiscal year 1996
that provides for increases in education, health and police
aid); and (v) $13.2 million in general fund deficiency appro-
priations.
Legislation enacted by the 1996 General Assembly re-
organized the State's personnel system and reformed the welfare
and Medicaid programs. Estimated fiscal year 1997 savings of
$29 million ($19.5 million general funds) are incorporated into
the fiscal year 1997 Budget. The legislation established a de-
centralized personnel management system, replacing the classi-
fied and unclassified services with skilled, professional, man-
agement, and executive services; a pay for performance plan,
and early retirement during fiscal year 1997 for certain groups
of employees. The welfare reform legislation limited welfare
recipients to 60 months of cumulative cash assistance and re-
quired adults to be in a State-defined work activity in order
to receive more than 24 months of benefits. The Medicaid re-
form authorized the establishment of a mandatory managed care
program for Medicaid reform authorized the establishment of a
mandatory managed care program for Medicaid recipients
A-36
<PAGE>
(consistent with federal law or federal waivers). The legisla-
tion requires managed care organizations to meet certain per-
formance, access, and quality standards; it is anticipated the
organizations will be paid prospectively.
The operating budget will be funded with $7,315 mil-
lion in general funds, $4,312 million in special and higher
education funds, and $3,534 million in federal funds.
The State's fiscal year 1997 capital program is to be
funded with $400 million in general obligation bonds (net of
$12.1 million of prior year authorizations to be deauthorized),
$66.8 million general funds appropriated in the operating
budget, $1,297 million in special and federal funds (of which
$1,099 million is appropriated to the Department of Transporta-
tion, including $71 million for infrastructure, improvements
related to the construction of Redskins Stadium in Prince
George's County) and $69.8 million in revenue bonds other than
those issued by the Department of Transportation. The general
obligation bond financed program includes $229 million for edu-
cation, $23 million for the environment, $41 million for busi-
ness and job creation, $41 million for public safety, and $63
million for various other projects.
When the 1997 budget was enacted, it was estimated
that the general fund balance on a budgetary basis at June 30,
1997, would be approximately $22.5 million; it is currently es-
timated to be $144.5 million. In addition, the balance in the
Revenue Stabilization Account of the State Reserve Fund is es-
timated to be $490.4 million at June 30, 1997.
On April 8, 1997, he General Assembly approved the
budget for fiscal year 1998. The budget includes, among other
things: (i) sufficient funds to meet all specific statutory
funding requirements; (ii) sufficient funds to meet the actuar-
ial recommended contributions for the seven retirement systems,
determined on a basis consistent with prior years' practice;
(iii) sufficient general funds to the Annuity Bond Fund for
debt service on general obligation bonds to maintain the State
property tax rate at 21-cent per $100 of assessed valuation;
(iv) $3.1 billion to aid to local governments reflecting a $200
million increase over fiscal year 1997); and (v) general fund
net appropriation reductions of $0.3 million for fiscal year
1997.
The Budget incorporates the first year of a five-year
phase-in of a 10% reduction in personal income taxes estimated
to result in a reduction of revenues of $38.5 million in fiscal
year 1998 (and estimated to reduce revenues by $450 million
A-37
<PAGE>
when fully phased in). Legislation enacted to provide a phased
reduction in the sales and use tax on certain categories of
manufacturing equipment takes effect in fiscal year 1999. It
is estimated to reduce revenues of $38.6 million when fully im-
plemented in fiscal year 2001. General fund appropriations to
the State Reserve Fund include $30.2 million to the Revenue
Stabilization Account, $15.7 million to the Dedicated Purpose
Account for the Family Investment Program, $24.5 million to the
Economic Development Opportunities Program Fund, and $14.8 mil-
lion to other accounts in the State Reserve Fund. In addition,
$4.4 million in federal funds are reserved for future child
care expenses under the State's welfare reform program.
The Budget also includes the first year of additional
funding pursuant to legislation enacted incorporating educa-
tion-related Court-issued consent decrees between the State and
Baltimore City. The decrees, issued in November, 1996, detail
settlement of three legal actions involving the adequacy of
education, effective use of resources, and delivery of special
education services in the Baltimore City Public Schools. Leg-
islation incorporating the provisions of the decrees for man-
agement reform, evaluation, and funding was enacted that re-
structures the management of Baltimore City Public Schools con-
tingent on the State providing additional funding to the City.
The City is to receive $230 million in additional operating
funds over the next 5 fiscal years - $30 million in fiscal year
1998 and $50 million in each of fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
In addition, the agreement guarantees Baltimore City Public
Schools $10 million a year in State capital funding for school
construction to be matched by the City on a 90/10 basis. The
Budget also includes $32.0 million in additional grants to the
other subdivisions pursuant to the legislation restructuring
the Baltimore City Public Schools. The legislation requires
annual grants of this amount contingent on the additional City
funding in each of the next four fiscal years. The Budget also
includes $3.5 million toward the costs of improving certain
schools in Baltimore City designated for reconstruction and for
transitioning to the new city school system.
The fiscal year 1998 operating budget is to be funded
with $7,796 million in general funds, $2,757 million in special
funds, $1,438 million in higher education funds, and $3,447
million in federal funds.
The State's fiscal year 1998 capital program is pro-
posed to be funded with $415 million in general obligation
bonds, $83.7 million in general funds appropriated in the oper-
ating budget (of which $24.5 million in the proposed appropria-
tion to the Economic Development Opportunities Program Fund and
A-38
<PAGE>
$19.9 million is the proposed appropriation for the other busi-
ness and economic development), $1,241.1 million in special and
federal funds (of which $1,024 million is appropriated to the
Department of Transportation), and $30 million in revenue bonds
other than those issued by the Department of Transportation.
The general obligation bond financed program includes $247 mil-
lion for education, $28 million for the environment, $29 mil-
lion for public safety, and $111 million for various other pro-
jects.
Based on the 1998 Budget, it is estimated that the
general fund surplus on a budgetary basis at June 30, 1998,
will be approximately $27.9 million. In addition, the balance
in the Revenue Stabilization Account of the State Reserve Fund
is estimated to be $554 million at June 30, 1998.
At its 1986 session, the General Assembly enacted
legislation that established the State Reserve Fund. The fund
was originally composed of two accounts - the Revenue Stabili-
zation Account (the "Account"), which is established to retain
State revenues for future needs and to reduce the need for fu-
ture tax increases, and the Dedicated Purpose Account, which is
established to retain appropriations for major multi-year ex-
penditures and to meet contingency requirements. Initially, an
annual appropriation of $5 million to the Revenue Account was
required until the balance in the account reached 2% of general
fund revenues; likewise, withdrawal of funds from the Account
was predicated on the existence of certain changes and levels
of unemployment. All interest earned on the State Reserve Fund
is credited to the Account.
Since the establishment of the Reserve Fund, three
other accounts have been created - the Economic Development Op-
portunities Program Fund, which is to be used for extraordinary
economic development opportunities as a supplement to existing
programs, the Catastrophic Event Fund, which is to be used to
respond quickly to a natural disaster or other catastrophic
event that cannot be managed within existing appropriations,
and the Citizens Tax Reduction and Fiscal Reserve Account,
which is to be used to retain State revenues and to provide in-
dividual income tax relief. The Governor may propose that the
Citizen Tax Reduction Account be used to offset substantial re-
ductions in revenues resulting from changes in federal tax or
other law, federal lay-offs, or significant changes in the
economy.
At its 1993 session, the General Assembly increased
the annual appropriation to the Account to $50 million or what-
ever lesser amount is necessary to bring the balance of the Ac-
A-39
<PAGE>
count to 5% of estimated general fund revenues, and changed the
restriction on transfers from the Account to only those author-
ized by an act of the General Assembly or specifically author-
ized in the State Budget.
Legislation enacted by past General Assemblies di-
rected the Governor to include in the Budget submitted at the
following year's session, a proposed appropriation to the Re-
serve Fund in an amount equivalent to the unappropriated Gen-
eral Fund Surplus realized in fiscal years 1992-1996.
The Transportation Trust Fund ("the Transportation
Fund"), administered by the Department of Transportation, is
the largest of the State's special funds. The Transportation
Fund consolidates, into a single fund, substantially all fiscal
resources dedicated to transportation, excluding the Maryland
Transportation Authority; however, the Transportation Fund in-
cludes the excise taxes on motor vehicle fuel and motor vehicle
titles, a portion of the corporate income tax, wharfage and
landing fees, rentals, and fare box revenues. All expenditures
of the Department of Transportation are made from the Transpor-
tation Fund. In addition, the various categories of transpor-
tation bonds are serviced from the Transportation Trust Fund,
and the particular taxes and other designated revenues are both
dedicated to the payment of such indebtedness and constitute
the sole sources to which holders of transportation bonds le-
gally may look to for repayment.
Amounts in the Transportation Fund do not revert to
the General Fund if unexpended at the end of the fiscal year;
however, the General Assembly has enacted legislation requiring
that certain unpledged funds in the Transportation Fund be
transferred to the General Fund. In some instances, such leg-
islation also has provided for the subsequent retransfers from
the General Fund to the Transportation Fund.
The Transportation Trust Fund had surpluses of ap-
proximately $18 million, $129 million, $266 million, $282 mil-
lion and $201 million for the fiscal years ending June 30,
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, respectively.
The Maryland Transportation Authority (the
"Authority") and the Department of Transportation (the
"Department") entered into an agreement providing for the
transfer from the Authority to the Department, from funds not
needed or pledged for bond payments, of $25 million in fiscal
year 1991, $40 million in fiscal year 1992, and $10 million in
fiscal year 1993 to be used by the Department for the Central
Light Rail transportation facility. The agreement also pro-
A-40
<PAGE>
vides for the Department to retransfer to the Authority $25
million annually for fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997. $75
million has been retransferred to the Authority.
State Debt. The State Constitution prohibits the is-
suance of State debt unless authorized by a law providing for
the collection of an annual tax or taxes sufficient to pay the
interest when due and to discharge the principal within 15
years of the date of issuance. As of June 30, 1997, $3,025.4
million of the State's general obligation bonds were outstand-
ing. The State issued $250 million of its general obligation
bonds in July 1997. For fiscal year 1996, property taxes ac-
counted for 60% of the funds for general obligation debt serv-
ice payments; substantially all of the remainder was paid from
general funds of the State. In addition, agencies of the State
had approximately $98 million in tax supported lease and condi-
tional purchase commitments outstanding as of June 30, 1997.
Consolidated Transportation Bonds are limited obliga-
tions issued by the Department, the principal of which must be
paid within 15 years from the date of issue, for highway, port,
transit, rail, or aviation facilities or any combination of
such facilities. At its April, 1992, special session, the Gen-
eral Assembly enacted legislation that limits the outstanding
aggregate principal amount of these bonds to $1,200 million;
under prior statute the limit was $950 million. The legisla-
tion also provides that the General Assembly may establish in
the Budget for any fiscal year a $1,200 million maximum aggre-
gate amount of these bonds, which may be outstanding, as of
June 30 of the fiscal year. For fiscal year 1997 the limit is
$1,100 million; for fiscal year 1998 the limit is $1,074 mil-
lion. At June 30, 1997, the principal amount of outstanding
bonds was $939.4 million.
Debt service on Consolidated Transportation Bonds is
payable from the excise tax on each gallon of motor vehicle
fuel, the motor vehicle titling tax, all mandatory motor vehi-
cle registration fees, motor carrier fees, and such portion of
the corporate income tax that is credited to the Department,
plus all departmental operating revenues and receipts. The De-
partment has covenanted with the holders of outstanding Con-
solidated Transportation Bonds not to issue additional bonds
unless certain revenue adequacy tests are met.
Various State Authorities are authorized to issue
revenue bonds. At June 30, 1997, outstanding revenue and en-
terprise debt of these authorities amounted to approximately
$3.512 billion in bonded indebtedness and $36.456 million in
lease and conditional purchase financings.
A-41
<PAGE>
State Retirement Plans. The State contributes to the
Maryland State Retirement and Pension Systems, an agent multi-
ple-employer public employee retirement system established by
the State to provide pension benefits for State employees
(other than employees covered by the Mass Transit Administra-
tion Pension Plan) and employees of 129 participating political
subdivisions within the State. Additionally, the system pro-
vides benefits for certain non-State entities. Retirement
benefits are paid from the State system's pooled assets rather
than from assets relating to a particular plan participant.
The system is considered part of the State's financial report-
ing entity and is included in the State's financial statements
as a pension trust fund. The unfunded actuarial accrued li-
ability of the System was approximately $4.8 billion at
June 30, 1996.
Litigation. The State and its units are parties to
numerous legal proceedings, many of which normally recur in
governmental operations.
Baltimore City. Baltimore, like many older urban
centers, has a disproportionate share of the State's poor and
those most in need of costly public services. The City contin-
ues to lose population, dropping from an estimated 699,700 in
January, 1995 to an estimated 692,700 in January, 1996, a 1.0%
change. After an unusual strong increase in retail sales in
fiscal 1995, total retail sales in fiscal 1996 declined 2.1%.
Still, at $192.1 million, State sales tax receipts are well
above the fiscal 1992 recession low of $174.3 million.
The City's major source of revenue, the real property
tax, has weakened in recent years primarily due to continued
sluggishness in commercial real estate values. To counteract
this trend the City has a comprehensive program to encourage
real estate investment and home ownership. The program in-
cludes maintaining the 4% cap on assessment increases for owner
occupied residences. The City provides property tax credits
for the purchase and rehabilitation of vacant and abandoned
residential property, the purchase of newly constructed dwell-
ings, home improvements that result in assessment increases, a
demonstration home purchase program in the Waverly area, cer-
tain eligible improvements for qualified historic properties,
and new construction of market rate rental housing. The City
is working to implement legislation, authorized in fiscal 1996,
to provide a tax incentive to retrofit older commercial build-
ings for current communications technology. In addition, in
fiscal 1996 the City was awarded an Environmental Protection
Agency grant to explore re-utilization of "brownfields" - va-
cant or abandoned industrial sites. Together with Empowerment
A-42
<PAGE>
Zone tax credit programs, innovative solutions will be used to
strengthen the property tax base in older industrial areas.
Empower Baltimore Management Corporation is a private, not-for-
profit corporation formed December 21, 1994 for the purpose of
developing further, implementing and managing the strategic
plan for the Empowerment Zone of the City of Baltimore. The
strategic plan addresses economic development, sustainable com-
munity development, community based partnerships, and a strate-
gic vision for change. For inception through June 30, 1996,
approximately $1.4 million of the $100 million grant has been
spent.
While trends in property tax receipts and retail
sales present cause for concern, current statistics in other
areas point to encouraging signs of strength in the local econ-
omy. Data indicate that fiscal 1994 was a turning point in
resident employment, which grew for the first time since fiscal
1980 and still continues to grow. After peaking in fiscal 1993
at 10.9%, the fiscal year average annual unemployment rate has
declined each year. The fiscal 1996 annual average rate was
8.0%. The rate of decline in jobs located in the City contin-
ues to moderate significantly from the severe fiscal 1992 de-
cline, when nearly 24,000, or 5.5% of the jobs located in the
City were lost. Based on the most recent 12 month data, fiscal
1996 job losses were less than 5,700, or about a 1.5% decline.
The significant slow-down in job losses is due to improvement
in the local economy and the impact of the City's designation
as a Federal Empowerment Zone. Since this designation in De-
cember, 1994 over 1,600 jobs in the zones have been added to
the work force. Major construction projects, including the new
home for the Baltimore Ravens professional football team, will
also add jobs.
Prince George's County. Certain of the Securities in
the Portfolio may be obligations of Prince George's County,
Maryland (the "County"), which rely in whole or in part on
property taxes levied by the County as their source of payment.
Limitations on property tax rates resulting from County Charter
provisions and a decision of the State's highest court to limit
the ad valorem tax rate applicable to personal property to the
real property tax rate impair the county's ability to raise tax
revenues.
At the November 1978 General Election, the voters of
the County adopted an amendment to the County Charter limiting
future collection of real property taxes. The amendment, which
became effective in December 1978, added Section 817B to the
Charter. It is generally referred to in the County as "TRIM"
(TRIM is an acronym for Tax Reform Initiative by Marylanders).
A-43
<PAGE>
TRIM, as enacted in November 1978, provides that the County
Council shall not levy "a real property tax that would result
in a total collection of real property taxes greater than the
amount collected in fiscal year 1979" ($143.9 million). At the
November 1984 General Election, an amendment to TRIM (the "TRIM
Amendment") was approved by the voters of the County authoriz-
ing the County Council to levy taxes on a maximum rate basis as
an alternative to the maximum amount basis. The maximum rate
authorized was Two Dollars and Forty Cents ($2.40) for each One
Hundred Dollars ($100.00) of assessed value. Under the TRIM
Amendment, the County's tax collections are limited to the
greater of (1) an amount equal to the 1979 collection or (2) an
amount produced by a tax levied at $2.40 per $100.00 of as-
sessed value. If the tax collection levied at $2.40 per
$100.00 of assessed value in fact produces an excess, the ex-
cess must be placed in the contingency fund and, if not used
during that fiscal year, must be included in the budget esti-
mated for real property taxes in the following fiscal year.
Since fiscal 1986, the County Council has elected to levy real
property taxes calculated on the basis of the maximum rate.
The Attorney General of Maryland has opined that real
property taxes levied and collected by the County for the Wash-
ington Suburban Sanitary Commission ("WSSC") and the Maryland
National Capital Park and Planning Commission ("M-NCPPC") are
not subject to the limitation imposed by TRIM. Although the
Attorney General of Maryland has not ruled on the impact of the
TRIM Amendment, the County Attorney is of the opinion that
limitations imposed by the TRIM Amendment are not applicable to
WSSC, M-NCPPC or the Washington Suburban Transit Commission.
In addition, according to State law, taxes levied by the County
in its Stormwater Special Taxing District, taxes levied by the
County to fund an insurance pool, and taxes levied by munici-
palities in the County are not subject to the TRIM limitation.
The County caused to be filed a Declaratory Judgment
suit on April 3, 1992 in the Circuit Court for Prince George's
County, Maryland regarding the right of the County to levy a
property tax rate in excess of the TRIM limitation of Section
817B of the County Charter. The County sought to levy in fis-
cal 1992 a property tax rate of $.08 per $100 of assessed value
in excess of the TRIM limitation to pay the principal and in-
terest on bonds outstanding prior to the effective date of
TRIM. The Court entered a final order on May 24, 1992 declar-
ing that the County has the authority. This order was appealed
to the Court of Appeals of Maryland and received a favorable
ruling supporting the levy. The proposed rate set for fiscal
1998 is $.024 per $100 of assessed value.
A-44
<PAGE>
On November 8, 1996, the voters of Prince George's
County approved a new Section 817C of the County Charter which
provides that "the County Council shall refer to a referendum
of the qualified voters of the County, at the ensuing regular
general election for members of the House of Representatives of
the United States, any ordinance or resolution levyng or charg-
ing the amount of any tax or fee in excess of the amount levied
in the preceding fiscal year."
This provision on its face does not purport to ex-
clude any tax but does specifically exclude a number of fees.
Recently, there have been several advice letters issued from
the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland addressing the
effect of this Charter provision on certain taxes and fees set
or authorized by the General Assembly of Maryland. In that le-
gal analysis the potential application of this provision is
significantly limited. In addition, the Court of Appeals of
Maryland recently issued a decision in Emory Hertelendy, et al.
v. Board of Education of Talbot County, et al., involving a
property tax limitation passed by the local electorate of Tal-
bot County, Maryland. This opinion reaffirms the mandate that
the legislative responsibility and authority of the County to
establish certain revenue sources cannot be transferred to the
electorate. Although these events may generate additional le-
gal opinion or potential litigation concerning the effect of
both Sections 817B and 817C of the County Charter, the County
budget for fiscal 1998 conforms with those sections.
County revenue grew by a net $97.4 million between
fiscal 1993 and fiscal 1997, averaging 3.21% growth annually.
This growth occurred despite slow growth in tax revenue.
Of the net growth, $57.3 million was derived princi-
pally from taxes; non-tax sources increased by $40.1 million.
The property tax generated $38.3 million or almost 67% of the
growth. Real property tax receipts increased by an average of
2.6% annually, while personal property tax increases averaged
2.0%. In fiscal 1994, fiscal 1995, fiscal 1996 and fiscal
1997, the County felt the effects of market changes in the real
property assessable base, resulting in lower growth rates.
The fiscal 1997 estimated level of County expendi-
tures was $351.1 million and other financing uses, primarily
for education and debt service, were estimated at $464.2 mil-
lion. County expenditures were estimated to be $34.1 million
higher in fiscal 1997 than in fiscal 1993.
The proposed fiscal 1998 Budget declines $5.9 million
from fiscal 1997 estimated revenues. Although the increase in
A-45
<PAGE>
property taxes is modest at a projected $1.6 million, this is
the first time in the last three years that reassessed real
property values did not deflate and is offset by the loss of
taxes from the annexation of Takoma Park to Montgomery County
from Prince George's County. Even with the loss of Takoma Park
and $2.8 million of taxes, property taxes increased by 0.5% in
fiscal 1998. The income tax growth is projected to be less
than 1.4% which is reflective at the return to a more normal
growth pattern in the base. The income tax rate remains at 60%
of the State income tax for calendar year 1997. The combined
loss for all Takoma Park sources - property tax, income tax and
miscellaneous receipts - in fiscal 1998 total $4.5 million.
The County continues to take a conservative approach in pro-
jecting revenues. The fiscal 1998 proposed budget does not
rely on any additional state taxing authority. County agencies
are prepared to deal with inevitable cuts in federal and state
aid.
The cap on assessment growth for owner-occupied resi-
dential properties in fiscal 1994 was set at 5%. Home-
owner-occupied residential properties growth in assessment will
be capped at 3% in fiscal 1997. This cap recognizes the Novem-
ber 1994 ballot initiative that capped the growth at the lesser
of 5% or the increase in the consumer price index of the Wash-
ington metropolitan statistical area. This voluntary lowering
of the cap in fiscal 1998 reflects the County's commitment to
the voters made during the 1992 General Election with respect
to the rate limitation.
Maryland Tax Status
In the opinion of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston L.L.P.,
special Maryland Counsel on Maryland income tax matters, which
relies on the opinion of Cahill Gordon & Reindel regarding fed-
eral income tax matters relating to the Maryland Trust, under
existing Maryland income tax law applicable to individuals who
are Maryland residents and to subchapter C corporations subject
to the Maryland corporate income tax:
The Maryland Trust will be treated as a trust for
Maryland income tax purposes and not as an association taxable
as a corporation. Each transaction of the Maryland Trust will
be treated for such purposes as a transaction of the several
Unit Holders and not as a transaction of the Maryland Trust
that could give rise to Maryland taxable income to the Maryland
Trust.
The Maryland corporate income tax is imposed at the
rate of 7% of the corporation's Maryland taxable income. The
A-46
<PAGE>
Maryland income tax is imposed upon the taxable income of resi-
dent individuals. The counties and City of Baltimore are re-
quired by State law to levy local income taxes that "piggyback"
the State income tax; i.e., these taxes are determined as a
percentage ranging from 20% to 60% of the liability of the
resident for the state income tax. The local income tax ap-
plies to individuals who are residents of the local jurisdic-
tion.
The State currently imposes a maximum 5% tax rate for
taxable income of individuals in excess of $3,000. Beginning
in 1998 and in each year thereafter until 2002, the top mar-
ginal rate for individuals will be reduced by .05% each year.
The State permits local jurisdictions to impose a "piggyback"
tax rate on individuals of up to a maximum of 60% of the State
rate. For 1997 all counties and the City of Baltimore impose
"piggyback" income taxes at a 50% rate except as follows:
Worcester County, 30%; Talbot County, 40%; Baltimore and Queen
Anne's Counties, 55%; Carroll County, 58%; Allegany, Caroline,
Montgomery, Prince George's, St. Mary's, Somerset and Wicomico
Counties, 60%. The counties and the City of Baltimore may in-
crease or decrease these rates in increments of 5% (or, at the
option of the county, by multiples of 2% where the county rate
is in excess of 50% of the State rate) effective on January 1
of the year that the county or City designates by giving notice
to the State Comptroller of the rate change and its effective
date on or before July 1 prior to its effective date. Effec-
tive January 1, 1998, the piggyback tax rate in Allegany and
St. Mary's counties will be 58%; Carroll County will be 55%;
and Worcester County will be 20%. Otherwise the local rates
set forth above will remain in effect during 1998. For pur-
poses of computing the county piggyback tax, the tax marginal
state rate is considered to be 5%.
Individual Unit Holders who are residents of Maryland
and Unit Holders which are subchapter C corporations subject to
the Maryland corporate income tax are not required to include
in their regular Maryland taxable income their respective
shares of interest earnings on obligations of the State of
Maryland, its agencies, authorities or political subdivisions
derived through the Maryland Trust to the extent that such in-
terest is excludable from gross income for federal income tax
purposes. In certain cases an exemption for interest on Mary-
land State, county and municipal obligations and obligations of
certain agencies thereof is provided from Maryland income tax,
whether or not the interest income is exempt from federal in-
come tax. Furthermore, Unit Holders are not required to in-
clude in their regular Maryland taxable income their respective
shares of interest earnings on bonds issued by the government
A-47
<PAGE>
of Puerto Rico or by its authority which is derived through the
Maryland Trust to the extent that such interest is excludable
from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is also
excludable from any state income taxation under federal law.
Individual Unit Holders, however, may be subject to the Mary-
land income tax on tax preferences with respect to 50% of any
interest derived through the Maryland Trust from non-Maryland
obligations in excess of a threshold amount and constituting a
tax preference for federal income tax purposes.
As a general rule, to the extent that gain from the
sale, exchange or other disposition of obligations held by the
Maryland Trust (whether as a result of a sale or exchange of
such obligations by the Maryland Trust or as a result of a sale
or exchange of a Unit by a Unit Holder) is includable in the
federal adjusted gross income of a resident individual, or tax-
able income of a corporation, such gain will be included in the
calculation of the Unit Holder's Maryland taxable income.
Maryland law does not generally exclude capital gains from in-
come tax. However, under Maryland law, any profit realized
upon the sale or exchange of bonds issued by the State of Mary-
land, its political subdivisions and certain specified other
Maryland issuers, is specifically excluded from the computation
of the Maryland taxable income of individuals and corporations.
Although there are no Maryland authorities on point, it is pos-
sible that the taxing authorities in Maryland could take the
position that the statutory exclusion or exemption of profit on
these obligations requires a disallowance in the calculation of
Maryland income tax of any loss that may be realized on such
obligations.
With respect to the amount of Social Security bene-
fits required to be included in the calculation of federal ad-
justed gross income, a subtraction modification is provided for
under the Maryland income tax law so that such amount is elimi-
nated in determining Maryland taxable income.
Tax counsel should be consulted as to other Maryland
tax consequences not specifically considered herein, and as to
the Maryland tax status of Unit Holders in the Maryland Trust
which are neither individuals resident in Maryland nor subchap-
ter C corporations subject to the Maryland corporate income
tax. By way of example, no opinion is expressed as to the tax
consequences under the Maryland franchise tax applicable to a
financial institution which is a Unit Holder in the Maryland
Trust. However, it should be noted that, pursuant to legisla-
tion passed in 1995, interest received by certain financial in-
stitutions on certain government obligations will be subject to
partial exclusion from tax commencing in 1996. Beginning in
A-48
<PAGE>
1998, certain financial institutions will be subject to the
Maryland corporate income tax rather than the franchise tax.
Further, no opinion is being rendered as to the Maryland tax
consequences resulting from any proposed or future tax legisla-
tion.
Special Maryland counsel has not examined any of the
obligations deposited in the Maryland Trust, and expresses no
opinion as to whether the interest on any such obligations is,
in fact, tax exempt upon receipt by the Maryland Trust or would
be tax exempt if directly received by a Unit Holder; nor has
special counsel made any review of the proceedings relating to
the issuance of Bonds or the basis of bond counsel opinions.
A-49
<PAGE>
<AUDIT-REPORT>
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
THE UNIT HOLDERS, SPONSOR AND TRUSTEE
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
We have audited the statements of financial condition and schedules of
portfolio securities of the Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust Insured
California Intermediate Term Portfolio Series 11, Delaware Portfolio Series
13 and Maryland Portfolio Series 15 as of September 30, 1997, and the
related statements of operations and changes in net assets for each of the
three years in the period then ended. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Trustee (see Footnote (a)(1)). Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
Our procedures included confirmation of the securities owned as of
September 30, 1997 as shown in the statements of financial condition and
schedules of portfolio securities by correspondence with The Bank of New
York, the Trustee. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and the significant estimates made by the Trustee, as well
as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the financial position of the Dean Witter Select
Municipal Trust Insured California Intermediate Term Portfolio Series 11,
Delaware Portfolio Series 13 and Maryland Portfolio Series 15 as of
September 30, 1997, and the results of their operations and the changes in
their net assets for each of the three years in the period then ended in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
October 31, 1997
New York, New York
F-1
</AUDIT-REPORT>
<PAGE>
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
September 30, 1997
TRUST PROPERTY
Investments in municipal bonds at market value
(amortized cost $3,192,409) (Note (a) and
Schedule of Portfolio Securities Notes (4) and (5)) $3,236,867
Accrued interest receivable 27,709
Cash 17,889
Total 3,282,465
LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
Less Liabilities:
Accrued Trustee's fees and expenses 3,903
Accrued Sponsor's fees 834
Total liabilities 4,737
Net Assets:
Balance applicable to 3,218,376 Units of
fractional undivided interest outstanding
(Note (c)):
Capital, plus unrealized market
appreciation of $44,458 $3,236,867
Undistributed net investment income (Note (b)) 40,861
Net assets $3,277,728
Net asset value per 1,000 Units ($3,277,728 divided by
3,218,376 Units multiplied by 1,000) $ 1,018.44
See notes to financial statements
F-2
<PAGE>
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Investment income - interest $153,105 $165,019 $168,108
Less Expenses:
Trustee's fees and expenses 6,303 6,471 6,337
Sponsor's fees 852 919 938
Total expenses 7,155 7,390 7,275
Investment income - net 145,950 157,629 160,833
Net gain on investments:
Realized loss on securities sold or
redeemed (4,942) (11,031) -
Net unrealized market appreciation 123,798 47,008 246,604
Net gain on investments 118,856 35,977 246,604
Net increase in net assets resulting from
operations $264,806 $193,606 $407,437
See notes to financial statements
F-3
<PAGE>
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Operations:
Investment income - net $ 145,950 $ 157,629 $ 160,833
Realized loss on securities sold or
redeemed (4,942) (11,031) -
Net unrealized market appreciation 123,798 47,008 246,604
Net increase in net assets
resulting from operations 264,806 193,606 407,437
Less Distributions to Unit Holders:
Investment income - net (142,292) (154,286) (157,050)
Total distributions (142,292) (154,286) (157,050)
Less Capital Share Transactions:
Redemption of 277,624 Units and
254,000 Units, respectively (271,105) (239,941) -
Accrued interest on redemption (3,166) (2,746) -
Total capital share
transactions (274,271) (242,687) -
Net (decrease) increase in net assets (151,757) (203,367) 250,387
Net assets:
Beginning of year 3,429,485 3,632,852 3,382,465
End of year (including undistributed
net investment income of $40,861,
$43,773 and $47,053, respectively) $3,277,728 $3,429,485 $3,632,852
See notes to financial statements
F-4
<PAGE>
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
September 30, 1997
(a) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 as a
Unit Investment Trust. The following is a summary of the significant
accounting policies of the Trust:
(1) Basis of Presentation
The Trustee has custody of and responsibility for all accounting and
financial books, records, financial statements and related data of
the Trust and is responsible for establishing and maintaining a
system of internal controls directly related to, and designed to
provide reasonable assurance as to the integrity and reliability
of, financial reporting of the Trust. The Trustee is also
responsible for all estimates and accruals reflected in the Trust's
financial statements. The Evaluator determines the price for each
underlying Security included in the Trust's Portfolio of Securities
on the basis set forth in Part B of this Prospectus, "Public
Offering of Units - Public Offering Price". Under the Securities
Act of 1933 ("the Act"), as amended, the Sponsor is deemed to be an
issuer of the Trust Units. As such, the Sponsor has the
responsibility of an issuer under the Act with respect to financial
statements of the Trust included in the Trust's Registration
Statement under the Act and amendments thereto.
(2) Investments
Investments are stated at market value as determined by the
Evaluator based on the bid side evaluations on the last day of
trading during the period, except that value on the date of deposit
(October 18, 1993) represents the cost of investments to the Trust
based on the offering side evaluations as of the day prior to the
date of deposit.
(3) Income Taxes
The Trust is not an association taxable as a corporation for Federal
income tax purposes; accordingly, no provision is required for such
taxes.
(4) Expenses
The Trust pays annual Trustee's fees, estimated expenses,
Evaluator's fees, and annual Sponsor's portfolio supervision fees
and may incur additional charges as explained under "Expenses and
Charges - Fees" and "- Other Charges" in Part B of this Prospectus.
(5) Reclassifications
Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior year's
financial statements to reflect current year presentation.
F-5
<PAGE>
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
September 30, 1997
(b) DISTRIBUTIONS
Interest received by the Trust is distributed to the Unit Holders on or
shortly after the fifteenth day of each month after deducting applicable
expenses. Receipts other than interest are distributed as explained in
"Administration of the Trust - Distribution of Interest and Principal"
in Part B of this Prospectus.
(c) ORIGINAL COST TO INVESTORS
The original cost to investors represents the aggregate initial public
offering price as of the date of deposit (October 18, 1993) exclusive of
accrued interest, computed on the basis set forth under "Public Offering
of Units - Public Offering Price" in Part B of this Prospectus.
A reconciliation of the original cost of Units to investors to the net
amount applicable to investors as of September 30, 1997 follows:
Original cost to investors $3,819,713
Less: Gross underwriting commissions (sales charge) (114,614)
Net cost to investors 3,705,099
Cost of securities sold or redeemed (527,489)
Unrealized market appreciation 44,458
Accumulated interest accretion 14,799
Net amount applicable to investors $3,236,867
(d) OTHER INFORMATION
Selected data for 1,000 Units of the Trust during each year:
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Net investment income distribu-
tions during year $ 41.71 $ 41.85 $ 41.88
Net asset value at end of year $1,018.44 $980.97 $968.76
Trust Units outstanding
at end of year 3,218,376 3,496,000 3,750,000
F-6
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO SECURITIES
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
September 30, 1997
Port- Optional
folio Rating Face Coupon Maturity Sinking Fund Refunding Market
No. Title of Securities <F3> Amount Rate Date Redemptions<F5> Redemptions<F4> Value<F6><F7>
<S><C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
1. The Regents of the Univer-
sity of California Refund-
ing Revenue Bonds (Multi-
ple Purpose Projects),
Series B (MBIA Insured) <F8> AAA $ 700,000 4.300% 09/01/01 NONE NONE $ 706,517
2. California State Public
Works Board Lease Revenue
Refunding Bonds (Department
of Corrections), 1993
Series C (Del Norte) (MBIA
Insured) <F8> AAA 525,000 4.600 12/01/02 NONE NONE 536,597
3. California (State of),
Various Purpose General
Obligation Bonds (FGIC
Insured) <F10> AAA 200,000 4.300 09/01/03 NONE NONE 201,366
4. Fresno Sewer System Reve-
nue Bonds, 1993 Series A
(AMBAC Insured) <F9> AAA 100,000 4.500 09/01/03 NONE NONE 101,765
5. Redding Redevelopment
Agency, Canby-Hill-Top-
Cypress Redevelopment Proj-
ect Tax Allocation Refund-
ing Bonds, Series D (FSA
Insured) <F11> AAA 400,000 4.500 09/01/03 NONE NONE 404,756
6. Moreno Valley Refunding
Certificates of Participa-
tion (Capital Projects),
Series 1993 (MBIA Insured)
<F8> AAA 650,000 4.600 05/01/04 NONE NONE 658,008
7. Western Placer Unified
School District, General
Obligation Bonds, Election
of 1993, Series 1993A (FGIC
Insured) <F10> AAA 125,000 0.000 08/01/05 NONE NONE 87,191
8. Sacramento Municipal Util-
ity District Electric Reve-
nue Refunding Bonds, 1993
Series 6 (MBIA Insured) <F8> AAA 525,000 4.800 09/01/05 NONE 09/01/03@102 540,667
$3,225,000 $3,236,867
See notes to schedule of portfolio securities
F-7
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO SECURITIES
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
September 30, 1997
<F3> All ratings are provided by Standard & Poor's Corporation. A brief
description of applicable Security ratings is given under "Bond
Ratings" in Part B of this Prospectus.
<F4> There is shown under this heading the date on which each issue of
Securities is redeemable by the operation of optional call
provisions and the redemption price for that date; unless otherwise
indicated, each issue continues to be redeemable at declining
prices thereafter but not below par. Securities listed as non-
callable, as well as Securities listed as callable, may also be
redeemable at par under certain circumstances from special
redemption payments.
<F5> There is shown under this heading the date on which an issue of
Securities is subject to scheduled sinking fund redemption and the
redemption price of par.
<F6> The market value of the Securities as of September 30, 1997 was
determined by the Evaluator on the basis of bid side evaluations
for the Securities on such date.
<F7> At September 30, 1997, the unrealized market appreciation of all
Securities was comprised of the following:
Gross unrealized market appreciation $44,458
Gross unrealized market appreciation -
Unrealized market appreciation $44,458
The amortized cost of the Securities for Federal income tax purposes
was $3,192,409 at September 30, 1997.
<F8> Insured by Municipal Bond Insurance Association ("MBIA").
<F9> Insured by American Municipal Bond Assurance Corporation ("AMBAC").
<F10>Insured by Financial Guaranty Insurance Company ("FGIC").
<F11>Insured by Financial Security Assurance ("FSA").
F-8
<PAGE>
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
September 30, 1997
TRUST PROPERTY
Investments in municipal bonds at market value
(amortized cost $2,073,519) (Note (a) and
Schedule of Portfolio Securities Notes (4) and (5)) $2,084,582
Accrued interest receivable 26,802
Cash 5,680
Total 2,117,064
LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
Less Liabilities:
Accrued Trustee's fees and expenses 1,694
Accrued Sponsor's fees 521
Total liabilities 2,215
Net Assets:
Balance applicable to 2,085 Units of fractional
undivided interest outstanding (Note (c)):
Capital, plus net unrealized market
appreciation of $11,063 $2,084,582
Undistributed net investment income (Note (b)) 30,267
Net assets $2,114,849
Net asset value per Unit ($2,114,849 divided by 2,085 Units) $ 1,014.32
See notes to financial statements
F-9
<PAGE>
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Investment income - interest $100,580 $100,429 $100,286
Less Expenses:
Trustee's fees and expenses 5,171 5,170 3,817
Sponsor's fees 521 521 521
Total expenses 5,692 5,691 4,338
Investment income - net 94,888 94,738 95,948
Net unrealized market appreciation 97,207 14,054 161,397
Net increase in net assets resulting from
operations $192,095 $108,792 $257,345
See notes to financial statements
F-10
<PAGE>
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
September 30, 1997
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Operations:
Investment income - net $ 94,888 $ 94,738 $ 95,948
Net unrealized market appreciation 97,207 14,054 161,397
Net increase in net assets
resulting from operations 192,095 108,792 257,345
Less Distributions to Unit Holders:
Investment income - net (91,573) (92,511)
(92,824)
Total distributions (91,573) (92,511)
(92,824)
Net increase in net assets 100,522 16,281 164,521
Net assets:
Beginning of year 2,014,327 1,998,046 1,833,525
End of year (including undistributed
net investment income of $30,267,
$30,150 and $30,972, respectively) $2,114,849 $2,014,327 $1,998,046
See notes to financial statements
F-11
<PAGE>
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
September 30, 1997
(a) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 as a
Unit Investment Trust. The following is a summary of the significant
accounting policies of the Trust:
(1) Basis of Presentation
The Trustee has custody of and responsibility for all accounting and
financial books, records, financial statements and related data of
the Trust and is responsible for establishing and maintaining a
system of internal controls directly related to, and designed to
provide reasonable assurance as to the integrity and reliability
of, financial reporting of the Trust. The Trustee is also
responsible for all estimates and accruals reflected in the Trust's
financial statements. The Evaluator determines the price for each
underlying Security included in the Trust's Portfolio of Securities
on the basis set forth in Part B of this Prospectus, "Public
Offering of Units - Public Offering Price". Under the Securities
Act of 1933 ("the Act"), as amended, the Sponsor is deemed to be an
issuer of the Trust Units. As such, the Sponsor has the
responsibility of an issuer under the Act with respect to financial
statements of the Trust included in the Trust's Registration
Statement under the Act and amendments thereto.
(2) Investments
Investments are stated at market value as determined by the
Evaluator based on the bid side evaluations on the last day of
trading during the period, except that value on the date of deposit
(October 18, 1993) represents the cost of investments to the Trust
based on the offering side evaluations as of the day prior to the
date of deposit.
(3) Income Taxes
The Trust is not an association taxable as a corporation for Federal
income tax purposes; accordingly, no provision is required for such
taxes.
(4) Expenses
The Trust pays annual Trustee's fees, estimated expenses,
Evaluator's fees, and annual Sponsor's portfolio supervision fees
and may incur additional charges as explained under "Expenses and
Charges - Fees" and "- Other Charges" in Part B of this Prospectus.
F-12
<PAGE>
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
September 30, 1997
(b) DISTRIBUTIONS
Interest received by the Trust is distributed to the Unit Holders on or
shortly after the fifteenth day of each month after deducting applicable
expenses. Receipts other than interest are distributed as explained in
"Administration of the Trust - Distribution of Interest and Principal"
in Part B of this Prospectus.
(c) ORIGINAL COST TO INVESTORS
The original cost to investors represents the aggregate initial public
offering price as of the date of deposit (October 18, 1993) exclusive of
accrued interest, computed on the basis set forth under "Public Offering
of Units - Public Offering Price" in Part B of this Prospectus.
A reconciliation of the original cost of Units to investors to the net
amount applicable to investors as of September 30, 1997 follows:
Original cost to investors $2,145,256
Less: Gross underwriting commissions (sales charge) (83,657)
Net cost to investors 2,061,599
Net unrealized market appreciation 11,063
Accumulated interest accretion 11,920
Net amount applicable to investors $2,084,582
(d) OTHER INFORMATION
Selected data for a Unit of the Trust during each year:
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Interest income $ 48.24 $ 48.16 $ 48.10
Expenses (2.73) (2.73) (2.08)
Investment income - net 45.51 45.43 46.02
Income distributions (43.92) (44.37) (44.52)
1.59 1.06 1.50
Net unrealized market
appreciation 46.63 6.74 77.41
Net increase in net asset value 48.22 7.80 78.91
Net asset value - beginning
of year 966.10 958.30 879.39
Net asset value - end of year $1,014.32 $966.10 $958.30
F-13
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO SECURITIES
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
September 30, 1997
Port- Optional
folio Rating Face Coupon Maturity Sinking Fund Refunding Market
No. Title of Securities <F14> Amount Rate Date Redemptions<F16> Redemptions<F15> Value<F17><F18>
<S><C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
1. Delaware Health Facilities
Authority, Kent General
Hospital Project, Series
1993 (MBIA Insured) <F20> AAA $ 185,000 4.700% 07/01/04 NONE 07/01/03@102 $ 186,992
2. Delaware Health Facili-
ties Authority, Kent Gene-
ral Hospital Project,
Series 1993 (MBIA Insured)
<F20> AAA 220,000 4.900 07/01/06 NONE 07/01/03@102 223,817
3. Delaware River and Bay
Authority Revenue Bonds,
Series 1993 (MBIA Insured)
<F20> AAA 500,000 4.800 01/01/08 NONE 01/01/04@102 500,980
4. Dover Water and Sewer Rev-
enue Bonds, 1993 Series A A<F19> 185,000 4.750 07/01/06 NONE 07/01/03@102 185,583
5. Dover Water and Sewer Rev-
enue Bonds, 1993 Series A A<F19> 210,000 4.875 07/01/07 NONE 07/01/03@102 211,806
6. Newark General Obligation
Bonds, Series of 1993 A1<F19> 335,000 4.875 01/15/09 NONE 01/15/99@100 335,372
7. University of Delaware
Revenue Bonds, Series 1993 AA+ 350,000 5.300 11/01/06 NONE 11/01/[email protected] 369,905
8. Puerto Rico Public Build-
ings Authority Public Edu-
cation and Health Facili-
ties Refunding Bonds, Series
I A 100,000 0.000 07/01/05 NONE NONE 70,127
$2,085,000 $2,084,582
See notes to schedule of portfolio securities
F-14
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO SECURITIES
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
September 30, 1997
<F14> All ratings are provided by Standard & Poor's Corporation, unless
otherwise indicated. A brief description of applicable Security
ratings is given under "Bond Ratings" in Part B of this Prospectus.
<F15> There is shown under this heading the date on which each issue of
Securities is redeemable by the operation of optional call
provisions and the redemption price for that date; unless otherwise
indicated, each issue continues to be redeemable at declining
prices thereafter but not below par. Securities listed as non-
callable, as well as Securities listed as callable, may also be
redeemable at par under certain circumstances from special
redemption payments.
<F16> There is shown under this heading the date on which an issue of
Securities is subject to scheduled sinking fund redemption and the
redemption price of par.
<F17> The market value of the Securities as of September 30, 1997 was
determined by the Evaluator on the basis of bid side evaluations
for the Securities on such date.
<F18> At September 30, 1997, the net unrealized market appreciation of all
Securities was comprised of the following:
Gross unrealized market appreciation $14,346
Gross unrealized market depreciation (3,283)
Net unrealized market appreciation $11,063
The amortized cost of the Securities for Federal income tax purposes
was $2,073,519 at September 30, 1997.
<F19> Moody's Investors, Inc. rating.
<F20> Insured by Municipal Bond Insurance Association ("MBIA").
F-15
<PAGE>
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
September 30, 1997
TRUST PROPERTY
Investments in municipal bonds at market value (amortized
cost $2,257,375) (Note (a) and Schedule of Portfolio
Securities Notes (4) and (5)) $2,273,634
Accrued interest receivable 23,717
Cash 11,100
Total 2,308,451
LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
Less Liabilities:
Accrued Trustee's fees and expenses 2,340
Accrued Sponsor's fees 674
Total liabilities 3,014
Net Assets:
Balance applicable to 2,294 Units of fractional
undivided interest outstanding (Note (c)):
Capital, plus net unrealized market
appreciation of $16,259 $2,273,634
Undistributed principal and net investment
income (Note (b)) 31,803
Net assets $2,305,437
Net asset value per Unit ($2,305,437 divided by 2,294 Units) $ 1,004.99
See notes to financial statements
F-16
<PAGE>
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Investment income - interest $122,979 $137,876 $137,723
Less Expenses:
Trustee's fees and expenses 5,524 5,397 5,397
Sponsor's fees 674 754 754
Total expenses 6,198 6,151 6,151
Investment income - net 116,781 131,725 131,572
Net gain on investments:
Realized loss on securities sold or
redeemed (23,998) - -
Net unrealized market appreciation 122,718 23,334 209,712
Net gain on investments 98,720 23,334 209,712
Net increase in net assets resulting from
operations $215,501 $155,059 $341,284
See notes to financial statements
F-17
<PAGE>
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Operations:
Investment income - net $ 116,781 $ 131,725 $ 131,572
Realized loss on securities sold or
redeemed (23,998) - -
Net unrealized market appreciation 122,718 23,334 209,712
Net increase in net assets
resulting from operations 215,501 155,059 341,284
Less Distributions to Unit Holders:
Investment income - net (114,915) (128,439)
(128,439)
Total distributions (114,915) (128,439)
(128,439)
Less Capital Share Transactions:
Redemption of 721 Units (691,030) - -
Accrued interest on redemption (10,460) - -
Total capital share trans-
actions (701,490) - -
Net (decrease) increase in net assets (600,904) 26,620 212,845
Net assets:
Beginning of year 2,906,341 2,879,721 2,666,876
End of year (including undistributed
principal and net investment income
of $31,803, and undistributed net
investment income of $47,555 and
$47,474, respectively) $2,305,437 $2,906,341 $2,879,721
See notes to financial statements
F-18
<PAGE>
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
September 30, 1997
(a) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 as a
Unit Investment Trust. The following is a summary of the significant
accounting policies of the Trust:
(1) Basis of Presentation
The Trustee has custody of and responsibility for all accounting and
financial books, records, financial statements and related data of
the Trust and is responsible for establishing and maintaining a
system of internal controls directly related to, and designed to
provide reasonable assurance as to the integrity and reliability
of, financial reporting of the Trust. The Trustee is also
responsible for all estimates and accruals reflected in the Trust's
financial statements. The Evaluator determines the price for each
underlying Security included in the Trust's Portfolio of Securities
on the basis set forth in Part B of this Prospectus, "Public
Offering of Units - Public Offering Price". Under the Securities
Act of 1933 ("the Act"), as amended, the Sponsor is deemed to be an
issuer of the Trust Units. As such, the Sponsor has the
responsibility of an issuer under the Act with respect to financial
statements of the Trust included in the Trust's Registration
Statement under the Act and amendments thereto.
(2) Investments
Investments are stated at market value as determined by the
Evaluator based on the bid side evaluations on the last day of
trading during the period, except that value on the date of deposit
(October 18, 1993) represents the cost of investments to the Trust
based on the offering side evaluations as of the day prior to the
date of deposit.
(3) Income Taxes
The Trust is not an association taxable as a corporation for Federal
income tax purposes; accordingly, no provision is required for such
taxes.
(4) Expenses
The Trust pays annual Trustee's fees, estimated expenses,
Evaluator's fees, and annual Sponsor's portfolio supervision fees
and may incur additional charges as explained under "Expenses and
Charges - Fees" and "- Other Charges" in Part B of this Prospectus.
F-19
<PAGE>
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
September 30, 1997
(b) DISTRIBUTIONS
Interest received by the Trust is distributed to the Unit Holders on or
shortly after the fifteenth day of each month after deducting applicable
expenses. Receipts other than interest are distributed as explained in
"Administration of the Trust - Distribution of Interest and Principal"
in Part B of this Prospectus.
(c) ORIGINAL COST TO INVESTORS
The original cost to investors represents the aggregate initial public
offering price as of the date of deposit (October 18, 1993) exclusive of
accrued interest, computed on the basis set forth under "Public Offering
of Units - Public Offering Price" in Part B of this Prospectus.
A reconciliation of the original cost of Units to investors to the net
amount applicable to investors as of September 30, 1997 follows:
Original cost to investors $3,076,039
Less: Gross underwriting commissions (sales charge) (119,958)
Net cost to investors 2,956,081
Cost of securities sold or redeemed (711,238)
Net unrealized market appreciation 16,259
Accumulated interest accretion 12,532
Net amount applicable to investors $2,273,634
(d) OTHER INFORMATION
Selected data for a Unit of the Trust during each year:
For the years ended September 30,
1997 1996 1995
Net investment income distribu-
tions during year $ 42.20 $ 42.60 $ 42.60
Net asset value at end of year $1,004.99 $963.96 $955.13
Trust Units outstanding at
end of period 2,294 3,015 3,015
F-20
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO SECURITIES
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
September 30, 1997
Port- Optional
folio Rating Face Coupon Maturity Sinking Fund Refunding Market
No. Title of Securities <F23> Amount Rate Date Redemptions<F25> Redemptions<F24>Value<F26><F27>
<S><C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
1. Baltimore Refunding Reve-
nue Bonds (Baltimore City
Parking System Facilities),
Series 1993 (FGIC Insured)
<F29> AAA $ 220,000 4.650% 07/01/05 NONE 07/01/03@102 $ 221,868
2. Baltimore County Metropol-
itan District Bonds (64th
Issue), General Obliga-
tions AAA 500,000 4.500 08/01/06 NONE 08/01/03@102 500,625
3. Calvert County General
Obligation Bonds, Series
1993 Aa<F28> 400,000 4.800 07/15/07 NONE 07/15/03@102 404,640
4. Maryland Health and High-
er Educational Facilities
Authority, Peninsula
Regional Medical Center
Issue, Series 1993 A 70,000 4.900 07/01/05 NONE 07/01/03@102 71,215
5. Maryland Health and High-
er Educational Facilities
Authority, Suburban Hospi-
tal Issue, Series 1993 A+ 300,000 4.750 07/01/03 NONE NONE 301,929
6. Maryland Water Quality
Financing Administration
Revolving Loan Fund Reve-
nue Bonds, Series 1992A AA 115,000 0.000 09/01/07 NONE NONE 71,492
7. St. Mary's County General
Obligation Bonds, Series
1993 A+ 185,000 4.400 09/01/04 NONE 09/01/03@102 184,578
8. St. Mary's County General
Obligation Bonds, Series
1993 A+ 165,000 4.700 09/01/07 NONE 09/01/03@102 166,188
9. University of Maryland
System Auxiliary Facility
and Tuition Revenue Bonds,
1993 Refunding Series C AA+ 350,000 4.350 10/01/03 NONE NONE 351,099
$2,305,000 $2,273,634
See notes to schedule of portfolio securities
F-21
<PAGE>
NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO SECURITIES
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
September 30, 1997
<F23> All ratings are provided by Standard & Poor's Corporation, unless otherwise indicated. A brief
description of applicable Security ratings is given under "Bond Ratings" in Part B of this
Prospectus.
<F24> There is shown under this heading the date on which each issue of Securities is redeemable by the
operation of optional call provisions and the redemption price for that date; unless otherwise
indicated, each issue continues to be redeemable at declining prices thereafter but not below
par. Securities listed as non-callable, as well as Securities listed as callable, may also be
redeemable at par under certain circumstances from special redemption payments.
<F25> There is shown under this heading the date on which an issue of Securities is subject to scheduled
sinking fund redemption and the redemption price of par.
<F26> The market value of the Securities as of September 30, 1997 was determined by the Evaluator on the
basis of bid side evaluations for the Securities on such date.
<F27> At September 30, 1997, the net unrealized market appreciation of all Securities was comprised of
the following:
Gross unrealized market appreciation $16,681
Gross unrealized market depreciation (422)
Net unrealized market appreciation $16,259
The amortized cost of the Securities for Federal income tax purposes was $2,257,375 at September
30, 1997.
<F28> Moody's Investors, Inc. rating.
<F29> Insured by Financial Guaranty Insurance Company ("FGIC").
F-22
<PAGE>
(MODULE)
(NAME) DWSMTPARTB941
(CIK) 0000840581
(CCC) uit*59fl
(/MODULE)
<PAGE>
CONTENTS OF REGISTRATION STATEMENT
This registration statement comprises the following
documents:
The facing sheet.
The Cross Reference Sheet.
The Prospectus.
The signatures.
Consents of the Evaluator, Independent Auditors,
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and California
counsel; all other consents were previously filed.
The following exhibits:
8. 1. Opinion of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker, LLP.
2. Opinion of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston
L.L.P.
23. 1a. Consents of Kenny S&P Evaluation Services,
a division of J.J. Kenny Co., Inc.
1b. Consent of Independent Auditors.
1d. Consent of Standard & Poor's Ratings Serv-
ices, a division of The McGraw-Hill Compa-
nies, Inc.
27. 1. Financial Data Schedule of Dean Witter Se-
lect Municipal Trust, Insured California
Intermediate Term Portfolio Series 11.
2. Financial Data Schedule of Dean Witter Se-
lect Municipal Trust, Delaware Portfolio
Series 13.
3. Financial Data Schedule of Dean Witter Se-
lect Municipal Trust, Maryland Portfolio
Series 15.
<PAGE>
CONSENT OF COUNSEL
The consents of counsel to the use of their names in
the Prospectus included in this Registration Statement are con-
tained in their opinions filed as Exhibits EX-5, EX-8, EX-8.1
and EX-8.2 to this Registration Statement.
<PAGE>
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of
1933, each of the registrants, Dean Witter Select Municipal
Trust, Insured California Intermediate Term Portfolio Series
11, Delaware Portfolio Series 13 and Maryland Portfolio Se-
ries 15, certifies that it meets all of the requirements for
effectiveness of this Registration Statement pursuant to Rule
485(b) under the Securities Act of 1933 and has duly caused
this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to the Registration State-
ment to be signed on their behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
duly authorized, all in The City of New York and State of New
York on the 11th day of December, 1997.
DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST,
INSURED CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE TERM
PORTFOLIO SERIES 11
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
(Registrants)
By: DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC.
(Depositor)
Thomas Hines
Thomas Hines
Authorized Signatory
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of
1933, this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to the Registration
Statement has been signed on behalf of Dean Witter Reynolds
Inc., the Depositor, by the following person in the following
capacities and by the following persons who constitute a major-
ity of the Depositor's Board of Directors in The City of New
York and State of New York on this 11th day of December, 1997.
<PAGE>
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC.
Name Office
Philip J. Purcell Chairman and Chief )
Executive Officer )
and Directora33 )
By: Thomas Hines
Thomas Hines
Attorney-in-fact*33
Name Office
Richard M. DeMartini Director*33
Nancy S. Donovan Director*33
Robert J. Dwyer Director*33
Christine A. Edwards Director*33
Charles A. Fiumefreddo Director*33
James F. Higgins Director*33
Stephen R. Miller Director*33
Richard F. Powers Director*33
Philip J. Purcell Director*33
Thomas C. Schneider Director*33
William B. Smith Director*33
a 33 Executed copies of the Powers of Attorney have been
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in con-
nection with Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-6 for File No. 333-10499.
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT INDEX
EXHIBIT NO. TITLE OF DOCUMENT
8. 1. Opinion of Paul, Hastings, Janof-
sky & Walker, LLP
2. Opinion of Whiteford, Taylor &
Preston L.L.P.
23. 1a. Consents of Kenny S&P Evaluation
Services, a division of J.J. Kenny
Co., Inc.
1b. Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP
1d. Consent of Standard & Poor's Rat-
ings Services, a division of The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
27. 1. Financial Data Schedule of Dean
Witter Select Municipal Trust, In-
sured California Intermediate Term
Portfolio Series 11
2. Financial Data Schedule of Dean
Witter Select Municipal Trust,
Delaware Portfolio Series 13
3. Financial Data Schedule of Dean
Witter Select Municipal Trust,
Maryland Portfolio Series 15
(Letterhead of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky, & Walker)
December 11, 1997
(213) 683-6000
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
Two World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
Re: Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust
Insured California Intermediate
Term Portfolio Series 11
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the opin-
ion expressed by prior California counsel to you regarding cer-
tain California income and property tax matters with respect to
Dean Witter Insured California Intermediate Term Portfolio Se-
ries 11 (the "Insured California Trust"). We are of the opin-
ion that such opinion, a copy of which is set forth in the Pro-
spectus comprising a part of Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to
the Form S-6 Registration Statement of the Insured California
Trust (SEC File No. 33-49703), remains valid, that no change
has occurred which would require a change to such opinion, and
that you may rely on it in connection with the filing of such
Post-Effective Amendment.
We consent to the use of our name under the caption
"California Tax Status" in such Prospectus and to the filing of
this opinion as an exhibit to such Post-Effective Amendment.
Very truly yours,
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky, &
Walker
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky, &
Walker
<PAGE>
Exhibit 8.2
Letterhead of WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON L.L.P.
December 11, 1997
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
Two World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
The Bank of New York
101 Barclay Street
New York, New York 10286
Ladies and Gentlemen:
You have asked for our opinion with respect to cer-
tain Maryland income tax consequences of the Dean Witter Select
Municipal Trust (the "Investment Trust").
The Investment Trust was created under the terms of
an agreement (the "Indenture") among Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
(the "Sponsor"), The Bank of New York as Trustee (the
"Trustee") and Kenny S&P Evaluation Services as the evaluator
(the "Evaluator").
The Investment Trust consists of separate unit in-
vestment trusts (the "Unit Investment Trusts") combined under
the Indenture. One such Unit Investment Trust, designated the
Maryland Portfolio - Series 15 (hereinafter, the "Maryland
Trust"), holds a fixed portfolio consisting exclusively of in-
terest bearing obligations issued (i) by or on behalf of the
State of Maryland, its agencies, authorities or political sub-
divisions, and (ii) by the Government of Puerto Rico or by its
authority (hereinafter the "Bonds"). Upon deposit of the
Bonds, the Trustee issued Certificates of ownership represent-
ing fractional individual interests ("Units") in the Maryland
Trust. Certificates representing the Units in the Maryland
Trust were offered and sold by the Sponsor to holders (the
"Unit Holders").
In the opinion of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, counsel to
the Sponsor, set forth in Part B of the prospectus, inter alia,
the Maryland Trust is not an association taxable as a corpora-
<PAGE>
tion for Federal income tax purposes, and interest on an under-
lying security which is exempt from Federal income tax under
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "1986
Code"), or the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, when
received by the Trust will retain its status as tax-exempt in-
terest for Federal income tax purposes to the Unit Holders.
Each Unit Holder will be considered the owner of a pro rata
portion of the Trust's assets under Sections 671-678 of the
1986 Code. Each Unit Holder will be considered to have re-
ceived his pro rata share of interest derived from the Trust's
assets when it is received by the Trust and each Unit Holder
will have a taxable event when an underlying security is dis-
posed of (whether by sale, exchange, redemption, or payment at
maturity) or when the Unit Holder redeems or sells his Units.
In the opinion of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston L.L.P.,
special Maryland Counsel on Maryland income tax matters, which
relies on the opinion of Cahill Gordon & Reindel regarding fed-
eral income tax matters relating to the Maryland Trust, under
existing Maryland income tax law applicable to individuals who
are Maryland residents and to Subchapter C corporations subject
to the Maryland corporate income tax:
The Maryland Trust will be treated as a trust for
Maryland income tax purposes and not as an association taxable
as a corporation. Each transaction of the Maryland Trust will
be treated for such purposes as a transaction of the several
Unit Holders and not as a transaction of the Maryland Trust
that could give rise to Maryland taxable income to the Maryland
Trust.
The Maryland corporate income tax is imposed at the
rate of 7% of the corporation's Maryland taxable income. The
Maryland income tax is imposed upon the taxable income of resi-
dent individuals. The counties and City of Baltimore are re-
quired by State law to levy local income taxes that "piggyback"
the State income tax; i.e., these taxes are determined as a
percentage ranging from 20% to 60% of the liability of the
resident for the state income tax. The local income tax ap-
plies to individuals who are residents of the local jurisdic-
tion.
The State currently imposes a maximum 5% tax rate for
taxable income of individuals in excess of $3,000. Beginning
in 1998 and in each year thereafter until 2002, the top mar-
ginal rate for individuals will be reduced by .05% each year.
The State permits local jurisdictions to impose a "piggyback"
tax rate on individuals of up to a maximum of 60% of the State
rate. For 1997 all counties and the City of Baltimore impose
<PAGE>
"piggyback" income taxes at a 50% rate except as follows:
Worcester County, 30%; Talbot County, 40%; Baltimore and Queen
Anne's, Counties, 55%; Carroll County, 58%; Allegany, Caroline,
Montgomery, Prince George's, St. Mary's, Somerset, and Wicomico
Counties, 60%. The counties and the City of Baltimore may in-
crease or decrease these rates in increments of 5% (or, at the
option of the county, by multiples of 2% where the county rate
is in excess of 50% of the State rate) effective on January 1
of the year that the county or City designates by giving notice
to the State Comptroller of the rate change and its effective
date on or before July 1 prior to its effective date. Effec-
tive January 1, 1998, the piggyback tax rate in Allegany and
St. Mary's Counties will be 58%; Carroll County will be 55%;
and Worcester County will be 20%. Otherwise, the local rates
set forth will remain in effect during 1998. For purposes of
computing the County piggyback tax, the top marginal state rate
is considered to be 5%.
Individual Unit Holders who are residents of Maryland
and Unit Holders which are Subchapter C corporations subject to
the Maryland corporate income tax are not required to include
in their regular Maryland taxable income their respective
shares of interest earnings on obligations of the State of
Maryland, its agencies, authorities or political subdivisions
derived through the Maryland Trust to the extent that such in-
terest is excludable from gross income for federal income tax
purposes. In certain cases an exemption for interest on Mary-
land State, county and municipal obligations, and obligations
of certain agencies thereof, is provided from Maryland income
tax, whether or not the interest income is exempt from federal
income tax. Furthermore, Unit Holders are not required to in-
clude in their regular Maryland taxable income their respective
shares of interest earnings on bonds issued by the government
of Puerto Rico or by its authority, which are derived through
the Maryland Trust to the extent that such interest is exclud-
able from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is
also excludable from any state income taxation under federal
law. Individual Unit Holders, however, may be subject to the
Maryland income tax on tax preferences with respect to 50% of
any interest derived through the Maryland Trust from
non-Maryland obligations in excess of a threshold amount and
constituting a tax preference for federal income tax purposes.
As a general rule, to the extent that gain from the
sale, exchange or other disposition of obligations held by the
Maryland Trust (whether as a result of a sale or exchange of
such obligations by the Maryland Trust or as a result of a sale
or exchange of a Unit by a Unit Holder) is includable in the
federal adjusted gross income of a resident individual, or tax-
<PAGE>
able income of a corporation, such gain will be included in the
calculation of the Unit Holder's Maryland taxable income.
Maryland law does not generally exclude capital gains from in-
come tax. However, under Maryland law, any profit realized
upon the sale or exchange of bonds issued by the State of Mary-
land, its political subdivisions and certain specified other
Maryland issuers, is specifically excluded from the computation
of the Maryland taxable income of individuals and corporations.
Although there are no Maryland authorities on point, it is pos-
sible that the taxing authorities in Maryland could take the
position that the statutory exclusion or exemption of profit on
these obligations requires a disallowance in the calculation of
Maryland income tax of any loss that may be realized on such
obligations.
With respect to the amount of Social Security bene-
fits required to be included in the calculation of federal ad-
justed gross income, a subtraction modification is provided for
under the Maryland income tax law so that such amount is elimi-
nated in determining Maryland taxable income.
Tax counsel should be consulted as to other Maryland
tax consequences not specifically considered herein, and as to
the Maryland tax status of Unit Holders in the Maryland Trust
which are neither individuals resident in Maryland nor Subchap-
ter C corporations. By way of example, no opinion is expressed
as to the tax consequences under the Maryland franchise tax ap-
plicable to a financial institution which is a Unit Holder in
the Maryland Trust. However, it should be noted that, pursuant
to legislation passed in 1995, interest received by certain fi-
nancial institutions on certain government obligations will be
subject to partial exclusion from tax commencing in 1996. Be-
ginning in 1998, certain financial institutions will be subject
to the Maryland corporate income tax rather than the franchise
tax. Further, no opinion is being rendered as to the Maryland
tax consequences resulting from any proposed or future tax leg-
islation.
We have not examined any of the obligations deposited
in the Maryland Trust, and express no opinion as to whether the
interest on any such obligations is, in fact, tax exempt upon
receipt by the Maryland Trust, or would be tax exempt if di-
rectly received by a Unit Holder; nor have we made any review
of the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, or the
basis for bond counsel opinions.
We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an
exhibit to the Post Effective Amendment relating to the Units
referred to above, and the use of our name, to the reference of
<PAGE>
our firm, and the inclusion of this opinion in said Post Effec-
tive Amendment and in the related Prospectus.
Very truly yours,
WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON
L.L.P.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1a.
Letterhead of KENNY S&P EVALUATION SERVICES,
A Division of J.J. KENNY CO., INC.
December 11, 1997
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
Two World Trade Center
New York, NY 10048
Re: Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust,
Insured California Intermediate Term
Post-Effective Amendment No. 4
Portfolio Series 11
Gentlemen:
We have examined the post-effective Amendment to the
Registration Statement File No. 33-49703 for the
above-captioned trust. We hereby acknowledge that Kenny S&P
Evaluation Services, a division of J.J. Kenny Co., Inc. is cur-
rently acting as the evaluator for the trust. We hereby con-
sent to the use in the Amendment of the reference to Kenny S&P
Evaluation Services, a division of J.J. Kenny Co., Inc. as
evaluator.
In addition, we hereby confirm that the ratings indi-
cated in the above-referenced Amendment to the Registration
Statement for the respective bonds comprising the trust portfo-
lio are the ratings currently indicated in our KENNYBASE data-
base.
You are hereby authorized to file a copy of this let-
ter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Cicotto
Frank A. Cicotto
Vice President
<PAGE>
Letterhead of KENNY S&P EVALUATION SERVICES,
A Division of J.J. KENNY CO., INC.
December 11, 1997
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
Two World Trade Center
New York, NY 10048
Re: Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 4
Delaware Portfolio Series 13
Gentlemen:
We have examined the post-effective Amendment to the
Registration Statement File No. 33-49595 for the
above-captioned trust. We hereby acknowledge that Kenny S&P
Evaluation Services, a division of J.J. Kenny Co., Inc. is cur-
rently acting as the evaluator for the trust. We hereby con-
sent to the use in the Amendment of the reference to Kenny S&P
Evaluation Services, a division of J.J. Kenny Co., Inc. as
evaluator.
In addition, we hereby confirm that the ratings indi-
cated in the above-referenced Amendment to the Registration
Statement for the respective bonds comprising the trust portfo-
lio are the ratings currently indicated in our KENNYBASE data-
base.
You are hereby authorized to file a copy of this let-
ter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Cicotto
Frank A. Cicotto
Vice President
<PAGE>
Letterhead of KENNY S&P EVALUATION SERVICES,
A Division of J.J. KENNY CO., INC.
December 11, 1997
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
Two World Trade Center
New York, NY 10048
Re: Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 4
Maryland Portfolio Series 15
Gentlemen:
We have examined the post-effective Amendment to the
Registration Statement File No. 33-40710 for the
above-captioned trust. We hereby acknowledge that Kenny S&P
Evaluation Services, a division of J.J. Kenny Co., Inc. is cur-
rently acting as the evaluator for the trust. We hereby con-
sent to the use in the Amendment of the reference to Kenny S&P
Evaluation Services, a division of J.J. Kenny Co., Inc. as
evaluator.
In addition, we hereby confirm that the ratings indi-
cated in the above-referenced Amendment to the Registration
Statement for the respective bonds comprising the trust portfo-
lio are the ratings currently indicated in our KENNYBASE data-
base.
You are hereby authorized to file a copy of this let-
ter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Cicotto
Frank A. Cicotto
Vice President
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1b.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
We consent to the use of our report, dated October 31, 1997, accompanying
the financial statements of the Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust Insured
California Intermediate Term Portfolio Series 11, Delaware Portfolio
Series 13 and Maryland Portfolio Series 15 included herein and to the
reference to our Firm as experts under the heading "Auditors" in the
prospectus which is a part of this registration statement.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
December 11, 1997
New York, New York
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1d.
Letterhead of Standard & Poor's Rating Services,
A Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
December 11, 1997
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
Two World Trade Center
New York, New York 10048
Re: Dean Witter Select Municipal Trust,
Insured California Intermediate Term
Portfolio Series 11
It is our understanding that you are filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a Post Effective Amendment
to the above captioned trust, SEC file number 33-49703.
Since the portfolio is composed solely of securities
covered by bond insurance policies that insure against default
in the payment of principal and interest on the securities for
so long as they remain outstanding and such policies have been
issued by one or more insurance companies which have been as-
signed "AAA" claims paying ability ratings by Standard &
Poor's, we reaffirm the assignment of a "AAA" rating to the
units of the trust and a "AAA" rating to the securities con-
tained in the trust.
You have permission to use the name of Standard &
Poor's Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Compa-
nies, Inc. and the above-assigned ratings in connection with
your dissemination of information relating to these units, pro-
vided that it is understood that the ratings are not "market"
ratings nor recommendations to buy, hold, or sell the units of
the trust or the securities in the trust. Further, it should
be understood that the rating on the units does not take into
account the extent to which fund expenses or portfolio asset
sales for less than the fund's purchase price will reduce pay-
ment to the unit holders of the interest and principal required
to be paid on the portfolio assets. Standard & Poor's reserves
the right to advise its own clients, subscribers, and the pub-
lic of the ratings. Standard & Poor's relies on the sponsor
-2-
and its counsel, accountants, and other experts for the accu-
racy and completeness of the information submitted in connec-
tion with the ratings. Standard & Poor's does not independ-
ently verify the truth or accuracy of any such information.
This letter evidences our consent to the use of the
name of Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, a division of The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. in connection with the rating as-
signed to the units in the amendment referred to above. How-
ever, this letter should not be construed as a consent by us,
within the meaning of Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933,
to the use of the name of Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, a
division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. in connection with
the ratings assigned to the securities contained in the trust.
You are hereby authorized to file a copy of this letter with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Please be certain to send a copy of your final pro-
spectus as soon as it becomes available. Should we not receive
it within a reasonable time after the closing or should it not
conform to the representations made to us, we reserve the right
to withdraw the rating.
We are pleased to have had the opportunity to be of
service to you. If we can be of further help, please do not
hesitate to call upon us.
Sincerely,
Sanford B. Bragg
Sanford B. Bragg
<TABLE> <S> <C>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 6
<LEGEND> THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR DEAN WITTER SELECT
MUNICIPAL TRUST Insured California
Intermediate Term Port 11 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000906452
<NAME> DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
Insured California Intermediate Term
Port 11
<SERIES>
<NAME> DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
Insured California Intermediate Term
Port
<NUMBER> 11
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-START> Oct-1-1996
<PERIOD-END> Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE> YEAR
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST> 3,192,409
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE> 3,236,867
<RECEIVABLES> 27,709
<ASSETS-OTHER> 17,889
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS> 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 3,282,465
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES> 0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT> 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES> 4,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES> 4,737
<SENIOR-EQUITY> 0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON> 3,192,880
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK> 3,218,376
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR> 3,496,000
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT> 40,390
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII> 0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS> 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS> 0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC> 44,458
<NET-ASSETS> 3,277,728
<DIVIDEND-INCOME> 0
<INTEREST-INCOME> 149,137
<OTHER-INCOME> 3,968
<EXPENSES-NET> 7,155
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME> 145,950
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT> (4,942)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT> 123,798
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS> 264,806
<EQUALIZATION> 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME> 142,292
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS> 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER> 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD> 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED> 277,624
<SHARES-REINVESTED> 0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS> (151,757)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR> 43,866
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR> 0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR> 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR> 0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES> 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 0
<GROSS-EXPENSE> 0
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS> 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN> 0
<PER-SHARE-NII> 0
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC> 0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND> 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS> 0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL> 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END> 0
<EXPENSE-RATIO> 0
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING> 0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE> 0
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 6
<LEGEND> THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR DEAN WITTER SELECT
MUNICIPAL TRUST DELAWARE PORTFOLIO
SERIES 13 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000902048
<NAME> DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES 13
<SERIES>
<NAME> DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
DELAWARE PORTFOLIO SERIES
<NUMBER> 13
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-START> Oct-1-1996
<PERIOD-END> Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE> YEAR
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST> 2,073,519
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE> 2,084,582
<RECEIVABLES> 26,802
<ASSETS-OTHER> 5,680
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS> 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 2,117,064
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES> 0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT> 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES> 2,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES> 2,215
<SENIOR-EQUITY> 0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON> 2,073,519
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK> 2,085
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR> 2,085
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT> 30,267
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII> 0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS> 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS> 0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC> 11,063
<NET-ASSETS> 2,114,849
<DIVIDEND-INCOME> 0
<INTEREST-INCOME> 97,381
<OTHER-INCOME> 3,199
<EXPENSES-NET> 5,692
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME> 94,888
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT> 0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT> 97,207
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS> 192,095
<EQUALIZATION> 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME> 91,573
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS> 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER> 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD> 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED> 0
<SHARES-REINVESTED> 0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS> 100,522
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR> 30,150
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR> 0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR> 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR> 0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES> 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 0
<GROSS-EXPENSE> 0
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS> 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN> 0
<PER-SHARE-NII> 0
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC> 0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND> 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS> 0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL> 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END> 0
<EXPENSE-RATIO> 0
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING> 0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE> 0
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 6
<LEGEND> THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR DEAN WITTER SELECT
MUNICIPAL TRUST MARYLAND PORTFOLIO
SERIES 15 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATMENTS
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000874631
<NAME> DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES 15
<SERIES>
<NAME> DEAN WITTER SELECT MUNICIPAL TRUST
MARYLAND PORTFOLIO SERIES
<NUMBER> 15
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-START> Oct-1-1996
<PERIOD-END> Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE> YEAR
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST> 2,257,375
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE> 2,273,634
<RECEIVABLES> 23,717
<ASSETS-OTHER> 11,100
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS> 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 2,308,451
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES> 0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT> 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES> 3,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES> 3,014
<SENIOR-EQUITY> 0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON> 2,253,582
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK> 2,294
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR> 3,015
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT> 35,596
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII> 0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS> 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS> 0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC> 16,259
<NET-ASSETS> 2,305,437
<DIVIDEND-INCOME> 0
<INTEREST-INCOME> 119,613
<OTHER-INCOME> 3,366
<EXPENSES-NET> 6,198
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME> 116,781
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT> (23,998)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT> 122,718
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS> 215,501
<EQUALIZATION> 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME> 114,915
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS> 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER> 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD> 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED> 721
<SHARES-REINVESTED> 0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS> (600,904)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR> 47,555
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR> 0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR> 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR> 0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES> 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 0
<GROSS-EXPENSE> 0
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS> 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN> 0
<PER-SHARE-NII> 0
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC> 0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND> 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS> 0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL> 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END> 0
<EXPENSE-RATIO> 0
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING> 0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE> 0
</TABLE>
