DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
PART B
(STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION)
AUGUST 1, 1995
(AS REVISED AUGUST 22, 1995)
This Statement of Additional Information, which is not a prospectus,
supplements and should be read in conjunction with the current Prospectus
of Dreyfus California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (the "Fund"), dated
August 1, 1995, as it may be revised from time to time. To obtain a copy
of the Fund's Prospectus, please write to the Fund at 144 Glenn Curtiss
Boulevard, Uniondale, New York 11556-0144, or by calling toll fee 1-800-
645-6561. In New York City, call 1-718-895-1206; outside the U.S. and
Canada, call 516-794-5452.
The Dreyfus Corporation (the "Manager") serves as the Fund's
investment adviser.
Premier Mutual Fund Services, Inc. (the "Distributor") is the
distributor of the Fund's shares.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Investment Objective and Management Policies. . . . . . . . . . . B-2
Management of the Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10
Management Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-14
Shareholder Services Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16
Purchase of Fund Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16
Redemption of Fund Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-17
Shareholder Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-19
Determination of Net Asset Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-22
Portfolio Transactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-22
Dividends, Distributions and Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23
Performance Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-24
Information About the Fund. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26
Custodian, Transfer and Dividend Disbursing Agent,
Counsel and Independent Auditors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26
Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-27
Appendix B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-39
Financial Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-47
Report of Independent Auditors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-58
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "Description
of the Fund."
The average distribution of investments (at value) in Municipal
Obligations (including notes) by ratings for the fiscal year ended March
31, 1995, computed on a monthly basis, was as follows:
Fitch Investors Moody's Investors Standard & Poor's
Service, Inc. Service, Inc. Corporation Percent
("Fitch") or ("Moody's") or ("S&P") of Value
AAA Aaa AAA 40.8%
AA Aa AA 15.4%
A A A 31.1%
BBB Baa BBB 4.4%
F-1+/F-1 VMIG1/MIG1, P-1 SP-1+/SP-1, A-1 5.0%
Not Rated Not Rated Not Rated 3.3%*
-----
100.0%
--------------------
* Included in the Not Rated category are securities comprising 3.3% of the
Fund's market value which, while not rated, have been determined by the
Manager to be of comparable quality to securities in the following
rating categories: A/A (.1%) and Baa/BBB (3.2%).
Municipal Obligations. The term "Municipal Obligations" generally
includes debt obligations issued to obtain funds for various public
purposes, including the construction of a wide range of public facilities
such as airports, bridges, highways, housing, hospitals, mass
transportation, schools, streets and water and sewer works. Other public
purposes for which Municipal Obligations may be issued include refunding
outstanding obligations, obtaining funds for general operating expenses and
lending such funds to other public institutions and facilities. In
addition, certain types of industrial development bonds are issued by or on
behalf of public authorities to obtain funds to provide for the
construction, equipment, repair or improvement of privately operated
housing facilities, sports facilities, convention or trade show facilities,
airport, mass transit, industrial, port or parking facilities, air or water
pollution control facilities and certain local facilities for water supply,
gas, electricity, or sewage or solid waste disposal; the interest paid on
such obligations may be exempt from Federal income tax, although current
tax laws place substantial limitations on the size of such issues. Such
obligations are considered to be Municipal Obligations if the interest paid
thereon qualifies as exempt from Federal income tax in the opinion of bond
counsel to the issuer. There are, of course, variations in the security of
Municipal Obligations, both within a particular classification and between
classifications.
Floating and variable rate demand notes and bonds are tax exempt
obligations ordinarily having stated maturities in excess of one year, but
which permit the holder to demand payment of principal at any time, or at
specified intervals. The issuer of such obligations ordinarily has a
corresponding right, after a given period, to prepay in its discretion the
outstanding principal amount of the obligations plus accrued interest upon
a specified number of days' notice to the holders thereof. The interest
rate on a floating rate demand obligation is based on a known lending rate,
such as a bank's prime rate, and is adjusted automatically each time such
rate is adjusted. The interest rate on a variable rate demand obligation
is adjusted automatically at specified intervals.
The yields on Municipal Obligations are dependent on a variety of
factors, including general economic and monetary conditions, money market
factors, conditions in the Municipal Obligations market, size of a
particular offering, maturity of the obligation, and rating of the issue.
The imposition of the Fund's management fee, as well as other operating
expenses, will have the effect of reducing the yield to investors.
Municipal lease obligations or installment purchase contract
obligations (collectively, "lease obligations") have special risks not
ordinarily associated with Municipal Obligations. Although lease
obligations do not constitute general obligations of the municipality for
which the municipality's taxing power is pledged, a lease obligation
ordinarily is backed by the municipality's covenant to budget for,
appropriate and make the payments due under the lease obligation. However,
certain lease obligations contain "non-appropriation" clauses which provide
that the municipality has no obligation to make lease or installment
purchase payments in future years unless money is appropriated for such
purpose on a yearly basis. Although "non-appropriation" lease obligations
are secured by the leased property, disposition of the property in the
event of foreclosure might prove difficult. The staff of the Securities
and Exchange Commission currently considers certain lease obligations to be
illiquid. Determination as to the liquidity of such securities is made in
accordance with guidelines established by the Fund's Board. Pursuant to
such guidelines, the Board has directed the Manager to monitor carefully
the Fund's investment in such securities with particular regard to (1) the
frequency of trades and quotes for the lease obligation; (2) the number of
dealers willing to purchase or sell the lease obligation and the number of
other potential buyers; (3) the willingness of dealers to undertake to make
a market in the lease obligation; (4) the nature of the marketplace trades
including the time needed to dispose of the lease obligation, the method of
soliciting offers and the mechanics of transfer; and (5) such other factors
concerning the trading market for the lease obligation as the Manager may
deem relevant. In addition, in evaluating the liquidity and credit quality
of a lease obligation that is unrated, the Fund's Board has directed the
Manager to consider (a) whether the lease can be cancelled; (b) what
assurance there is that the assets represented by the lease can be sold;
(c) the strength of the lessee's general credit (e.g., its debt,
administrative, economic, and financial characteristics); (d) the
likelihood that the municipality will discontinue appropriating funding for
the leased property because the property is no longer deemed essential to
the operations of the municipality (e.g., the potential for an "event of
nonappropriation"); (e) the legal recourse in the event of failure to
appropriate; and (f) such other factors concerning credit quality as the
Manager may deem relevant. The Fund will not invest more than 15% of the
value of its net assets in lease obligations that are illiquid and in other
illiquid securities. See "Investment Restriction No. 11" below.
The Fund will purchase tender option bonds only when it is satisfied
that the custodial and tender option arrangements, including the fee
payment arrangements, will not adversely affect the tax exempt status of
the underlying Municipal Obligations and that payment of any tender fees
will not have the effect of creating taxable income for the Fund. Based on
the tender option bond agreement, the Fund expects to be able to value the
tender option bond at par; however, the value of the instrument will be
monitored to assure that it is valued at fair value.
Illiquid Securities. If a substantial market of qualified
institutional buyers develops pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, for certain restricted securities held by the
Fund, the Fund intends to treat such securities as liquid securities in
accordance with procedures approved by the Fund's Board of Trustees.
Because it is not possible to predict with assurance how the market for
restricted securities pursuant to Rule 144A will develop, the Fund's Board
of Trustees has directed the Manager to monitor carefully the Fund's
investments in such securities with particular regard to trading activity,
availability of reliable price information and other relevant information.
To the extent that, for a period of time, qualified institutional buyers
cease purchasing restricted securities pursuant to Rule 144A, the Fund's
investing in such securities may have the effect of increasing the level of
illiquidity in the Fund's portfolio during such period.
Ratings of Municipal Obligations. Subsequent to its purchase by the
Fund, an issue of rated Municipal Obligations may cease to be rated or its
rating may be reduced below the minimum required for purchase by the Fund.
Neither event will require the sale of such Municipal Obligations by the
Fund, but the Manager will consider such event in determining whether the
Fund should continue to hold the Municipal Obligations. To the extent that
the ratings given by Moody's, S&P or Fitch for Municipal Obligations may
change as a result of changes in such organizations or their rating
systems, the Fund will attempt to use comparable ratings as standards for
its investments in accordance with the investment policies contained in the
Fund's Prospectus and this Statement of Additional Information. The
ratings of Moody's, S&P and Fitch represent their opinions as to the
quality of the Municipal Obligations which they undertake to rate. It
should be emphasized, however, that ratings are relative and subjective and
are not absolute standards of quality. Although these ratings may be an
initial criterion for selection of portfolio investments, the Manager also
will evaluate these securities and the creditworthiness of the issuers of
such securities.
Futures Contracts and Options on Futures Contracts. Upon exercise of
an option, the writer of the option delivers to the holder of the option
the futures position and the accumulated balance in the writer's futures
margin account, which represents the amount by which the market price of
the futures contract exceeds, in the case of a call, or is less than, in
the case of a put, the exercise price of the option on the futures
contract. The potential loss related to the purchase of an option on a
futures contract is limited to the premium paid for the option (plus
transaction costs). Because the value of the option is fixed at the time
of sale, there are no daily cash payments to reflect changes in the value
of the underlying contract; however, the value of the option does change
daily and that change would be reflected in the net asset value of the
Fund.
Lending Portfolio Securities. To a limited extent, the Fund may lend
its portfolio securities to brokers, dealers and other financial
institutions, provided it receives cash collateral which at all times is
maintained in an amount equal to at least 100% of the current market value
of the securities loaned. By lending its portfolio securities, the Fund
can increase its income through the investment of the cash collateral. For
purposes of this policy, the Fund considers collateral consisting of U.S.
Government securities or irrevocable letters of credit issued by banks
whose securities meet the standards for investment by the Fund to be the
equivalent of cash. From time to time, the Fund may return to the borrower
or a third party which is unaffiliated with the Fund, and which is acting
as a "placing broker," a part of the interest earned from the investment of
collateral received for securities loaned.
The Securities and Exchange Commission currently requires that the
following conditions must be met whenever portfolio securities are loaned:
(1) the Fund must receive at least 100% cash collateral from the borrower;
(2) the borrower must increase such collateral whenever the market value of
the securities rises above the level of such collateral; (3) the Fund must
be able to terminate the loan at any time; (4) the Fund must receive
reasonable interest on the loan, as well as any interest or other
distributions payable on the loaned securities, and any increase in market
value; and (5) the Fund may pay only reasonable custodian fees in
connection with the loan. These conditions may be subject to future
modification.
Until the Fund replaces a borrowed security in connection with a short
sale, the Fund will: (a) maintain daily a segregated account, containing
cash or U.S. Government Securities, at such a level that (i) the amount
deposited in the account plus the amount deposited with the broker as
collateral will equal the current value of the security sold short and (ii)
the amount deposited in the segregated account plus the amount deposited
with the broker as collateral will not be less than the market value of the
security at the time it was sold short; or (b) otherwise cover its short
position.
Taxable Investments. Securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S.
Government or its agencies or instrumentalities include U.S. Treasury
securities, which differ in their interest rates, maturities and times of
issuance. Some obligations issued or guaranteed by U.S. Government
agencies and instrumentalities, for example, Government National Mortgage
Association pass-through certificates, are supported by the full faith and
credit of the U.S. Treasury; others, such as those of the Federal Home Loan
Banks, by the right of the issuer to borrow from the U.S. Treasury; others,
such as those issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, by
discretionary authority of the U.S. Government to purchase certain
obligations of the agency or instrumentality; and others, such as those
issued by the Student Loan Marketing Association, only by the credit of the
agency or instrumentality. These securities bear fixed, floating or
variable rates of interest. Principal and interest may fluctuate based on
generally recognized reference rates or the relationship of rates. While
the U.S. Government provides financial support to such U.S. Government-
sponsored agencies or instrumentalities, no assurance can be given that it
will always do so, since it is not so obligated by law. The Fund will
invest in such securities only when it is satisfied that the credit risk
with respect to the issuer is minimal.
Commercial paper consists of short-term, unsecured promissory notes
issued to finance short-term credit needs.
Certificates of deposit are negotiable certificates representing the
obligation of a bank to repay funds deposited with it for a specified
period of time.
Time deposits are non-negotiable deposits maintained in a banking
institution for a specified period of time at a stated interest rate.
Investments in time deposits generally are limited to London branches of
domestic banks that have total assets in excess of one billion dollars.
Time deposits which may be held by the Fund will not benefit from insurance
from the Bank Insurance Fund or the Savings Association Insurance Fund
administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Bankers' acceptances are credit instruments evidencing the obligation
of a bank to pay a draft drawn on it by a customer. These instruments
reflect the obligation both of the bank and of the drawer to pay the face
amount of the instrument upon maturity. Other short-term bank obligations
may include uninsured, direct obligations bearing fixed, floating or
variable interest rates.
Repurchase agreements involve the acquisition by the Fund of an
underlying debt instrument, subject to an obligation of the seller to
repurchase, and the Fund to resell, the instrument at a fixed price usually
not more than one week after its purchase. The Fund's custodian or sub-
custodian will have custody of, and will hold in a segregated account,
securities acquired by the Fund under a repurchase agreement. Repurchase
agreements are considered by the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission to be loans by the Fund. In an attempt to reduce the risk of
incurring a loss on a repurchase agreement, the Fund will enter into
repurchase agreements only with domestic banks with total assets in excess
of one billion dollars or primary government securities dealers reporting
to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, with respect to securities of the
type in which the Fund may invest, and will require that additional
securities be deposited with it if the value of the securities purchased
should decrease below resale price. The Manager will monitor on an ongoing
basis the value of the collateral to assure that it always equals or
exceeds the repurchase price. Certain costs may be incurred by the Fund in
connection with the sale of the securities if the seller does not
repurchase them in accordance with the repurchase agreement. In addition,
if bankruptcy proceedings are commenced with respect to the seller of the
securities, realization on the securities by the Fund may be delayed or
limited. The Fund will consider on an ongoing basis the creditworthiness
of the institutions with which it enters into repurchase agreements.
Risk Factors
Investing in California Municipal Obligations. Investors should
consider carefully the special risks inherent in the Fund's investment in
California Municipal Obligations. These risks result from certain
amendments to the California Constitution and other statues that limit the
taxing and spending authority of California governmental entities, as well
as from the general financial condition of the State of California. From
mid-1990 to late 193, the State suffered a recession with the worst
economic, fiscal and budget conditions since the 1930s. As a result, the
State has experienced recurring budget deficits for four of the last five
fiscal years ended 1991-1992. The State had an operating surplus of
approximately $109 million in 1992-93 and $836 million in 1993-94.
However, at June, 1994, according to California's Department of Finance,
the State's Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties had an accumulated
deficit, on a budget basis, of approximately $1.8 billion. A further
consequence of the large budget imbalances over the last three fiscal years
has been that the State depleted its available cash resources and has had
to use a series of external borrowings to meet its cash needs. To meet its
cash flow needs in the 1994-95 fiscal year, the State issued, in July and
August 1994, $4.0 billion of revenue anticipation warrants and $3.0 billion
of revenue anticipation notes. As a result of the deterioration of the
state's budget and cash situation between October 1991 and July 1994, the
rating on the State's general obligation bonds was reduced by S&P from AAA
to A, by Moody's from Aaa to A1 and by Fitch AAA to A. These and other
factors may have the effect of impairing the ability of the issuers of
California Municipal Obligations to pay interest on, or repay principal of,
such California Municipal Obligations. Investors should review Appendix A
which sets froth additional information relating to investing in California
Municipal Obligations.
Lower Rated Bonds. The Fund is permitted to invest in securities
rated below Baa by Moody's and below BBB by S&P and Fitch. Such bonds,
though higher yielding, are characterized by risk. See in the Prospectus
"Description of the Fund--Risk Factors--Lower Rated Bonds" for a discussion
of certain risks and "Appendix B" for a general description of Moody's, S&P
and Fitch ratings of Municipal Obligations. Although ratings may be useful
in evaluating the safety of interest and principal payments, they do not
evaluate the market value risk of these bonds. The Fund will rely on the
Manager's judgment, analysis and experience in evaluating the
creditworthiness of an issuer. In this evaluation, the Manager will take
into consideration, among other things, the issuer's financial resources,
its sensitivity to economic conditions and trends, the quality of the
issuer's management and regulatory matters. It also is possible that a
rating agency might not timely change the rating on a particular issue to
reflect subsequent events. As stated above, once the rating of a bond in
the Fund's portfolio has been changed, the Manager will consider all
circumstances deemed relevant in determining whether the Fund should
continue to hold the bond.
Investors should be aware that the market values of many of these
bonds tend to be more sensitive to economic conditions than are higher
rated securities and will fluctuate over time. These bonds are considered
by S&P, Moody's and Fitch, on balance, as predominantly speculative with
respect to capacity to pay interest and repay principal in accordance with
the terms of the obligation and generally will involve more credit risk
than securities in the higher rating categories.
Because there is no established retail secondary market for many of
these securities, the Fund anticipates that such securities could be sold
only to a limited number of dealers or institutional investors. To the
extent a secondary trading market for these bonds does exist, it generally
is not as liquid as the secondary market for higher rated securities. The
lack of a liquid secondary market may have an adverse impact on market
price and yield and the Fund's ability to dispose of particular issues when
necessary to meet the Fund's liquidity needs or in response to a specific
economic event such as a deterioration in the creditworthiness of the
issuer. The lack of a liquid secondary market for certain securities also
may make it more difficult for the Fund to obtain accurate market
quotations for purposes of valuing the Fund's portfolio and calculating its
net asset value. Adverse publicity and investor perceptions, whether or
not based on fundamental analysis, may decrease the values and liquidity of
these securities. In such cases, judgment may play a greater role in
valuation because less reliable, objective data may be available.
These bonds may be particularly susceptible to economic downturn. It
is likely that any economic recession could disrupt severely the market for
such securities and may have an adverse impact on the value of such
securities. In addition, it is likely that any such economic downturn
could adversely affect the ability of the issuers of such securities to
repay principal and pay interest thereon and increase the incidence of
default for such securities.
The Fund may acquire these bonds during an initial offering. Such
securities may involve special risks because they are new issues. The Fund
has no arrangement with any persons concerning the acquisition of such
securities, and the Manager will review carefully the credit and other
characteristics pertinent to such new issues.
Lower rated zero coupon securities, in which the Fund may invest up to
5% of its net assets, involve special considerations. The credit risk
factors pertaining to lower rated securities also apply to lower rated zero
coupon bonds. Such zero coupon bonds carry an additional risk in that,
unlike bonds which pay interest throughout the period to maturity, the Fund
will realize no cash until the cash payment date unless a portion of such
securities are sold and, if the issuer defaults, the Fund may obtain no
return at all on its investment. See "Dividends, Distributions and Taxes."
Investment Restrictions. The Fund has adopted investment restrictions
numbered 1 through 6 below as fundamental policies. These restrictions
cannot be changed without approval by the holders of a majority (as defined
in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "Act")) of the
Fund's outstanding voting shares. Investment restrictions numbered 7
through 12 are not fundamental policies and may be changed by vote of a
majority of the Trustees at any time. The Fund may not:
1. Borrow money to the extent permitted under the Act (which
currently limits borrowing to no more than 33 1/3% of the Fund's total
assets). For purposes of this investment restriction, the entry into
options, forward contracts, including those relating to indices, and
options on futures contracts or indices shall not constitute borrowing.
2. Purchase or sell real estate, real estate investment trust
securities, commodities or commodity contracts, or oil and gas interests,
but this shall not prevent the Fund from investing in Municipal Obligations
secured by real estate or interests therein, or prevent the Fund from
purchasing and selling futures contracts, including those relating to
indices, and options on futures contracts or indices.
3. Underwrite the securities of other issuers, except that the Fund
may bid separately or as part of a group for the purchase of Municipal
Obligations directly from an issuer for its own portfolio to take advantage
of the lower purchase price available, and except to the extent the Fund
may be deemed an underwriter under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by virtue of disposing of portfolio securities.
4. Make loans to others, except through the purchase of debt
obligations and the entry into repurchase agreements; however, the Fund may
lend its portfolio securities in an amount not to exceed 33 1/3% of the value
of its total assets. Any loans of portfolio securities will be made
according to guidelines established by the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Fund's Board of Trustees.
5. Invest more than 25% of its total assets in the securities of
issuers in any single industry; provided that there shall be no such
limitation on the purchase of Municipal Obligations and, for temporary
defensive purposes, obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S.
Government, its agencies or instrumentalities.
6. Issue any senior security (as such term is defined in Section
18(f) of the Act), except to the extent that the activities permitted in
Investment Restriction Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 10 may be deemed to give rise to a
senior security.
7. Purchase securities other than Municipal Obligations and Taxable
Investments and those arising out of transactions in futures and options or
as otherwise provided in the Fund's Prospectus.
8. Purchase securities on margin, but the Fund may make margin
deposits in connection with transactions in futures, including those
relating to indices, and options on futures or indices.
9. Invest in securities of other investment companies, except as
they may be acquired as part of a merger, consolidation or acquisition of
assets.
10. Pledge, hypothecate, mortgage or otherwise encumber its assets,
except to the extent necessary to secure permitted borrowings, and to the
extent related to the deposit of assets in escrow in connection with the
purchase of securities on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis and
collateral arrangements with respect to futures contracts, including those
related to indices, and options on futures contracts or indices and
collateral arrangements with respect to initial or variation margin for
futures contracts, including those relating to indices, and options on
futures contracts or indices.
11. Enter into repurchase agreements providing for settlement in more
than seven days after notice or purchase securities which are illiquid
(which securities could include participation interests (including
municipal lease/purchase agreements) that are not subject to the demand
feature described in the Fund's Prospectus, and floating and variable rate
demand obligations as to which the Fund cannot exercise the demand feature
described in the Fund's Prospectus on less than seven days' notice and as
to which there is no secondary market), if, in the aggregate, more than 15%
of its net assets would be so invested.
12. Invest in companies for the purpose of exercising control.
For purposes of Investment Restriction No. 5, industrial development
bonds, where the payment of principal and interest is the ultimate
responsibility of companies within the same industry, are grouped together
as an "industry." If a percentage restriction is adhered to at the time of
investment, a later increase or decrease in percentage resulting from a
change in values or assets will not constitute a violation of such
restriction.
The Fund may make commitments more restrictive than the restrictions
listed above so as to permit the sale of Fund shares in certain states.
Should the Fund determine that a commitment is no longer in the best
interests of the Fund and its shareholders, the Fund reserves the right to
revoke the commitment by terminating the sale of Fund shares in the state
involved.
MANAGEMENT OF THE FUND
Trustees and officers of the Fund, together with information as to
their principal business occupations during at least the last five years,
are shown below. Each Trustee who is deemed to be an "interested person"
of the Fund, as defined in the Act, is indicated by an asterisk.
Trustees and Officers of the Fund
*DAVID W. BURKE, Trustee. Since August 1994, Consultant to the Manager.
From October 1990 to August 1994, Vice President and Chief
Administrative Officer of the Manager. From 1977 to October 1990, Mr.
Burke was involved in the management of national television news, as
Vice President and Executive Vice President at ABC News, and
subsequently as President of CBS News. He is 59 years old and his
address is 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166.
*JOSEPH S. DiMARTINO, Chairman of the Board. Since January 1995, Chairman
of the Board of various funds in the Dreyfus Family of Funds. For
more than five years prior thereto, he was President, a director and,
until August 1994, Chief Operating Officer of the Manager and
Executive Vice President and a director of Dreyfus Service
Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager and, until
August 24, 1994, the Fund's distributor. From August 1994 to December
31, 1994, he was a director of Mellon Bank Corporation. He is
Chairman of the Board of Noel Group, Inc., a venture capital company;
a trustee of Bucknell University; and a director of the Muscular
Dystrophy Association, HealthPlan Services Corporation, Belding
Heminway, Inc., a manufacturer and marketer of industrial threads,
specialty yarns, home furnishings and fabrics, Curtis Industries,
Inc., a national distributor of security products, chemicals and
automotive and other hardware, Simmons Outdoor Corporation and
Staffing Resources, Inc. He is 51 years old and his address is 200
Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166.
DIANE DUNST, Trustee. Since January 1992, President of Diane Dunst
Promotion, Inc., a full service promotion agency. From January 1989
to January 1992, Director of Promotion Services, Lear's Magazine.
From 1985 to January 1989, she was Sales Promotion Manager of ELLE
Magazine. She is 55 years old and her address is 120 E. 87th Street,
New York, New York 10128.
ROSALIND GERSTEN JACOBS, Trustee. Director of Merchandise and Marketing
for Corporate Property Investors, a real estate investment company.
From 1974 to 1976, she was owner and manager of a merchandise and
marketing consulting firm. Prior to 1974, she was a Vice President of
Macy's, New York. She is 70 years old and her address is c/o
Corporate Property Investors, 305 East 47th Street, New York, New York
10017.
JAY I. MELTZER, Trustee. Physician engaged in private practice
specializing in internal medicine. He is also a member of the
Advisory Board of the Section of Society and Medicine, College of
Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University and a Clinical Professor
of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of
Physicians and Surgeons. He is 67 years old and his address is 903
Park Avenue, New York, New York 10021.
DANIEL ROSE, Trustee. President and Chief Executive Officer of Rose
Associates, Inc., a New York based real estate development and
management firm. He is also Chairman of the Housing Committee of The
Real Estate Board of New York, Inc., and a Trustee of Corporate
Property Investors, a real estate investment company. He is 65 years
old and his address is c/o Rose Associates, Inc., 380 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10017.
WARREN B. RUDMAN, Trustee. Since January 1993, Partner in the law firm of
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. From January 1981 to
January 1993, Mr. Rudman served as a United States Senator from the
State of New Hampshire. Since May 1995, Mr. Rudman has served as a
director of Collins & Aikman Corporation. Since January 1993, Mr.
Rudman has also served as a director of Chubb Corporation and Raytheon
Company. Since 1988, Mr. Rudman has also served as a trustee of
Boston College and since 1986 as a member of the Senior Advisory Board
of the Institute of Politics of the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University. He also serves as Vice Chairman of the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. From January 1993 to
December 31, 1994, Mr. Rudman served as Vice Chairman of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston. He is 65 years old and his address is c/o
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, 1615 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036.
SANDER VANOCUR, Trustee. Since January 1992, President of Old Owl
Communications, a full-service communications firm. Since November
1989, Mr. Vanocur has served as a Director of the Damon Runyon-Walter
Winchell Cancer Research Fund. Also, since January 1994, Mr. Vanocur
was served as a Visiting Professional Scholar at the Freedom Forum
First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. From June 1986 to
December 1991, he was a Senior Correspondent of ABC News and, from
October 1986 to December 31, 1991, he was Anchor of the ABC News
program "Business World," a weekly business program on the ABC
television network. He is 67 years old and his address is 2928 P
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007.
For so long as the Fund's plan described in the section captioned
"Shareholder Services Plan" remains in effect, the Trustees of the Fund who
are not "interested persons" of the Fund, as defined in the Act, will be
selected and nominated by the Trustees who are not "interested persons" of
the Fund.
Ordinarily meetings of shareholders for the purpose of electing
Trustees will not be held unless and until such time as less than a
majority of the Trustees holding office have been elected by shareholders,
at which time the Trustees then in office will call a shareholders' meeting
for the election of Trustees. Under the Act, shareholders of record of not
less than two-thirds of the outstanding shares of the Fund may remove a
Trustee through a declaration in writing or by vote cast in person or by
proxy at a meeting called for that purpose. The Trustees are required to
call a meeting of shareholders for the purpose of voting upon the question
of removal of any such Trustee when requested in writing to do so by the
holders of record of not less than 10% of the Fund's outstanding shares.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
The Fund typically pays its Trustees an annual retainer and a per
meeting fee and reimburses them for their expenses. The Chairman of the
Board receives an additional 25% of such compensation. The aggregate
amount of fees and expenses paid to Board members by the Fund for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 1995, and by all other funds in the Dreyfus
Family of Funds for which such person is a Board member (the number of
which is set forth in parentheses next to each Board members total
compensation) for year ended December 31, 1994, were as follows:
(5) Total
(3) Pension or Compensation From
(2) Aggregate Retirement Benefits (4) Estimated Annual Fund and Fund
(1)Name of Board Compensation from Accrued as Part of Benefits Upon Complex Paid to
Member Fund* Fund's Expenses Retirement Board Member
------------ ----------------- ------------------- ---------------- ----------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
David W. Burke $1,900 none none $ 27,898 (50)
Joseph S. DiMartino 4,063** none none 445,000*** (93)
Diane Dunst 3,250 none none 32,602 (9)
Rosalind Gersten Jacobs 2,490 none none 57,638 (20)
Jay I. Meltzer 3,250 none none 32,102 (9)
Daniel Rose 3,250 none none 62,006 (22)
Warren B. Rudman 3,250 none none 29,602 (17)
Sander Vanocur 3,250 none none 62,006 (22)
_____________________
* Amount does not include reimbursed expenses for attending Board
meetings which amounted to $240 for all Trustees as a group.
** Estimated amount for fiscal year ended March 31, 1996.
*** Estimated amount for year ending December 31, 1995.
</TABLE>
Officers of the Fund
MARIE E. CONNOLLY, President and Treasurer. President and Chief Operating
Officer of the Distributor and an officer of other investment
companies advised or administered by the Manager. From December 1991
to July 1994, she was President and Chief Compliance Officer of Funds
Distributor, Inc., the ultimate parent company of which is Boston
Institutional Group, Inc. Prior to December 1991, she served as Vice
President and Controller, and later as Senior Vice President, of The
Boston Company Advisors, Inc. She is 37 years old.
JOHN E. PELLETIER, Vice President and Secretary. Senior Vice President and
General Counsel of the Distributor and an officer of other investment
companies advised or administered by the Manager. From February 1992
to July 1994, he served as Counsel for The Boston Company Advisors,
Inc. From August 1990 to February 1992, he was employed as an
Associate at Ropes & Gray. He is 30 years old.
FREDERICK C. DEY, Vice President and Assistant Treasurer. Senior Vice
President of the Distributor and an officer of other investment
companies advised or administered by the Manager. From 1988 to August
1994, he was Manager of the High Performance Fabric Division of
Springs Industries Inc. He is 33 years old.
ERIC B. FISCHMAN, Vice President and Assistant Secretary. Associate
General Counsel of the Distributor and an officer of other investment
companies advised or administered by the Manager. From September 1992
to August 1994, he was an attorney with the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System. He is 30 years old.
JOSEPH S. TOWER, III, Assistant Treasurer. Senior Vice President,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Distributor and an
officer of other investment companies advised or administered by the
Manager. From July 1988 to August 1994, he was employed by The Boston
Company, Inc. where he held various management positions in the
Corporate Finance and Treasury areas. He is 32 years old.
JOHN J. PYBURN, Assistant Treasurer. Assistant Treasurer of the
Distributor and an officer of other investment companies advised or
administered by the Manager. From 1984 to July 1994, he was Assistant
Vice President in the Mutual Fund Accounting Department of the
Manager. He is 59 years old.
RUTH D. LEIBERT, Assistant Secretary. Assistant Vice President of the
Distributor and an officer of other investment companies advised or
administered by the Manager. From March 1992 to July 1994, she was a
Compliance Officer for The Managers Funds, a registered investment
company. From March 1990 until September 1991, she was Development
Director of The Rockland Center for the Arts and, prior thereto, was
employed as a Research Assistant for the Bureau of National Affairs.
She is 50 years old.
The address of each officer of the Fund is 200 Park Avenue, New York,
New York 10166.
Board members and officers of the Fund, as a group, owned less than 1%
of the Fund's shares of beneficial interest outstanding on July 14, 1995.
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "Management
of the Fund."
The Manager provides management services pursuant to the Management
Agreement (the "Agreement") dated August 24, 1994 with the Fund, which is
subject to annual approval by (i) the Fund's Board of Trustees or (ii) vote
of a majority (as defined in the Act) of the outstanding voting securities
of the Fund, provided that in either event the continuance also is approved
by a majority of the Trustees who are not "interested persons" (as defined
in the Act) of the Fund or the Manager, by vote cast in person at a meeting
called for the purpose of voting on such approval. The Agreement was
approved by shareholders on August 3, 1994, and was last approved by the
Board of Trustees, including a majority of the Trustees who are not
"interested persons" (as defined in the Act) of the Fund or the Manager at
a meeting held on May 3, 1995. The Agreement is terminable without
penalty, on 60 days' notice, by the Fund's Board of Trustees or by vote of
the holders of a majority of the Fund's shares, or, on not less than 90
days' notice, by the Manager. The Agreement will terminate automatically
in the event of its assignment (as defined in the Act).
The following persons are officers and/or directors of the Manager:
Howard Stein, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer; Robert E.
Riley, President, Chief Operating Officer and a director; W. Keith Smith,
Vice Chairman of the Board; Paul H. Synder, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer; Lawrence S. Kash, Vice Chairman--Distribution and a
director; Philip L. Toia, Vice Chairman--Operations and Administration;
Stephen E. Canter--Vice Chairman, Chief Investment Officer and a director;
Daniel C. Maclean III, Vice President and General Counsel; Diane M. Coffey,
Vice President--Corporate Communications; Jeffrey N. Nachman, Vice
President--Mutual Fund Accounting; Mark N. Jacobs, Vice President--Legal
and Secretary; Henry D. Gottmann, Vice President--Sales and Services;
Katherine C. Wickham, Vice President--Human Resources; Elie M. Genadry,
Vice President--Institutional Sales; Barbara Casey, Vice President--Dreyfus
Retirement Services; William F. Glavin, Vice President--Corporate
Development; Andrew S. Wasser, Vice President--Information Services;
Maurice Bendrihem, Controller; Elvira Oslapas--Assistant Secretary and
Mandell L. Berman, Frank V. Cahouet, Alvin E. Friedman, Lawrence M. Greene,
Julian M. Smerling and David B. Truman, directors.
The Manager manages the Fund's portfolio of investments in accordance
with the stated policies of the Fund, subject to the approval of the Fund's
Board of Trustees. The Manager is responsible for investment decisions,
and provides the Fund with portfolio managers who are authorized by the
Board of Trustees to execute purchases and sales of securities. The Fund's
portfolio managers are Richard J. Moynihan, Joseph A. Darcy, A. Paul
Disdier, Karen M. Hand, Stephen C. Kris, L. Lawrence Troutman, Samuel J.
Weinstock, Monica S. Wieboldt and Jill C. Shaffro. The Manager also
maintains a research department with a professional staff of portfolio
managers and securities analysts who provide research services for the Fund
as well as for other funds advised by the Manager. All purchases and sales
are reported for the Trustees' review at the meeting subsequent to such
transactions.
All expenses incurred in the operation of the Fund are borne by the
Fund, except to the extent specifically assumed by the Manager. The
expenses borne by the Fund include: organizational costs, taxes, interest,
interest on securities sold short, brokerage fees and commissions, if any,
fees of Trustees who are not officers, directors, employees or holders of
5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the Manager, Securities
and Exchange Commission fees, state Blue Sky qualification fees, advisory
fees, charges of custodians, transfer and dividend disbursing agents' fees,
certain insurance premiums, industry association fees, outside auditing and
legal expenses, costs of maintaining the Fund's existence, costs of
independent pricing services, costs attributable to investor services
(including, without limitation, telephone and personnel expenses), costs of
shareholders' reports and meetings, costs of preparing and printing
prospectuses and statements of additional information for regulatory
purposes and for distribution to existing shareholders, and any
extraordinary expenses.
The Manager maintains office facilities on behalf of the Fund and
furnishes statistical and research data, clerical help, accounting, data
processing, bookkeeping and internal auditing and certain other required
services to the Fund. The Manager also may make such advertising and
promotional expenditures, using its own resources, as it from time to time
deems appropriate.
The Manager, from time to time, from its own funds, other than the
management fee paid by the Fund, but including past profits, may make
payments for shareholder servicing and distribution services to the
Distributor. The Distributor in turn may pay part or all of such
compensation to securities dealers or other persons for their servicing or
distribution assistance.
As compensation for the Manager's services, the Fund has agreed to pay
the Manager a monthly management fee at the annual rate of .60 of 1% of the
value of the Fund's average daily net assets. All fees and expenses are
accrued daily and deducted before the declaration of dividends to
shareholders. For the period April 20, 1992 (commencement of operations)
through March 31, 1993 and for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, no
management fee was paid by the Fund pursuant to undertakings by the
Manager. For the fiscal year ended May 31, 1995, $1,608,398 was paid by
the Fund in management fees to the Manager, which was reduced by $1,265,273
pursuant to undertakings then in effect, resulting in a net fee paid to the
Manager of $343,125 for fiscal 1995.
The Manager has agreed that if in any fiscal year the aggregate
expenses of the Fund, exclusive of taxes, brokerage, interest on borrowings
and (with the prior written consent of the necessary state securities
commissions) extraordinary expenses, but including the management fee,
exceed the expense limitation of any state having jurisdiction over the
Fund, the Fund may deduct from the payment to be made to the Manager under
the Agreement, or the Manager will bear, such excess expense to the extent
required by state law. Such deduction or payment, if any, will be
estimated daily, and reconciled and effected or paid, as the case may be,
on a monthly basis.
The aggregate of the fees payable to the Manager is not subject to
reduction as the value of the Fund's net assets increases.
SHAREHOLDER SERVICES PLAN
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "Shareholder
Services Plan."
The Fund has adopted a Shareholder Services Plan (the "Plan") pursuant
to which the Fund reimburses Dreyfus Service Corporation, for certain
allocated expenses of providing personal services and/or maintaining
shareholder accounts. The services provided may include personal services
relating to shareholder accounts, such as answering shareholder inquiries
regarding the Fund and providing reports and other information, and
services related to the maintenance of shareholder accounts.
A quarterly report of the amounts expended under the Plan, and the
purposes for which such expenditures were incurred, must be made to the
Board members for their review. In addition, the Plan provides that
material amendments of the Plan must be approved by the Board members who
are not "interested persons" (as defined in the Act) of the Fund and have
no direct or indirect financial interest in the operation of the Plan by
vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of considering such
amendments. The Plan is subject to annual approval by such vote of the
Board members cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting
on the Plan. The Plan is terminable at any time by vote of a majority of
the Board members who are not "interested persons" and have no direct or
indirect financial interest in the operation of the Plan.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1995, $158,620 was chargeable to
the Fund under the Plan.
PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "How to Buy
Fund Shares."
The Distributor. The Distributor serves as the Fund's distributor
pursuant to an agreement which is renewable annually. The Distributor also
acts as distributor for the other funds in the Dreyfus Family of Funds and
for certain other investment companies.
Service Charges. There is no sales or service charge by the Fund or
the Distributor, although investment dealers, banks and other institutions
may make reasonable charges to investors for their services. The services
provided and the applicable fees are established by each dealer or other
institution acting independently of the Fund. The Fund has been given to
understand that these fees may be charged for customer services including,
but not limited to, same-day investment of client funds; same-day access to
client funds; advice to customers about the status of their accounts, yield
currently being paid or income earned to date; provision of periodic
account statements showing security and money market positions; other
services available from the dealer, bank or other institution; and
assistance with inquiries related to their investment. Any such fees will
be deducted monthly from the investor's account, which on smaller accounts
could constitute a substantial portion of distributions. Small, inactive,
long-term accounts involving monthly service charges may not be in the best
interest of investors. Investors should be aware that they may purchase
shares of the Fund directly from the Fund without imposition of any
maintenance or service charges, other than those already described herein.
In some states, banks or other financial institutions effecting
transactions in Fund shares may be required to register as dealers pursuant
to state law.
Dreyfus TeleTransfer Privilege. Dreyfus TeleTransfer purchase orders
may be made between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., New York time, on
any business day that The Shareholder Services Group, Inc., the Fund's
transfer and dividend disbursing agent (the "Transfer Agent"), and the New
York Stock Exchange are open. Such purchases will be credited to the
shareholder's Fund account on the next bank business day. To qualify to
use the Dreyfus TeleTransfer Privilege, the initial payment for purchase of
Fund shares must be drawn on, and redemption proceeds paid to, the same
bank and account as are designated in the Account Application or
Shareholder Services Form on file. If the proceeds of a particular
redemption are to be wired to an account at any other bank, the request
must be in writing and signature-guaranteed. See "Redemption of Fund
Shares--Dreyfus TeleTransfer Privilege."
Reopening an Account. An investor may reopen an account with a
minimum investment of $100 without filing a new Account Application during
the calendar year the account is closed or during the following calendar
year, provided the information on the old Account Application is still
applicable.
REDEMPTION OF FUND SHARES
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "How to
Redeem Fund Shares."
Check Redemption Privilege. An investor may indicate on the Account
Application or by later written request that the Fund provide Redemption
Checks ("Checks") drawn on the Fund's account. Checks will be sent only to
the registered owner(s) of the account and only to the address of record.
The Account Application or later written request must be manually signed by
the registered owner(s). Checks may be made payable to the order of any
person in an amount of $500 or more. When a Check is presented to the
Transfer Agent for payment, the Transfer Agent, as the investor's agent,
will cause the Fund to redeem a sufficient number of shares in the
investor's account to cover the amount of the Check. Dividends are earned
until the Check clears. After clearance, a copy of the Check will be
returned to the investor. Investors generally will be subject to the same
rules and regulations that apply to checking accounts, although election of
this Privilege creates only a shareholder-transfer agent relationship with
the Transfer Agent.
If the amount of the Check is greater than the value of the shares in
an investor's account, the Check will be returned marked insufficient
funds. Checks should not be used to close an account.
Wire Redemption Privilege. By using this Privilege, the investor
authorizes the Transfer Agent to act on wire or telephone redemption
instructions from any person representing himself or herself to be the
investor, and reasonably believed by the Transfer Agent to be genuine.
Ordinarily, the Fund will initiate payment for shares redeemed pursuant to
this Privilege on the next business day after receipt if the Transfer Agent
receives the redemption request in proper form. Redemption proceeds will
be transferred by Federal Reserve wire only to the commercial bank account
specified by the investor on the Account Application or Shareholder
Services Form. Redemption proceeds, if wired, must be in the amount of
$1,000 or more and will be wired to the investor's account at the bank of
record designated in the investor's file at the Transfer Agent, if the
investor's bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System, or to a
correspondent bank if the investor's bank is not a member. Fees ordinarily
are imposed by such bank and usually are borne by the investor. Immediate
notification by the correspondent bank to the investor's bank is necessary
to avoid a delay in crediting the funds to the investor's bank account.
Investors with access to telegraphic equipment may wire redemption
requests to the Transfer Agent by employing the following transmittal code
which may be used for domestic or overseas transmissions:
Transfer Agent's
Transmittal Code Answer Back Sign
144295 144295 TSSG PREP
Investors who do not have direct access to telegraphic equipment may
have the wire transmitted by contacting a TRT Cables operator at 1-800-654-
7171, toll free. Investors should advise the operator that the above
transmittal code must be used and should also inform the operator of the
Transfer Agent's answer back sign.
To change the commercial bank or account designated to receive wire
redemption proceeds, a written request must be sent to the Transfer Agent.
This request must be signed by each shareholder, with each signature
guaranteed as described below under "Share Certificates; Signatures."
Dreyfus TeleTransfer Privilege. Investors should be aware that if
they have selected the Dreyfus TeleTransfer Privilege, any request for a
wire redemption will be effected as a Dreyfus TeleTransfer transaction
through the Automated Clearing House ("ACH") system unless more prompt
transmittal specifically is requested. Redemption proceeds will be on
deposit in the investor's account at an ACH member bank ordinarily two
business days after receipt of the redemption request. See "Purchase of
Fund Shares--Dreyfus TeleTransfer Privilege."
Share Certificates; Signatures. Any certificates representing Fund
shares to be redeemed must be submitted with the redemption request.
Written redemption requests must be signed by each shareholder, including
each holder of a joint account, and each signature must be guaranteed.
Signatures on endorsed certificates submitted for redemption also must be
guaranteed. The Transfer Agent has adopted standards and procedures
pursuant to which signature-guarantees in proper form generally will be
accepted from domestic banks, brokers, dealers, credit unions, national
securities exchanges, registered securities associations, clearing agencies
and savings associations, as well as from participants in the New York
Stock Exchange Medallion Program, the Securities Transfer Agents Medallion
Program ("STAMP") and the Stock Exchanges Medallion Program. Guarantees
must be signed by an authorized signatory of the guarantor and "Signature-
Guaranteed" must appear with the signature. The Transfer Agent may request
additional documentation from corporations, executors, administrators,
trustees or guardians, and may accept other suitable verification
arrangements from foreign investors, such as consular verification. For
more information with respect to signature-guarantees, please call the
telephone number listed on the cover.
Redemption Commitment. The Fund has committed itself to pay in cash
all redemption requests by any shareholder of record, limited in amount
during any 90-day period to the lesser of $250,000 of 1% of the value of
the Fund's net assets at the beginning of such period. Such commitment is
irrevocable without the prior approval of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. In the case of requests for redemption in excess of such
amount, the Board of Trustees reserves the right to make payments in whole
or in part in securities or other assets in case of an emergency or any
time a cash distribution would impair the liquidity of the Fund to the
detriment of the existing shareholders. In such event, the securities
would be valued in the same manner as the Fund's portfolio is valued. If
the recipient sold such securities, brokerage charges would be incurred.
Suspension of Redemptions. The right of redemption may be suspended
or the date of payment postponed (a) during any period when the New York
Stock Exchange is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday
closings), (b) when trading in the markets the Fund ordinarily utilizes is
restricted, or when an emergency exists as determined by the Securities and
Exchange Commission so that disposal of the Fund's investments or
determination of its net asset value is not reasonably practicable, or (c)
for such other periods as the Securities and Exchange Commission by order
may permit to protect the Fund's shareholders.
SHAREHOLDER SERVICES
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "Shareholder
Services."
Fund Exchanges. Shares of other funds purchased by exchange will be
purchased on the basis of relative net asset value per share as follows:
A. Exchanges for shares of funds that are offered without a sales
load will be made without a sales load.
B. Shares of funds purchased without a sales load may be exchanged
for shares of other funds sold with a sales load, and the
applicable sales load will be deducted.
C. Shares of funds purchased with a sales load may be exchanged
without a sales load for shares of other funds sold without a
sales load.
D. Shares of funds purchased with a sales load, shares of funds
acquired by a previous exchange from shares purchased with a
sales load and additional shares acquired through reinvestment of
dividends or distributions of any such funds (collectively
referred to herein as "Purchased Shares") may be exchanged for
shares of other funds sold with a sales load (referred to herein
as "Offered Shares"), provided that, if the sales load applicable
to the Offered Shares exceeds the maximum sales load that could
have been imposed in connection with the Purchased Shares (at the
time the Purchased Shares were acquired), without giving effect
to any reduced loads, the difference will be deducted.
To accomplish an exchange under item D above, shareholders must notify
the Transfer Agent of their prior ownership of fund shares and their
account number.
To request an exchange, an investor must give exchange instructions to
the Transfer Agent in writing, or by telephone. The ability to issue
exchange instructions by telephone is given to all Fund shareholders
automatically, unless the investor checks the applicable "No" box on the
Account Application, indicating that the investor specifically refuses this
Privilege. By using this Privilege, the investor authorizes the Transfer
Agent to act on telephonic instructions from any person representing
himself or herself to be the investor, and reasonably believed by the
Transfer Agent to be genuine. Telephone exchanges may be subject to
limitations as to the amount involved or the number of telephone exchanges
permitted. Shares issued in certificate form are not eligible for
telephone exchange.
To establish a Personal Retirement Plan by exchange, shares of the
fund being exchanged must have a value of at least the minimum initial
investment required for the fund into which the exchange is being made.
For Dreyfus-sponsored Keogh Plans, IRAs and IRAs set up under a Simplified
Employee Pension Plan ("SEP-IRAs") with only one participant, the minimum
initial investment is $750. To exchange shares held in Corporate Plans,
403(b)(7) Plans and SEP-IRAs with more than one participant, the minimum
initial investment is $100 if the plan has at least $2,500 invested among
the funds in the Dreyfus Family of Funds. To exchange shares held in
Personal Retirement Plans, the shares exchanged must have a current value
of at least $100.
Dreyfus Auto-Exchange Privilege. Dreyfus Auto-Exchange Privilege
permits an investor to purchase, in exchange for shares of the Fund, shares
of another fund in the Dreyfus Family of Funds. This Privilege is
available only for existing accounts. Shares will be exchanged on the
basis of relative net asset value as described above under "Fund
Exchanges." Enrollment in or modification or cancellation of this
Privilege is effective three business days following notification by the
investor. An investor will be notified if his account falls below the
amount designated to be exchanged under this Privilege. In this case, an
investor's account will fall to zero unless additional investments are made
in excess of the designated amount prior to the next Auto-Exchange
transaction. Shares held under IRA and other retirement plans are eligible
for this Privilege. Exchanges of IRA shares may be made between IRA
accounts and from regular accounts to IRA accounts, but not from IRA
accounts to regular accounts. With respect to all other retirement
accounts, exchanges may be made only among those accounts.
Fund Exchanges and the Dreyfus Auto-Exchange Privilege are available
to shareholders resident in any state in which shares of the fund being
acquired may legally be sold. Shares may be exchanged only between
accounts having identical names and other identifying designations.
Shareholder Services Forms and prospectuses of the other funds may be
obtained by calling 1-800-645-6561. The Fund reserves the right to reject
any exchange request in whole or in part. The Fund Exchange Service or
Dreyfus Auto-Exchange Privilege may be modified or terminated at any time
upon notice to shareholders.
Automatic Withdrawal Plan. The Automatic Withdrawal Plan permits an
investor with a $5,000 minimum account to request withdrawal of a specified
dollar amount (minimum of $50) on either a monthly or quarterly basis.
Withdrawal payments are the proceeds from sales of Fund shares, not the
yield on the shares. If withdrawal payments exceed reinvested dividends
and distributions, the investor's shares will be reduced and eventually may
be depleted. There is a service charge of $.50 for each withdrawal check.
Automatic Withdrawal may be terminated at any time by the investor, the
Fund or the Transfer Agent. Shares for which certificates have been issued
may not be redeemed through the Automatic Withdrawal Plan.
Dreyfus Dividend Sweep . Dreyfus Dividend Sweep allows investors to
invest on the payment date their dividends or dividends and capital gain
distributions, if any, from the Fund in shares of another fund in the
Dreyfus Family of Funds of which the investor is a shareholder. Shares of
other funds purchased pursuant to this privilege will be purchased on the
basis of relative net asset value per share as follows:
A. Dividends and distributions paid by a fund may be invested
without imposition of a sales load in shares of other funds that
are offered without a sales load.
B. Dividends and distributions paid by a fund which does not charge
a sales load may be invested in shares of other funds sold with a
sales load, and the applicable sales load will be deducted.
C. Dividends and distributions paid by a fund which charges a sales
load may be invested in shares of other funds sold with a sales
load (referred to herein as "Offered Shares"), provided that, if
the sales load applicable to the Offered Shares exceeds the
maximum sales load charged by the fund from which dividends or
distributions are being swept, without giving effect to any
reduced loads, the difference will be deducted.
D. Dividends and distributions paid by a fund may be invested in
shares of other funds that impose a contingent deferred sales
charge ("CDSC") and the applicable CDSC, if any, will be imposed
upon redemption of such shares.
DETERMINATION OF NET ASSET VALUE
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "How to Buy
Fund Shares."
Valuation of Portfolio Securities. The Fund's investments are valued
by an independent pricing service (the "Service") approved by the Board of
Trustees. When, in the judgment of the Service, quoted bid prices for
investments are readily available and are representative of the bid side of
the market, these investments are valued at the mean between the quoted bid
prices (as obtained by the Service from dealers in such securities) and
asked prices (as calculated by the Service based upon its evaluation of the
market for such securities). Other investments (which constitute a
majority of the portfolio securities) are carried at fair value as
determined by the Service, based on methods which include consideration of:
yields or prices of municipal bonds of comparable quality, coupon, maturity
and type; indications as to values from dealers; and general market
conditions. The Service may employ electronic data processing techniques
and/or a matrix system to determine valuations. The Service's procedures
are reviewed by the Fund's officers under the general supervision of the
Board of Trustees. Expenses and fees, including the management fee
(reduced by the expense limitation, if any), are accrued daily and are
taken into account for the purpose of determining the net asset value of
Fund shares.
New York Stock Exchange Closings. The holidays (as observed) on which
the New York Stock Exchange is closed currently are: New Year's Day,
Presidents' Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving and Christmas.
PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS
Portfolio securities ordinarily are purchased from and sold to parties
acting as either principal or agent. Newly-issued securities ordinarily
are purchased directly from the issuer or from an underwriter; other
purchases and sales usually are placed with those dealers from which it
appears that the best price or execution will be obtained. Usually no
brokerage commissions, as such, are paid by the Fund for such purchases and
sales, although the price paid usually includes an undisclosed compensation
to the dealer acting as agent. The prices paid to underwriters of newly-
issued securities usually include a concession paid by the issuer to the
underwriter, and purchases of after-market securities from dealers
ordinarily are executed at a price between the bid and asked price. No
brokerage commissions have been paid by the Fund to date.
Transactions are allocated to various dealers by the Fund's portfolio
managers in their best judgment. The primary consideration is prompt and
effective execution of orders at the most favorable price. Subject to that
primary consideration, dealers may be selected for research, statistical or
other services to enable the Manager to supplement its own research and
analysis with the views and information of other securities firms.
Research services furnished by brokers through which the Fund effects
securities transactions may be used by the Manager in advising other funds
it advises and, conversely, research services furnished to the Manager by
brokers in connection with other funds the Manager advises may be used by
the Manager in advising the Fund. Although it is not possible to place a
dollar value on these services, it is the opinion of the Manager that the
receipt and study of such services should not reduce the overall expenses
of its research department.
DIVIDENDS, DISTRIBUTIONS AND TAXES
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "Dividends,
Distributions and Taxes."
The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides
that if a shareholder has not held his Fund shares for more than six months
(or such shorter period as the Internal Revenue Service may prescribe by
regulation) and has received an exempt-interest dividend with respect to
such shares, any loss incurred on the sale of such shares shall be
disallowed to the extent of the exempt-interest dividend received. In
addition, any dividend or distribution paid shortly after an investor's
purchase may have the effect of reducing the net asset value of his shares
below the cost of his investment. Such a distribution should be a return
on the investment in an economic sense although taxable as stated in
"Dividends, Distributions and Taxes" in the Prospectus.
If, at the close of each quarter of its taxable year, at least 50% of
the value of the Fund's total assets consists of obligations which, when
held by an individual, the interest therefrom is exempt from California
personal income tax, and if the Fund qualifies as a management company
under the California Revenue and Taxation Code, then the Fund will be
qualified to pay dividends to its shareholders that are exempt from
California personal income tax (but not from California franchise tax).
However, the total amount of California exempt-interest dividends paid by
the Fund to a non-corporate shareholder with respect to any taxable year
cannot exceed such shareholder's pro-rata share of interest received by the
Fund during such year that is exempt from California taxation less any
expenses and expenditures deemed to have been paid from such interest.
For shareholders subject to the California personal income tax,
exempt-interest dividends derived from California Municipal Obligations
will not be subject to the California personal income tax. Distributions
from net realized short-term capital gains to California resident
shareholders will be subject to the California personal income tax as
ordinary income. Distributions from net realized long-term capital gains
may constitute long-term capital gains for individual California resident
shareholders. Unlike under Federal tax law, the Fund's shareholders will
not be subject to California personal income tax, or receive a credit for
California taxes paid by the Fund on undistributed capital gains. In
addition, California tax law does not consider any portion of the exempt-
interest dividends paid an item of tax preference for the purposes of
computing the California alternative minimum tax.
Ordinarily, gains and losses realized from portfolio transactions will
be treated as capital gain or loss. However, all or a portion of any gain
realized from the sale or other disposition of certain market discount
bonds will be treated as ordinary income under Section 1276 of the Code.
In addition, all or a portion of the gain realized from engaging in
"conversion transactions" may be treated as ordinary income under Section
1258 of the Code. "Conversion transactions" are defined to include certain
forward, futures, option and "straddle" transactions, transactions marketed
or sold to produce capital gains, or transactions described in Treasury
regulations to be issued in the future.
Under Section 1256 of the Code, gain or loss realized by the Fund from
certain financial futures and options transactions will be treated as 60%
long-term capital gain or loss and 40% short-term capital gain or loss.
Gain or loss will arise upon exercise or lapse of such futures and options
as well as from closing transactions. In addition, any such futures or
options remaining unexercised at the end of the Fund's taxable year will be
treated as sold for their then fair market value, resulting in additional
gain or loss to the Fund characterized in the manner described above.
Offsetting positions held by the Fund involving certain financial
futures contracts or options transactions may be considered, for tax
purposes, to constitute "straddles." "Straddles" are defined to include
"offsetting positions" in actively traded personal property. The tax
treatment of "straddles" is governed by Sections 1092 and 1258 of the Code,
which, in certain circumstances, overrides or modifies the provisions of
Section 1256 of the Code. As such, all or a portion of any short or long-
term capital gain from certain "straddle" and/or conversion transactions
may be recharacterized to ordinary income.
If the Fund were treated as entering into "straddles" by reason of its
engaging in financial futures contracts or options transactions, such
"straddles" would be characterized as "mixed straddles" if the futures or
options comprising a part of such "straddles" were governed by Section 1256
of the Code. The Fund may make one or more elections with respect to
"mixed straddles." If no election is made, to the extent the straddle
rules apply to positions established by the Fund, losses realized by the
Fund will be deferred to the extent of unrealized gain in any offsetting
positions. Moreover, as a result of the straddle and the conversion
transaction rules, short-term capital loss on straddle positions may be
recharacterized as long-term capital loss, and long-term capital gain may
be recharacterized as short-term capital gain or ordinary income.
Investment by the Fund in securities issued at a discount or providing
for deferred interest or for payment of interest in the form of additional
obligations could, under special tax rules, affect the amount, timing and
character of distributions to shareholders. For example, the Fund could be
required to take into account annually a portion of the discount (or deemed
discount) at which such securities were issued and to distribute such
portion in order to maintain its qualification as a regulated investment
company. In such case, the Fund may have to dispose of securities which it
might otherwise have continued to hold in order to generate cash to satisfy
these distribution requirements.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "Performance
Information."
For the 30-day period ended March 31, 1995, the Fund's yield was
5.11%. The Fund's yield reflects the waiver of a portion of the management
fee then in effect, without which the Fund's 30-day yield for the period
ended March 31, 1995 would have been 4.76%. Current yield is computed
pursuant to a formula which operates as follows: The amount of the Fund's
expenses accrued for the 30-day period (net of reimbursements) is
subtracted from the amount of the dividends and interest earned (computed
in accordance with regulatory requirements) by the Fund during the period.
That result is then divided by the product of: (a) the average daily
number of shares outstanding during the period that were entitled to
receive dividends, and (b) the net asset value per share on the last day of
the period less any undistributed earned income per share reasonably
expected to be declared as a dividend shortly thereafter. The quotient is
then added to 1, and that sum is raised to the 6th power, after which 1 is
subtracted. The current yield is then arrived at by multiplying the result
by 2.
Based upon a combined 1995 Federal and California income tax rate of
46.24%, the Fund's tax equivalent yield for the 30-day period ended March
31, 1995 was 9.51%. Absent any expense absorption and/or fee waiver then
in effect, the Fund's 30-day tax equivalent yield would have been 8.85%.
Tax equivalent yield is computed by dividing that portion of the current
yield (calculated as described above) which is tax exempt by 1 minus a
stated tax rate and adding the quotient to that portion, if any, of the
yield of the Fund that is not tax exempt.
The tax equivalent yield quoted above represents the application of
the highest Federal and State of California marginal personal income tax
rates presently in effect. For Federal personal income tax purposes, a
39.6% tax rate has been used. For California personal income tax purposes,
a 11% tax rate has been used. The tax equivalent figure, however, does not
include the potential effect of any local (including, but not limited to,
county, district or city) taxes, including applicable surcharges. In
addition, there may be pending legislation which could affect such stated
tax rates or yield. Each investor should consult its tax adviser, and
consider its own factual circumstances and applicable tax laws, in order to
ascertain the relevant tax equivalent yield.
For the one-year period ended March 31, 1995 and for the period April
20, 1992 (commencement of operations) through March 31, 1995, the Fund's
average annual total returns was 4.76%, and 16.98%, respectively. Absent
any expense absorption and/or fee waiver then in effect, the Fund's total
return would have been lower. Average annual total return is calculated by
determining the ending redeemable value of an investment purchased with a
hypothetical $1,000 payment made at the beginning of the period (assuming
the reinvestment of dividends and distributions), dividing by the amount of
the initial investment, taking the "n" th root of the quotient (where "n"
is the number of years in the period) and subtracting 1 from the result.
For the period April 20, 1992 (commencement of operations) through
March 31, 1995, the Fund's total return was 22.02%. Absent any expense
absorption and/or fee waiver then in effect, the Fund's return would have
been lower. Total return is calculated by subtracting the amount of the
Fund's net asset value per share at the beginning of a stated period from
the net asset value per share at the end of the period (after giving effect
to the reinvestment of dividends and distributions during the periods), and
dividing the result by the net asset value per share at the beginning of
the period.
From time to time, the Fund may use hypothetical tax equivalent yields
or charts in its advertising. These hypothetical yields or charts will be
used for illustrative purposes only and are not indicative of the Fund's
past or future performance.
From time to time, advertising materials for the Fund may refer to or
discuss then-current or past economic conditions, developments and/or
events, including, for example those relating to actual or proposed tax
legislation, or to statistical or other information concerning trends
relating to investment companies as compiled by industry associations such
as the Investment Company Institute. From time to time, advertising
materials for the Fund also may refer to or discuss current ratings
provided by Morningstar, Inc., an independent company which provides
general information about investment companies to the public including
ratings based on a one-to-five star rating system. From time to time,
advertising materials for the Fund also may refer to Morningstar ratings
and related analyses supporting such ratings.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE FUND
The following information supplements and should be read in
conjunction with the section in the Fund's Prospectus entitled "General
Information."
Each Fund share has one vote and, when issued and paid for in
accordance with the terms of the offering, is fully paid and non-
assessable. Fund shares are of one class and have equal rights as to
dividends and in liquidation. Shares have no preemptive, subscription or
conversion rights and are freely transferable.
The Fund will send annual and semi-annual financial statements to all
its shareholders.
CUSTODIAN, TRANSFER AND DIVIDEND DISBURSING AGENT, COUNSEL
AND INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
The Bank of New York, 90 Washington Street, New York, New York 10286,
is the Fund's custodian. The Shareholder Services Group, Inc., a
subsidiary of First Data Corporation, P.O. Box 9671, Providence, Rhode
Island 02940-9671, is the Fund's transfer and dividend disbursing agent.
Neither The Bank of New York nor The Shareholder Services Group, Inc. has
any part in determining the investment policies of the Fund or which
securities are to be purchased or sold by the Fund.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, 7 Hanover Square, New York, New York 10004-
2696, as counsel for the Fund, has rendered its opinion as to certain legal
matters regarding the due authorization and valid issuance of the shares of
beneficial interest being sold pursuant to the Fund's Prospectus.
Ernst & Young LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10019,
independent auditors, have been selected as auditors of the Fund.
APPENDIX A
IN CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS
Certain California (the "State") constitutional amendments,
legislative measures, executive orders, civil actions and voter
initiatives, as well as the general financial condition of the State, could
adversely affect the ability of issuers of California Municipal Obligations
to pay interest and principal on such obligations. The following
information constitutes only a brief summary, does not purport to be a
complete description, and is based on information drawn from official
statements relating to securities offerings of the State of California and
various local agencies, available as of the date of this Statement of
Additional Information. While the Fund has not independently verified such
information, it has no reason to believe that such information is not
correct in all material respects.
Recent Developments. From mid-1990 to late 1993, the State suffered a
recession with the worst economic, fiscal and budget conditions since the
1930s. Construction, manufacturing (especially aerospace), exports and
financial services, among others, were all severely affected. Job losses
have been the worst of any post-war recession. Unemployment reached 10.1%
in January 1994, but fell sharply to 7.7% in October and November 1994.
According to the State's Department of Finance, recovery from the recession
in California began in 1994.
The recession seriously affected State tax revenues, which basically
mirror economic conditions. It also has caused increased expenditures for
health and welfare programs. The State also has been facing a structural
imbalance in its budget with the largest programs supported by the General
Fund (K-12 schools and community colleges, health and welfare, and
corrections) growing at rates higher than the growth rates for the
principal revenue sources of the General Fund. As a result, the State
experienced recurring budget deficits in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The State Controller reported that expenditures exceeded revenues for four
of the five fiscal years ending with 1991-92. The State had an operating
surplus of Approximately $109 million in 1992-93 and $836 million in 1993-
94. However, at June 30, 1994, according to the Department of Finance, the
State's Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties ("SFEU") still had a
deficit, on a budget basis, of approximately $1.8 billion.
The accumulated budget deficits over the past several years, together
with expenditures for school funding which have not been reflected in the
budget, and reduction of available internal borrowable funds, have combined
to significantly deplete the State's cash resources to pay its ongoing
expenses. In order to meet its cash needs, the State has had to rely for
several years on a series of external borrowings, including borrowings past
the end of a fiscal year. Such borrowings are expected to continue in
future fiscal years. To meet its cash flow needs in the 1994-95 fiscal
year the State issued, in July and August 1994, $4.0 billion of revenue
anticipation warrants which mature on April 25, 1996, and $3.0 billion of
revenue anticipation notes which matured on June 28, 1995.
As a result of the deterioration in the State's budget and cash
situation, the rating agencies reduced the State's credit ratings. Between
October 1991 and July 1994, the rating on the State's general obligation
bonds was reduced by S&P from "AAA" to "A," by Moody's from "Aaa" to "A1"
and by Fitch from "AAA" to "A."
The 1994-95 Fiscal Year Budget (as updated in the January 10, 1995
Governor's Budget) is projected to have $42.4 billion of General Fund
revenues and transfers and $41.7 billion of budgeted expenditures. In
addition, the 1994-95 Budget Act anticipates deferring retirement of about
$1 billion of the accumulated budget deficit to the 1995-96 fiscal year
when it is intended to be fully retired by June 30, 1996.
The Governor's Budget for 1995-96 proposes General Fund revenues and
transfers of $42.5 billion and expenditures of $41.7 billion, which would
leave a balance of approximately $92 million in the budget reserve, the
SFEU, at June 30, 1996 after repayment of the accumulated budget deficits.
The Budget proposal is based on a number of assumptions, including receipt
of $830 million from the Federal government to offset costs of undocumented
and refugee immigrants.
On December 6, 1994, Orange County, California (the "County"),
together with its pooled investment funds (the "Funds") filed for
protection under Chapter 9 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, after reports
that the Funds had suffered significant market losses in their investments,
causing a liquidity crisis for the Funds and the County. More than 180
other public entities, most of which, but not all, are located in the
County, were also depositors in the Funds. As of mid-January 1995,
following a restructuring of most of the Funds' assets to increase their
liquidity and reduce their exposure to interest rate increases, the County
estimated the Funds' loss at about $1.69 billion, or about 23% of their
initial deposits of approximately $7.5 billion. Many of the entities which
deposited monies in the Funds, including the County, are facing cash flow
difficulties because of the bankruptcy filing and may be required to reduce
programs or capital projects. This also may effect their ability to meet
their outstanding obligations.
The State has no existing obligation with respect to any outstanding
obligations or securities of the County or any of the other participating
entities. However, in the event the County is unable to maintain county
administered State programs because of insufficient resources, it may be
necessary for the State to intervene, but the State cannot presently
predict what, if any, action may occur.
On January 17, 1994, an earthquake of the magnitude of an estimated
6.8 on the Richter Scale struck Los Angeles causing significant damage to
public and private structures and facilities. Although some individuals
and businesses suffered losses totaling in the billions of dollars, the
overall effect of the earthquake on the regional and State economy is not
expected to be serious.
State Finances. State moneys are segregated into the General Fund and
approximately 600 Special Funds. The General Fund consists of the revenues
received into the State Treasury and earnings from State investments, which
are not required by law to be credited to any other fund. The General Fund
is the principal operating fund for the majority of governmental activities
and is the depository of most major State revenue sources.
The SFEU is funded with General Fund revenues and was established to
protect the State from unforeseen reduced levels of revenues and/or
unanticipated expenditure increases. Amounts in the SFEU may be
transferred by the Controller as necessary to meet cash needs of the
General Fund. The Controller is required to return moneys so transferred
without payment of interest as soon as there are sufficient moneys in the
General Fund. For budgeting and accounting purposes, any appropriation
made from the SFEU is deemed an appropriation from the General Fund. For
year-end reporting purposes, the Controller is required to add the balance
in the SFEU to the balance in the General Fund so as to show the total
monies then available for General Fund purposes.
Inter-fund borrowing has been used for many years to meet temporary
imbalances of receipts and disbursements in the General Fund. As of June
30, 1994, the General Fund had outstanding loans in the aggregate principal
amount of $43 million to the General Fund from the SFEU and outstanding
loans in the aggregate principal amount of $5.2 billion, which consisted of
$4.0 billion of internal loans to the General Fund from the SFEU and other
Special Funds and $1.2 billion of external loans represented by the 1994
revenue anticipation warrants.
Articles XIIIA and XIIIB to the State Constitution and Other Revenue
Law Changes. Prior to 1977, revenues of the State government experienced
significant growth primarily as a result of inflation and continuous
expansion of the tax base of the State. In 1978, State voters approved an
amendment to the State Constitution known as Proposition 13, which added
Article XIIIA to the State Constitution, reducing ad valorem local property
taxes by more than 50%. In addition, Article XIIIA provides that
additional taxes may be levied by cities, counties and special districts
only upon approval of not less than a two-thirds vote of the "qualified
electors" of such district, and requires not less than a two-thirds vote of
each of the two houses of the State Legislature to enact any changes in
State taxes for the purpose of increasing revenues, whether by increased
rate or changes in methods of computation.
Primarily as a result of the reductions in local property tax revenues
received by local governments following the passage of Proposition 13, the
Legislature undertook to provide assistance to such governments by
substantially increasing expenditures from the General Fund for that
purpose beginning in the 1978-79 fiscal year. In recent years, in addition
to such increased expenditures, the indexing of personal income tax rates
(to adjust such rates for the effects of inflation), the elimination of
certain inheritance and gift taxes and the increase of exemption levels for
certain other such taxes had a moderating impact on the growth in State
revenues. In addition, the State has increased expenditures by providing a
variety of tax credits, including renters' and senior citizens' credits and
energy credits.
The State is subject to an annual "appropriations limit" imposed by
Article XIIIB of the State Constitution adopted in 1979. Article XIIIB
prohibits the State from spending "appropriations subject to limitation" in
excess of the appropriations limit imposed. "Appropriations subject to
limitations" are authorizations to spend "proceeds of taxes," which consist
of tax revenues, and certain other funds, including proceeds from
regulatory licenses, user charges or other fees to the extent that such
proceeds exceed "the cost reasonably borne by such entity in providing the
regulation, product or service." One of the exclusions from these
limitations is "debt service" (defined as "appropriations required to pay
the cost of interest and redemption charges, including the funding of any
reserve or sinking fund required in connection therewith, on indebtedness
existing or legally authorized as of January 1, 1979 or on bonded
indebtedness thereafter approved" by the voters). In addition,
appropriations required to comply with mandates of courts or the Federal
government and, pursuant to Proposition 111 enacted in June 1990,
appropriations for qualified capital outlay projects and appropriations of
revenues derived from any increase in gasoline taxes and motor vehicle
weight fees above January 1, 1990 levels are not included as appropriations
subject to limitation. In addition, a number of recent initiatives were
structured or proposed to create new tax revenues dedicated to certain
specific uses, with such new taxes expressly exempted from the Article
XIIIB limits (e.g., increased cigarette and tobacco taxes enacted by
Proposition 99 in 1988). The appropriations limit also may be exceeded in
cases of emergency. However, unless the emergency arises from civil
disturbance or natural disaster declared by the Governor, and the
appropriations are approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, the
appropriations limit for the next three years must be reduced by the amount
of the excess.
The State's appropriations limit in each year is based on the limit
for the prior year, adjusted annually for changes in California per capita
personal income and changes in population, and adjusted, when applicable,
for any transfer of financial responsibility of providing services to or
from another unit of government. The measurement of change in population
is a blended average of statewide overall population growth, and change in
attendance at local school and community college ("K-14") districts. As
amended by Proposition 111, the appropriations limit is tested over
consecutive two-year periods. Any excess of the aggregate "proceeds of
taxes" received over such two-year periods above the combined
appropriations limits for those two years is divided equally between
transfers to
K-14 districts and refunds to taxpayers.
As originally enacted in 1979, the State's appropriations limit was
based on its 1978-79 fiscal year authorizations to expend proceeds of taxes
and was adjusted annually to reflect changes in cost of living and
population (using different definitions, which were modified by Proposition
111). Commencing with the 1991-92 fiscal year, the State's appropriations
limit is adjusted annually based on the actual 1986-87 limit, and as if
Proposition 111 had been in effect. The State Legislature has enacted
legislation to implement Article XIIIB which defines certain terms used in
Article XIIIB and sets forth the methods for determining the State's
appropriations limit. Government Code Section 7912 requires an estimate of
the State's appropriations limit to be included in the Governor's Budget,
and thereafter to be subject to the budget process and established in the
Budget Act.
For the 1990-91 fiscal year, the State appropriations limit was $32.7
billion, and appropriations subject to limitation were $7.51 billion under
the limit. The limit for the 1991-92 fiscal year was $34.2 billion, and
appropriations subject to limitations were $3.8 billion under the limit.
The limit for the 1992-93 fiscal year was $35.01 billion, and the
appropriations subject to limitation were $7.53 billion under the limit.
The limit for the 1993-94 fiscal year was $36.060 billion, and the
appropriations subject to limitation were $6.55 billion under the limit.
The estimated limit for the 1994-95 fiscal year is $37.55 billion, and the
appropriations subject to limitations are estimated to be $6.05 billion
under the limit.
In November 1988, State voters approved Proposition 98, which changed
State funding of public education below the university level and the
operation of the State's appropriations limit, primarily by guaranteeing K-
14 schools a minimum share of General Fund revenues. Under Proposition 98
(as modified by Proposition 111, which was enacted in June 1990), K-14
schools are guaranteed the greater of (a) 40.3% of General Fund revenues
("Test 1"), (b) the amount appropriated to K-14 schools in the prior year,
adjusted for changes in the cost of living (measured as in Article XIIIB by
reference to California per capita personal income) and enrollment ("Test
2"), or (c) a third test, which would replace the second test in any year
when the percentage growth in per capita General Fund revenues from the
prior year plus .5% is less than the percentage growth in California per
capita personal income ("Test 3"). Under "Test 3," schools would receive
the amount appropriated in the prior year adjusted for changes in
enrollment and per capita General Fund revenues, plus an additional small
adjustment factor. If "Test 3" is used in any year, the difference between
"Test 3" and "Test 2" would become a "credit" to schools which would be the
basis of payments in future years when per capita General Fund revenue
growth exceeds per capita personal income growth.
Proposition 98 permits the Legislature by two-thirds vote of both
houses, with the Governor's concurrence, to suspend the K-14 schools'
minimum funding formula for a one-year period. In the fall of 1989, the
Legislature and the Governor utilized this provision to avoid having 40.3%
of revenues generated by a special supplemental sales tax enacted for
earthquake relief go to K-14 schools. Proposition 98 also contains
provisions transferring certain State tax revenues in excess of the Article
XIIIB limit to K-14 schools.
The 1991-92 Budget Act, applying "Test 2" of Proposition 98,
appropriated approximately $18.5 billion for K-14 schools pursuant to
Proposition 98. During the course of the fiscal year, revenues proved to
be substantially below expectations. By the time the Governor's Budget was
introduced in January 1992, it became clear that per capita growth in
General Fund revenues for 1991-92 would be far smaller than the growth in
California per capita personal income and the Governor's Budget therefore
reflected a reduction in Proposition 98 funding in 1991-92 by applying
"Test 3" rather than "Test 2."
In response to the changing revenue situation and to fully fund the
Proposition 98 guarantee in both the 1991-92 and 1992-93 fiscal years
without exceeding it, the Legislature enacted several bills as part of the
1992-93 budget package which responded to the fiscal crisis in education
funding. Fiscal year 1991-92 Proposition 98 appropriations for K-14
schools were reduced by $1.083 billion. In order to not adversely impact
cash received by school districts, however, a short-term loan was
appropriated from the non-Proposition 98 State General Fund. The
Legislature then appropriated $16.6 billion to K-14 schools for 1992-93
(the minimum guaranteed by Proposition 98), but designated $1.083 billion
of this amount to "repay" the prior year loan, thereby reducing cash
outlays in 1992-93 by that amount. In addition to reducing the 1991-92
fiscal year appropriations for K-14 schools by $1.083 billion and
converting the amount to a loan (the "inter-year adjustment"), Chapter 703,
Statutes of 1992 also made an adjustment to "Test 1," based on the
additional $1.2 billion of local property taxes that were shifted to
schools and community colleges. The "Test 1" percentage changed from 40%
to 37%. Additionally, Chapter 703 contained a provision that if an
appellate court should determine that the "Test 1" recalculation or the
inter-year adjustment is unconstitutional, unenforceable or invalid,
Proposition 98 would be suspended for the 1992-93 fiscal year, with the
result that K-14 schools would receive the amount intended by the 1992-93
Budget Act compromise.
The State Controller stated in October 1992 that, because of a
drafting error in Chapter 703, he could not implement the $1.083 billion
reduction of the 1991-92 school funding appropriation, which was part of
the inter-year adjustment. The Legislature untimely enacted corrective
legislation as part of the 1993-94 Budget package to implement the $1.083
billion inter-year adjustment as originally intended.
In the 1992-93 Budget Act, a new loan of $732 million was made to K-12
schools in order to maintain per-average daily attendance ("ADA") funding
at the same level as 1991-92, at $4,187. An additional loan of $241
million was made to community college districts. These loans are to be
repaid from future Proposition 98 entitlements. (The teachers'
organization lawsuit discussed above also seeks to declare invalid the
provision making the $732 million a loan "repayable" from future years'
Proposition 98 funds. Including both State and local funds, and adjusting
for the loans and repayments, on a cash basis, total Proposition 98 K-12
funding in 1992-93 increased to $21.5 billion, 2.4% more than the amount in
1992-93 ($21.0 billion).
Based on revised State tax revenues and estimated decreased reported
pupil enrollment, the 1993-94 Budget Act projected that the 1992-93
Proposition 98 Budget Act appropriations of $16.6 billion exceeded a
revised minimum guarantee by $313 million. As a result, the 1993-94 Budget
Act reverted $25 million in 1992-93 appropriations to the General Fund.
Limiting the reversion to this amount ensures that per ADA funding for
general purposes will remain at the prior year level of $4,217 per pupil.
The 1993-94 Governor's Budget subsequently proposed deficiency funding of
$121 million for school apportionments and special education, increasing
funding per pupil in 1992-93 to $4,244. The 1993-94 Budget Act also
designated $98 million in 1992-93 appropriations toward satisfying prior
years' guarantee levels, an obligation that resulted primarily from
updating State tax revenues for 1991-92, and designates $190 million as a
loan repayable from 1993-94 funding.
The 1993-94 Budget Act projected the Proposition 98 minimum funding
level at $13.5 billion based on the "Test 3" calculation where the
guarantee is determined by the change in per capita growth in General Fund
revenues, which are projected to decrease on a year-over-year basis. This
amount also takes into account increased property taxes transferred to
school districts from other local governments.
Legislation accompanying the 1993-94 Budget Act (Chapter 66/93)
provided a new loan of $609 million to K-12 schools in order to maintain
per ADA funding at $4,217 and a loan of $178 million to community colleges.
These loans have been combined with the K-14 1992-93 loans into one loan
totalling $1.760 billion. Repayment of this loan would be from future
years' Proposition 98 entitlements, and would be conditioned on maintaining
current funding levels per pupil for K-12 schools. Chapter 66 also reduced
the "Test 1" percentage to 35% to reflect the property tax shift among
local government agencies.
The 1994-95 Budget Act appropriated $14.4 billion of Proposition 98
funds for K14 schools based on Test 2. This exceeds the minimum
Proposition 98 guarantee by $8 million to maintain K-12 funding per pupil
at $4,217. Based upon updated State revenues, growth rates and inflation
factors, the 1994-95 Budget Act appropriated an additional $286 million
within Proposition 98 for the 1993-94 fiscal year, to reflect a need in
appropriations for school districts and county offices of education, as
well as an anticipated deficiency in special education fundings. These and
other minor appropriation adjustments increase the 1993-94 Proposition 98
guarantee to $13.8 billion, which exceeds the minimum guarantee in that
year by $272 million and provides per pupil funding of $4,225.
The 1995-96 Governor's Budget adjusts the 1993-94 minimum guarantee to
reflect changes in enrollment and inflation, and 1993-94 Proposition 98
appropriations were increased to $14.1 billion, primarily to reflect
changes in the statutory continuous appropriation for apportionments. The
revised appropriations now exceed the minimum guarantee by $32 million.
This appropriation level still provides per-pupil funding of $4,225.
The 1994-95 Proposition 98 minimum guarantee also has been adjusted
for changes in factors described above, and is now calculated to be $14.9
billion. Within the minimum guarantee, the dollars per pupil have been
maintained at the prior year's level; consequently, the 1994-95 minimum
guarantee now includes a loan repayment of $135 million, and the per-pupil
funding increases to $4,231.
The 1995-96 Governor's Budget proposes to appropriate $15.9 billion of
Proposition 98 funds to K-14 to meet the guarantee level. Included within
the guarantee is a loan repayment of $379 million for the combined
outstanding loans of $1.76 billion. Funding per pupil is estimated to
increase by $61 over 1994-95 to $4,292.
Sources of Tax Revenue. The California personal income tax, which in
1992-93 contributed about 44% of General Fund revenues, is closely modeled
after the Federal income tax law. It is imposed on net taxable income
(gross income less exclusions and deductions). The tax is progressive with
rates ranging from 1% to 11%. Personal, dependent, and other credits are
allowed against the gross tax liability. In addition, taxpayers may be
subject to an alternative minimum tax ("AMT") which is much like the
Federal AMT. This is designed to ensure that excessive use of tax
preferences does not reduce taxpayers' liabilities below some minimum
level. Legislation enacted in July 1991 added two new marginal tax rates,
at 10% and 11%, effective for tax years 1991 through 1995. After 1995, the
maximum personal income tax rate is scheduled to return to 9.3%, and the
AMT rate is scheduled to drop from 8.5% to 7%.
The personal income tax is adjusted annually by the change in the
consumer price index to prevent taxpayers from being pushed into higher tax
brackets without a real increase in income.
The sales tax is imposed upon retailers for the privilege of selling
tangible personal property in California. Most retail sales and leases are
subject to the tax. However, exemptions have been provided for certain
essentials such as food for home consumption, prescription drugs, gas,
electricity and water. Sales tax accounted for about 38% of General Fund
revenue in 1992-93. Bank and corporation tax revenues comprised about 11%
of General Fund revenue in 1992-93. In 1989, Proposition 99 added a 25
cents per pack excise tax on cigarettes, and a new equivalent excise tax on
other tobacco products. Legislation enacted in 1993 added an additional 2
cents per pack for the purpose of funding breast cancer research.
General Financial Condition of the State. In the years following
enactment of the Federal Tax Reform Act of 1986, and conforming changes to
the State's tax laws, taxpayer behavior became more difficult to predict,
and the State experienced a series of fiscal years in which revenue came in
significantly higher or lower than original estimates. The 1989-90 fiscal
year ended with revenues below estimates and the SFEU was fully depleted by
June 30, 1990. This date essentially coincided with the date of the most
recent recession, and the State subsequently accumulated a budget deficit
in the SFEU approaching $2.8 billion at its peak. The State's budget
problems in recent years also have been caused by a structural imbalance
which has been identified by the current and previous Administrations. The
largest General Fund programs -- K-14 education, health, welfare and
corrections -- were increasing faster than the revenue base, driven by the
State's rapid population increases.
Starting in the 1990-91 fiscal year, each budget required multibillion
dollar actions to bring projected revenues and expenditures into balance
and to close large "budget gaps" which were identified. The Legislature
and Governor eventually agreed on significant cuts in program expenditures,
some transfers of program responsibilities and funding from the State to
local governments, revenue increases (particularly in the 1991-92 fiscal
year budget), and various one-time adjustments and accounting changes.
However, as the recession took hold and deepened after the summer of 1990,
revenues dropped sharply and expenditures for health and welfare programs
increased as job losses mounted, so that the State ended each of the 1990-
91 and 1991-92 fiscal years with an unanticipated deficit in the budget
reserve, the SFEU, as compared to projected positive balances.
As a result of the revenue shortfalls accumulating for the previous
two fiscal years, the Controller in April 1992 indicated that cash
resources (including borrowing from Special Funds) would not be sufficient
to meet all General Fund obligations due on June 30 and July 1, 1992. On
June 25, 1992, the Controller issued $475 million of 1992 Revenue
Anticipation Warrants (the "1992 Warrants") in order to provide funds to
cover all necessary payments from the General Fund at the end of the 1991-
92 fiscal year and on July 1, 1992. The 1992 Warrants were paid on July 24,
1992. In addition to the 1992 Warrants, the Controller reported that as of
June 30, 1992, the General Fund had borrowed $1.336 billion from the SFEU
and $4.699 billion from other Special Funds, using all but about $183
million of borrowable cash resources.
To balance the 1992-93 Governor's Budget, program reductions totalling
$4.365 billion and a revenue and transfer increase of $872 million were
proposed for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 fiscal years. Economic performance in
the State continued to be sluggish after the 1992-93 Governor's Budget was
prepared. By the time of the "May Revision," issued on May 20, 1992, the
Administration estimated that the 1992-93 Budget needed to address a gap of
about $7.9 billion, much of which was needed to repay the accumulated
budget deficits of the previous two years.
The severity of the budget actions needed led to a long delay in
adopting the budget. With the failure to enact a budget by July 1, 1992,
the State had no legal authority to pay many of its vendors until the
budget was passed. Starting on July 1, 1992, the Controller was required
to issue "registered warrants" in lieu of normal warrants backed by cash to
pay many State obligations. Available cash was used to pay
constitutionally mandated and priority obligations, such as debt service on
bonds and revenue anticipation warrants. Between July 1 and September 4,
1992, the Controller issued an aggregate of approximately $3.8 billion of
registered warrants payable from the General Fund, all of which were called
for redemption by September 4, 1992 following enactment of the 1992-93
Budget Act and issuance by the State of $3.3 billion of interim notes.
The Legislature enacted the 1992-93 Budget Bill on August 29, 1992,
and it was signed by the Governor on September 2, 1992. The 1992-93 Budget
Act provided for expenditures of $57.4 billion and consisted of General
Fund expenditures of $40.8 billion and Special Fund and Bond Fund
expenditures of $16.6 billion. The Department of Finance estimated a
balance in the SFEU of $28 million on June 30, 1993.
The $7.9 billion budget gap was closed primarily through cuts in the
program expenditures (principally for health and welfare programs, aid to
schools and support for higher education), together with some increases in
revenues from accelerated collections and changes in tax laws to confirm to
Federal law changes, and a variety of on-time inter-fund transfers and
deferrals. The other major component of the budget compromise was a law
requiring local governments to transfer a total of $1.3 billion to K-12
school and community college districts, thereby reducing by that amount
General Fund support for those districts under Proposition 98.
In May 1993, the Department of Finance projected that the General Fund
would end the fiscal year on June 30, 1993 with an accumulated budget
deficit of about $2.8 billion, and a negative fund balance of about $2.2
billion (the difference being certain reserves for encumbrances and school
funding costs). As a result, the State issued $5 billion of revenue
anticipation notes and warrants.
The Governor's 1993-94 Budget, introduced on January 8, 1993, proposed
General Fund expenditures of $37.3 billion, with projected revenues of
$39.9 billion. It also proposed Special Fund expenditures of $12.4 billion
and Special Fund revenues of $12.1 billion. The 1993-94 fiscal year
represented the third consecutive year the Governor and the Legislature
were faced with a very difficult budget environment, requiring revenue
actions and expenditure cuts totaling billions of dollars to produce a
balanced budget. To balance the budget in the face of declining revenues,
the Governor proposed a series of revenue shifts from local government,
reliance on increased Federal aid and reductions in state spending.
The "May Revision" of the Governor's Budget, released on May 20, 1993,
indicated that the revenue projections of the January Budget Proposal were
tracking well, with the full year 1992-93 about $80 million higher than the
January projection. Personal income tax revenue was higher than projected,
sales tax was close to target, and bank and corporation taxes were lagging
behind projections. The May Revision projected the State would have an
accumulated deficit of about $2.75 billion by June 30, 1993. The Governor
proposed to eliminate this deficit over an 18-month period. He also agreed
to retain the 0.5% sales tax scheduled to expire June 30 for a six-month
period, dedicated to local public safety purposes, with a November election
to determine a permanent extension. Unlike previous years, the Governor's
Budget and May Revision did not calculate a "gap" to be closed, but rather
set forth revenue and expenditure forecasts and proposals designed to
produce a balanced budget.
The 1993-94 Budget Act was signed by the Governor on June 30, 1993,
along with implementing legislation. The Governor vetoed about $71 million
in spending. With enactment of the Budget Act, the State carried out its
regular cash flow borrowing program for the fiscal year, which included the
issuance of approximately $2 billion of revenue anticipation notes that
matured on June 28, 1994.
The 1993-94 Budget Act was predicated on General Fund revenues and
transfers estimated at $40.6 billion, about $700 million higher than the
January Governor's Budget, but still about $400 million below 1992-93 (and
the second consecutive year of actual decline). The principal reasons for
declining revenues were the continued weak economy and the expiration (or
repeal) of three fiscal steps taken in 1991--a half cent temporary sales
tax, a deferral of operating loss carry forwards, and repeal by initiative
of a sales tax on candy and snack foods.
The 1993-94 Budget Act also assumed Special Fund revenues of $11.9
billion, an increase of 2.9% over 1992-93.
The 1993-94 Budget Act included General Fund expenditures of $38.5
billion (a 6.3% reduction from projected 1992-93 expenditures of $41.1
billion), in order to keep a balanced budget within the available revenues.
The Budget also included Special Fund expenditures of $12.1 billion, a 4.2%
increase.
The 1993-94 Budget Act contained no General Fund tax/revenue increases
other than a two year suspension of the renters' tax credit.
Administration reports during the course of the 1993-94 fiscal year
indicated that while economic recovery appeared to have started in the
second half of the fiscal year, recessionary conditions continued longer
than had been anticipated when the 1993-94 Budget Act was adopted.
Overall, revenues for the 1993-94 fiscal year were about $800 million lower
than original projections, and expenditures were about $780 million higher,
primarily because of higher health and welfare caseloads, lower property
taxes which require greater State support for K-14 education to make up to
shortfall, and lower than anticipated Federal government payments for
immigration-related costs. The reports in May and June 1994, indicated that
revenues in the second half of the 1993-94 fiscal year were very close to
the projections made in the Governor's Budget of January 10, 1994, which
was consistent with a slow turn around in the economy.
The Department of Finance's July 1994 Bulletin, which included final
June receipts, reported that June revenues were $114 million (2.5%) above
projection, with final end-of-year results at $377 million (about 1%) above
the May Revision projections. Part of this result was due to the end-of-
year adjustments and reconciliations. Personal income tax and sales tax
continued to track projections. The largest factor in the higher than
anticipated revenues was from bank and corporation taxes, which were $140
million (18.4%) above projection in June.
During the 1993-94 fiscal year, the State implemented the Deficit
Retirement Plan, which was part of the 1993-94 Budget Act, by issuing $1.2
billion of revenue anticipation warrants in February 1994 that matured
December 21, 1994. This borrowing reduced the cash deficit at the end of
the 1993-94 fiscal year. Nevertheless, because of the $1.5 billion
variance from the original 1993-94 Budget Act assumptions, the General Fund
ended the fiscal year at June 30, 1994 carrying forward an accumulated
deficit of approximately $1.8 billion.
Because of the revenue shortfall and the State's reduced internal
borrowable cash resources, in addition to the $1.2 billion of revenue
anticipation warrants issued as part of the Deficit Retirement Plan, the
State issued an additional $2.0 billion of revenue anticipation warrants
that matured July 26, 1994, which were needed to fund the State's
obligations and expenses through the end of the 1993-94 fiscal year.
The 1994-95 fiscal year represented the fourth consecutive year the
Governor and Legislature were faced with a very difficult budget
environment to produce a balanced budget. Many program cost and budgetary
adjustments had already been made in the last three years. The Governor's
Budget Proposal, as updated in May and June 1994, recognized that the
accumulated deficit could not be repaid in one year, and proposed a two-
year solution. The budget proposal set forth revenue and expenditure
forecasts and revenue and expenditure proposals which estimated operating
surpluses for the budget for both 1994-95 and 1995-96, and lead to the
elimination of the accumulated budget deficit, estimated at about $1.8
billion at June 30, 1994, by June 30, 1996.
The 1994-95 Budget Act, signed by the Governor on July 8, 1994,
projected revenues and transfers of $41.9 billion, $2.1 billion higher than
revenues in 1993-94. This reflected the Administration's forecast of an
improving economy. Also included in this figure was the projected receipt
of about $360 million from the Federal government to reimburse the State's
cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants, most of which eventually was
not received.
The 1994-95 Budget Act projected Special Fund revenues of $12.1
billion, a decrease of 2.4% from 1993-94 estimated revenues.
The 1994-95 Budget Act projected General Fund expenditures of $40.9
billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the 1993-94 fiscal year. The
1994-95 Budget Act also projected Special Fund expenditures of $13.7
billion, a 5.4% increase over 1993-94 fiscal year estimated expenditures.
The 1994-95 Budget Act contained no tax increases. Under legislation
enacted for the 1993-94 Budget Act, the renters' tax credit was suspended
for two years (1993 and 1994). A ballot proposition to permanently restore
the renters' tax credit after 1995 failed at the June 1994 election. The
Legislature enacted a further one-year suspension of the renters' tax
credit, for 1995, saving about $390 million in the 1995-96 fiscal year.
The 1994-95 Budget Act assumed that the State would use a cash flow
borrowing program in 1994-95 which combines one-year notes and two-year
warrants, which were issued. Issuance of the warrants allows the State to
defer repayment of approximately $1.0 billion of its accumulated budget
deficit into the 1995-96 fiscal year. The Budget Adjustment Law enacted
along with the 1994-95 Budget Act is designed to ensure that the warrants
will be repaid in the 1995-96 fiscal year.
The Department of Finance Bulletin for April 1995 reported that
General Fund revenues for March 1995 were $28 million, or 1.1%, below
forecast, and that year-to-date General Fund revenues were $110 million, or
0.4%, below forecast.
Initial analysis of the Federal fiscal year 1995 budget by the
Department of Finance indicates that about $98 million was appropriated for
California to offset costs of incarceration of undocumented and refugee
immigrants, less than the $356 million which was assumed in the State's
1994-95 Budget Act.
For the first time in four years, the State enters the upcoming 1995-
96 fiscal year with strengthening revenues based on an improving economy.
On January 10, 1995, the Governor presented his 1995-96 Fiscal Year Budget
Proposal (the "Proposed Budget"). The Proposed Budget estimates General
Fund revenues and transfers of $42.5 billion (an increase of 0.2% over
1994-95). This nominal increase from 1994-95 fiscal year reflects the
Governor's realignment proposal and the first year of his tax cut proposal.
Without these two proposals, General Fund revenues would be projected at
approximately $43.8 billion, or an increase of 3.3% over 1994-95.
Expenditures are estimated at $41.7 billion (essentially unchanged from
1994-95). Special Fund revenues are estimated at $13.5 billion (10.7%
higher than 1994-95) and Special Fund expenditures are estimated at $13.8
billion (12.2% higher than 1994-95). The Proposed Budget projects that the
General Fund will end the fiscal year at June 30, 1996 with a budget
surplus in SFEU of about $92 million, or less than 1% of General Fund
expenditures, and will have repaid all of the accumulated budget deficits.
Recent Economic Trends. Revised employment data indicate that
California's recession ended in 1993, and following a period of stability,
a solid recovery is now underway. The State's unemployment rate fell
sharply last year, from 10.1% in January to 7.7% in October and November
1994. The gap between the national and California jobless rates narrowed
from 3.4 percentage points at the beginning of 1994 to an average of 2
percentage points in October and November. The number of unemployed
Californians fell by nearly 400,000 during the year, while civilian
employment increased more than 300,000 in 1994.
Other indicators, including retail sales, homebuilding activity,
existing home sales and bank lending volume all confirm the State's
recovery.
Personal income was severely affected by the Northridge Earthquake,
which reduced the first quarter 1994 figure by $22 billion at an annual
rate, reflecting the uninsured damage to residences and unincorporated
businesses. As a result, personal income growth for all of 1994 was about
4.2%. However, excluding the Northridge effects, growth would have been in
excess of 5%. Personal income is expected to grow 6.6% for 1995.
APPENDIX B
Description of S&P, Moody's and Fitch ratings:
S&P
Municipal Bond Ratings
An S&P municipal bond rating is a current assessment of the
creditworthiness of an obligor with respect to a specific obligation.
The ratings are based on current information furnished by the issuer
or obtained by S&P from other sources it considers reliable, and will
include: (1) likelihood of default-capacity and willingness of the obligor
as to the timely payment of interest and repayment of principal in
accordance with the terms of the obligation; (2) nature and provisions of
the obligation; and (3) protection afforded by, and relative position of,
the obligation in the event of bankruptcy, reorganization or other
arrangement under the laws of bankruptcy and other laws affecting
creditors' rights.
AAA
Debt rated AAA has the highest rating assigned by S&P. Capacity to
pay interest and repay principal is extremely strong.
AA
Debt rated AA has a very strong capacity to pay interest and repay
principal and differs from the highest rated issues only in a small degree.
A
Principal and interest payments on bonds in this category are regarded
as safe. This rating describes the third strongest capacity for payment of
debt service. It differs from the two higher ratings because:
General Obligation Bonds -- There is some weakness in the local
economic base, in debt burden, in the balance between revenues and
expenditures, or in quality of management. Under certain adverse
circumstances, any one such weakness might impair the ability of the issuer
to meet debt obligations at some future date.
Revenue Bonds -- Debt service coverage is good, but not exceptional.
Stability of the pledged revenues could show some variations because of
increased competition or economic influences on revenues. Basic security
provisions, while satisfactory, are less stringent. Management performance
appears adequate.
BBB
Of the investment grade, this is the lowest.
General Obligation Bonds -- Under certain adverse conditions, several
of the above factors could contribute to a lesser capacity for payment of
debt service. The difference between "A" and "BBB" rating is that the
latter shows more than one fundamental weakness, or one very substantial
fundamental weakness, whereas the former shows only one deficiency among
the factors considered.
Revenue Bonds -- Debt coverage is only fair. Stability of the
pledged revenues could show substantial variations, with the revenue flow
possibly being subject to erosion over time. Basic security provisions are
no more than adequate. Management performance could be stronger.
BB, B, CCC, CC, C
Debt rated BB, B, CCC, CC and C is regarded as having predominantly
speculative characteristics with respect to capacity to pay interest and
repay principal. BB indicates the least degree of speculation and C the
highest degree of speculation. While such debt will likely have some
quality and protective characteristics, these are outweighed by large
uncertainties or major risk exposures to adverse conditions.
BB
Debt rated BB has less near-term vulnerability to default than other
speculative grade debt. However, it faces major ongoing uncertainties or
exposure to adverse business, financial or economic conditions which could
lead to inadequate capacity to meet timely interest and principal payment.
B
Debt rated B has a greater vulnerability to default but presently has
the capacity to meet interest payments and principal repayments. Adverse
business, financial or economic conditions would likely impair capacity or
willingness to pay interest and repay principal.
CCC
Debt rated CCC has a current identifiable vulnerability to default,
and is dependent upon favorable business, financial and economic conditions
to meet timely payments of principal. In the event of adverse business,
financial or economic conditions, it is not likely to have the capacity to
pay interest and repay principal.
CC
The rating CC is typically applied to debt subordinated to senior debt
which is assigned an actual or implied CCC rating.
C
The rating C is typically applied to debt subordinated to senior debt
which is assigned an actual or implied CCC- debt rating.
D
Bonds rated D are in default, and payment of interest and/or repayment
of principal is in arrears.
Plus (+) or minus (-): The ratings from AA to CCC may be modified by
the addition of a plus or minus sign to show relative standing within the
major ratings categories.
Municipal Note Ratings
SP-1
The issuers of these municipal notes exhibit very strong or strong
capacity to pay principal and interest. Those issues determined to possess
overwhelming safety characteristics are given a plus sign (+) designation.
SP-2
The issuers of these municipal notes exhibit satisfactory capacity to
pay principal and interest.
Commercial Paper Ratings
An S&P commercial paper rating is a current assessment of the
likelihood of timely payment of debt having an original maturity of no more
than 365 days.
A
Issues assigned this rating are regarded as having the greatest
capacity for timely payment. Issues in this category are delineated with
the numbers 1, 2 and 3 to indicate the relative degree of safety.
A-1
This designation indicates that the degree of safety regarding timely
payment is either overwhelming or very strong. Those issues determined to
possess overwhelming safety characteristics are denoted with a plus sign
(+) designation.
A-2
Capacity for timely payment on issues with this designation is strong.
However, the relative degree of safety is not as high as for issues
designated A-1.
Moody's
Municipal Bond Ratings
Aaa
Bonds which are rated Aaa are judged to be of the best quality. They
carry the smallest degree of investment risk and are generally referred to
as "gilt edge." Interest payments are protected by a large or by an
exceptionally stable margin and principal is secure. While the various
protective elements are likely to change, such changes as can be visualized
are most unlikely to impair the fundamentally strong position of such
issues.
Aa
Bonds which are rated Aa are judged to be of high quality by all
standards. Together with the Aaa group they comprise what generally are
known as high-grade bonds. They are rated lower than the best bonds
because margins of protection may not be as large as in Aaa securities or
fluctuation of protective elements may be of greater amplitude or there may
be other elements present which make the long-term risks appear somewhat
larger than in Aaa securities.
A
Bonds which are rated A possess many favorable investment attributes
and are to be considered as upper-medium grade obligations. Factors giving
security to principal and interest are considered adequate, but elements
may be present which suggest a susceptibility to impairment some time in
the future.
Baa
Bonds which are rated Baa are considered as medium grade obligations,
i.e., they are neither highly protected nor poorly secured. Interest
payments and principal security appear adequate for the present but certain
protective elements may be lacking or may be characteristically unreliable
over any great length of time. Such bonds lack outstanding investment
characteristics and in fact have speculative characteristics as well.
Ba
Bonds which are rated Ba are judged to have speculative elements;
their future cannot be considered as well assured. Often the protection of
interest and principal payments may be very moderate, and therefore not
well safeguarded during both good and bad times over the future.
Uncertainty of position characterizes bonds in this class.
B
Bonds which are rated B generally lack characteristics of the
desirable investment. Assurance of interest and principal payments or of
maintenance of other terms of the contract over any long period of time may
be small.
Caa
Bonds which are rated Caa are of poor standing. Such issues may be in
default or there may be present elements of danger with respect to
principal or interest.
Ca
Bonds which are rated Ca present obligations which are speculative in
a high degree. Such issues are often in default or have other marked
shortcomings.
C
Bonds which are rated C are the lowest rated class of bonds, and
issues so rated can be regarded as having extremely poor prospects of ever
attaining any real investment standing.
Moody's applies the numerical modifiers 1, 2 and 3 to show relative
standing within the major rating categories, except in the Aaa category and
in categories below B. The modifier 1 indicates a ranking for the security
in the higher end of a rating category; the modifier 2 indicates a mid-
range ranking; and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the lower end of a
rating category.
Municipal Note Ratings
Moody's ratings for state and municipal notes and other short-term
loans are designated Moody's Investment Grade (MIG). Such ratings
recognize the differences between short-term credit risk and long-term
risk. Factors affecting the liquidity of the borrower and short-term
cyclical elements are critical in short-term ratings, while other factors
of major importance in bond risk, long-term secular trends for example, may
be less important over the short run.
A short-term rating may also be assigned on an issue having a demand
feature. Such ratings will be designated as VMIG or, if the demand feature
is not rated, as NR. Short-term ratings on issues with demand features are
differentiated by the use of the VMIG symbol to reflect such
characteristics as payment upon periodic demand rather than fixed maturity
dates and payment relying on external liquidity. Additionally, investors
should be alert to the fact that the source of payment may be limited to
the external liquidity with no or limited legal recourse to the issuer in
the event the demand is not met.
Moody's short-term ratings are designated Moody's Investment Grade as
MIG 1 or VMIG 1 through MIG 4 or VMIG 4. As the name implies, when Moody's
assigns a MIG or VMIG rating, all categories define an investment grade
situation.
MIG 1/VMIG 1
This designation denotes best quality. There is present strong
protection by established cash flows, superior liquidity support or
demonstrated broad-based access to the market for refinancing.
MIG 2/VMIG 2
This designation denotes high quality. Margins of protection are
ample although not so large as in the preceding group.
Commercial Paper Ratings
The rating Prime-1 (P-1) is the highest commercial paper rating
assigned by Moody's. Issuers of P-1 paper must have a superior capacity
for repayment of short-term promissory obligations, and will normally be
evidenced by leading market positions in well established industries, high
rates of return on funds employed, conservative capitalization structures
with moderate reliance on debt and ample asset protection, broad margins in
earnings coverage of fixed financial charges and high internal cash
generation, and well established access to a range of financial markets and
assured sources of alternate liquidity.
Issuers (or related supporting institutions) rated Prime-2 (P-2) have
a strong capacity for repayment of short-term promissory obligations. This
will normally be evidenced by many of the characteristics cited above but
to a lesser degree. Earnings trends and coverage ratios, while sound, will
be more subject to variation. Capitalization characteristics, while still
appropriate, may be more affected by external conditions. Ample alternate
liquidity is maintained.
Fitch
Municipal Bond Ratings
The ratings represent Fitch's assessment of the issuer's ability to
meet the obligations of a specific debt issue or class of debt. The
ratings take into consideration special features of the issue, its
relationship to other obligations of the issuer, the current financial
condition and operative performance of the issuer and of any guarantor, as
well as the political and economic environment that might affect the
issuer's future financial strength and credit quality.
AAA
Bonds rated AAA are considered to be investment grade and of the
highest credit quality. The obligor has an exceptionally strong ability to
pay interest and repay principal, which is unlikely to be affected by
reasonably foreseeable events.
AA
Bonds rated AA are considered to be investment grade and of very high
credit quality. The obligor's ability to pay interest and repay principal
is very strong, although not quite as strong as bonds rated AAA. Because
bonds rated in the AAA and AA categories are not significantly vulnerable
to foreseeable future developments, short-term debt of these issuers is
generally rated F-1+.
A
Bonds rated A are considered to be investment grade and of high credit
quality. The obligor's ability to pay interest and repay principal is
considered to be strong, but may be more vulnerable to adverse changes in
economic conditions and circumstances than bonds with higher ratings.
BBB
Bonds rated BBB are considered to be investment grade and of
satisfactory credit quality. The obligor's ability to pay interest and
repay principal is considered to be adequate. Adverse changes in economic
conditions and circumstances, however, are more likely to have an adverse
impact on these bonds and, therefore, impair timely payment. The
likelihood that the ratings of these bonds will fall below investment grade
is higher than for bonds with higher ratings.
BB
Bonds rated BB are considered speculative. The obligor's ability to
pay interest and repay principal may be affected over time by adverse
economic changes. However, business and financial alternatives can be
identified which could assist the obligor in satisfying its debt service
requirements.
B
Bonds rated B are considered highly speculative. While bonds in this
class are currently meeting debt service requirements, the probability of
continued timely payment of principal and interest reflects the obligor's
limited margin of safety and the need for reasonable business and economic
activity throughout the life of the issue.
CCC
Bonds rated CCC have certain identifiable characteristics, which, if
not remedied, may lead to default. The ability to meet obligations
requires an advantageous business and economic environment.
CC
Bonds rated CC are minimally protected. Default payment of interest
and/or principal seems probable over time.
C
Bonds rated C are in imminent default in payment of interest or
principal.
DDD, DD and D
Bonds rated DDD, DD and D are in actual or imminent default of
interest and/or principal payments. Such bonds are extremely speculative
and should be valued on the basis of their ultimate recovery value in
liquidation or reorganization of the obligor. DDD represents the highest
potential for recovery on these bonds and D represents the lowest potential
for recovery.
Plus (+) and minus (-) signs are used with a rating symbol to indicate
the relative position of a credit within the rating category. Plus and
minus signs, however, are not used in the AAA category covering 12-36
months or the DDD, DD or D categories.
Short-Term Ratings
Fitch's short-term ratings apply to debt obligations that are payable
on demand or have original maturities of up to three years, including
commercial paper, certificates of deposit, medium-term notes, and municipal
and investment notes.
Although the credit analysis is similar to Fitch's bond rating
analysis, the short-term rating places greater emphasis than bond ratings
on the existence of liquidity necessary to meet the issuer's obligations in
a timely manner.
F-1+
Exceptionally Strong Credit Quality. Issues assigned this rating are
regarded as having the strongest degree of assurance for timely payment.
F-1
Very Strong Credit Quality. Issues assigned this rating reflect an
assurance of timely payment only slightly less in degree than issues rated
F-1+.
F-2
Good Credit Quality. Issues carrying this rating have a satisfactory
degree of assurance for timely payments, but the margin of safety is not as
great as the F-1+ and F-1 categories.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS MARCH 31, 1995
PRINCIPAL
LONG-TERM MUNICIPAL INVESTMENTS-100.0% AMOUNT VALUE
------- -------
<S> <C> <C>
CALIFORNIA-97.6%
Alameda County, COP (Capital Projects) 6%, 6/1/2000......................... $ 500,000 $ 509,940
State of California, GO:
6%, 9/1/2001............................................................ 2,000,000 2,092,900
6.20%, 9/1/2002......................................................... 500,000 529,785
6.50%, 3/1/2005......................................................... 10,000,000 10,763,800
6.40%, 2/1/2006 (Insured; MBIA)......................................... 5,000,000 5,388,550
California Department of Water Resources, Water Systems Revenue
(Central Valley Project) 5.90%, 12/1/2005............................... 1,175,000 1,227,875
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, Revenue:
(Adventist Health System / West) 6.40%, 3/1/2002 (Insured; MBIA)........ 500,000 537,455
(Catholic Healthcare West):
4.50%, 7/1/2002....................................................... 2,500,000 2,346,275
4.70%, 7/1/2003....................................................... 2,500,000 2,366,975
(Downey Community Hospital):
5%, 5/15/2001......................................................... 2,250,000 2,140,380
5.10%, 5/15/2002...................................................... 2,500,000 2,355,750
5.20%, 5/15/2003...................................................... 2,500,000 2,345,175
(Marin General Hospital):
5.50%, 8/1/2001 (Insured; FSA)........................................ 1,580,000 1,621,443
5.60%, 8/1/2002 (Insured; FSA)........................................ 1,670,000 1,720,417
5.70%, 8/1/2003 (Insured; FSA)........................................ 1,760,000 1,821,160
Refunding (Saint Francis Memorial Hospital) 5.75%, 11/1/2003............ 1,130,000 1,141,357
California Housing Finance Agency, Revenue:
(Home Mortgage) 5.80%, 8/1/2003......................................... 1,135,000 1,137,860
(Multi-Unit Rental Housing) 6.50%, 8/1/2005............................. 500,000 516,170
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Revenue:
Pollution Control (Laidlaw, Inc.) 6.50%, 5/1/2002 (LOC; Bank of America) (a) 1,500,000 1,525,620
Solid Waste Disposal (North County Recycling Center)
6.20%, 7/1/2002 (LOC; Union Bank of Switzerland) (a).................. 2,000,000 2,063,280
California Public Capital Improvements Financing Authority, Revenue
(Joint Powers Agency-Pooled Projects) 8.25%, 3/1/1998................... 285,000 312,272
California Public Works Board, LR:
(Community Colleges) 5.90%, 9/1/1998.................................... 1,975,000 2,011,478
(Department of Corrections-Calipatria) 6.10%, 9/1/2003 (Insured; MBIA).. 1,000,000 1,062,760
Refunding:
(Department of Corrections-Del Norte) 4.50%, 12/1/2001................ 2,845,000 2,611,625
(Department of Corrections-State Prisons):
5%, 12/1/2001..................................................... 5,000,000 4,963,300
(Susanville) 5%, 6/1/2005......................................... 3,000,000 2,769,570
(Various Universities of California Projects) 5.10%, 6/1/2004..... 3,070,000 2,897,312
(Secretary of State) 6.10%, 12/1/2004 (Insured; AMBAC).................. 6,100,000 6,488,631
(Various Community College Projects ) 6%, 12/1/2008 (Insured; AMBAC).... 3,975,000 4,041,621
(Various Universities of California Projects ) 5.90%, 12/1/2003 (Insured; AMBAC) 1,000,000 1,050,390
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) MARCH 31, 1995
PRINCIPAL
LONG-TERM MUNICIPAL INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) AMOUNT VALUE
------- -------
CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED)
California Statewide Community Development Authority, LR
(Oakland Convention Centers Project) 6%, 10/1/2004 (Insured; AMBAC)..... $ 2,700,000 $ 2,849,958
Central Coast Water Authority, Revenue (Water Project)
6.15%, 10/1/2005 (Insured; AMBAC)....................................... 2,000,000 2,119,480
Central Valley Financing Authority, Cogeneration Project Revenue
(Carson Ice General Project) 5.70%, 7/1/2003............................ 2,000,000 1,957,380
Clovis Unified School District, Refunding 4.70%, 8/1/1997................... 3,000,000 2,997,840
Contra Costa County, COP (Merrithew Memorial Hospital Replacement)
6.20%, 11/1/2001........................................................ 1,145,000 1,172,205
Daly City, COP, Refunding:
5.30%, 6/1/2001 (Insured; MBIA)......................................... 1,170,000 1,181,536
5.30%, 6/1/2002 (Insured; MBIA)......................................... 1,230,000 1,236,445
Desert Sands, Unified School District, COP 4.75%, 3/1/2001.................. 7,030,000 6,610,660
East Bay Municipal Utility District, Water Systems Revenue, Refunding:
6%, 6/1/2004............................................................ 1,365,000 1,428,500
6%, 6/1/2005............................................................ 560,000 582,350
6.10%, 6/1/2006......................................................... 2,000,000 2,082,380
Encinitas Union School District, COP (Measure B Capital Projects):
4.875%, 9/1/2000........................................................ 1,000,000 968,290
5%, 9/1/2001............................................................ 1,000,000 970,070
Escondido Joint Powers Financing Authority, LR (Escondido Civic Center
Project)
6%, 9/1/2005 (Insured; AMBAC)........................................... 1,400,000 1,461,908
Fairfield Public Financing Authority, Revenue (Fairfield Redevelopment
Projects):
4.70%, 8/1/2002 (Insured; CGIC)......................................... 1,525,000 1,461,835
4.80%, 8/1/2003 (Insured; CGIC)......................................... 1,910,000 1,828,825
Fontana Redevelopment Agency, Tax Allocation, Refunding
(Jurupa Hills Redevelopment Project) 6.90%, 10/1/2002................... 435,000 444,165
Garden Grove Agency, Community Development, Tax Allocation, Refunding
(Garden Grove Community Project):
5.20%, 10/1/2001...................................................... 1,225,000 1,190,173
5.30%, 10/1/2002...................................................... 1,285,000 1,242,582
Industry Urban Development Agency, Tax Allocation, Refunding
(Civic Recreation Project No. 1) 5.40%, 5/1/2002 (Insured; MBIA)........ 2,500,000 2,542,500
Long Beach, COP (Fleet Services Project) 6.10%, 5/1/2001.................... 500,000 525,575
Long Beach Harbor, Revenue:
4.50%, 5/15/2001........................................................ 5,000,000 4,780,300
4.50%, 5/15/2002........................................................ 5,240,000 4,943,154
City of Los Angeles:
(Judgment Obligation):
5%, 8/1/2001.......................................................... 4,400,000 4,362,028
5%, 8/1/2002.......................................................... 3,000,000 2,952,810
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) MARCH 31, 1995
PRINCIPAL
LONG-TERM MUNICIPAL INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) AMOUNT VALUE
------- -------
CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED)
City of Los Angeles (continued):
Revenue:
Harbor Department 6%, 8/1/2006........................................ $ 1,320,000 $ 1,353,026
Home Mortgage 9.875%, 12/1/2004....................................... 55,000 56,346
Mortgage, Refunding:
5.75%, 7/1/2002 (Insured; MBIA)................................... 1,000,000 1,019,470
5%, 1/1/2005 (Insured; MBIA)...................................... 980,000 935,479
Wastewater System:
5.90%, 6/1/2003 (Insured; AMBAC).................................. 1,000,000 1,048,040
6%, 6/1/2004 (Insured; AMBAC)..................................... 1,000,000 1,053,930
Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Authority, LR, Refunding
4.90%, 8/15/2005 (Insured; MBIA)........................................ 2,190,000 2,072,112
Los Angeles County, COP:
(Edmund D. Edelman Children's Court):
5.80%, 4/1/2001 (Insured; AMBAC)...................................... 500,000 520,250
6%, 4/1/2003 (Insured; AMBAC)......................................... 500,000 526,910
(Hospital Information System-LAC-USU Medical Center) 5.90%, 12/1/1997... 400,000 407,260
(Marina Del Ray):
5.50%, 7/1/1997....................................................... 5,155,000 5,142,628
6.25%, 7/1/2003....................................................... 10,000,000 10,011,500
(Multiple Capital Facilities Project II) 7%, 3/1/2003................... 1,000,000 1,066,610
Los Angeles County Capital Asset Leasing Corporation, Leasehold Revenue,
Refunding
5.75%, 12/1/2004 (Insured; AMBAC)....................................... 2,600,000 2,659,748
Los Angeles County Transportation Commission:
COP 5%, 7/1/1996........................................................ 1,500,000 1,495,215
Sales Tax Revenue, Refunding:
5.75%, 7/1/2001 (Insured; FGIC)....................................... 1,250,000 1,299,000
6%, 7/1/2004 (Insured; FGIC).......................................... 2,000,000 2,108,600
Martinez Unified School District, Refunding:
5.25%, 8/1/2001......................................................... 1,030,000 1,021,173
5.50%, 8/1/2003......................................................... 1,170,000 1,170,597
5.75%, 8/1/2004......................................................... 1,240,000 1,259,133
Mojave Water Agency (Improvement District M-Morongo Basin):
5.875%, 9/1/1999........................................................ 690,000 694,271
6%, 9/1/2000............................................................ 730,000 732,679
New Haven Unified School District, COP, Refunding 5.15%, 7/1/2000........... 4,090,000 3,983,333
Northern California Power Agency, Public Power Revenue, Refunding:
(Geothermal Project) 5.50%, 7/1/2005
(GIC: Bayerische Landesbank and Sanwa Bank) .......................... 5,000,000 4,903,700
(Hydroelectric Power Project):
5.75%, 7/1/2001 (Insured; MBIA)....................................... 1,210,000 1,257,432
5.80%, 7/1/2002 (Insured; MBIA)....................................... 570,000 594,225
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) MARCH 31, 1995
PRINCIPAL
LONG-TERM MUNICIPAL INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) AMOUNT VALUE
------- -------
CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED)
Oakland Redevelopment Agency, Refunding
(Central District Redevelopment-Senior Tax Allocation):
5.65%, 2/1/2003 (Insured; AMBAC)...................................... $ 1,500,000 $ 1,544,790
5.75%, 2/1/2004 (Insured; AMBAC)...................................... 1,500,000 1,551,270
Pasadena, COP, Refunding (Capital Project):
5.90%, 1/1/2002......................................................... 250,000 254,283
6%, 1/1/2003............................................................ 400,000 408,896
Port Oakland, Revenue:
Port:
5.50%, 11/1/1999 (Insured; MBIA)...................................... 1,000,000 1,014,070
6.10%, 11/1/2003 (Insured; MBIA)...................................... 1,245,000 1,305,034
Special Facilities (Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd.)
6.40%, 1/1/2003 (LOC; Industrial Bank of Japan) (a)................... 1,000,000 1,028,120
Riverside County:
Asset Leasing Corp., Leasehold Revenue (Riverside County Hospital
Project)
5.90%, 6/1/2002....................................................... 3,000,000 2,994,510
Housing Authority, MFHR, Refunding (El Dorado Apartments Project)
5.40%, 6/1/2003....................................................... 7,600,000 7,418,208
Transportation Commission, Sales Tax Revenue:
5.30%, 6/1/2002 (Insured; AMBAC)...................................... 2,500,000 2,528,000
5.40%, 6/1/2003 (Insured; AMBAC)...................................... 4,000,000 4,052,360
Sacramento County, MFHR (Parcwood Apartments) 4.90%, 9/1/1997............... 2,000,000 1,981,740
San Bernardino County, COP (West Valley Detention Center)
5.90%, 11/1/2001 (Insured; MBIA)........................................ 1,000,000 1,049,330
San Diego County Water Authority, Water Revenue, COP, Refunding:
5.30%, 5/1/2002 (Insured; FGIC)......................................... 3,000,000 3,033,360
5.40%, 5/1/2003 (Insured; FGIC)......................................... 2,000,000 2,026,020
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Sales Tax Revenue,
Subordinated Notes
4.60%, 7/1/1997 (Insured; AMBAC)........................................ 2,000,000 2,001,540
San Francisco City and County Airports Commission, International Airport
Revenue,
Refunding 6.20%, 5/1/2004............................................... 500,000 533,565
San Francisco Unified School District, COP, Refunding 5.70%, 9/1/2003 (Insured; MBIA) 1,000,000 1,025,440
San Joaquin County, COP (General Hospital Project):
5.70%, 9/1/2001......................................................... 2,250,000 2,201,490
5.80%, 9/1/2002......................................................... 2,250,000 2,199,600
City of Santa Cruz, COP, Refunding (1992 Refunding Project):
5.875%, 5/1/1998........................................................ 500,000 508,905
6%, 5/1/1999............................................................ 500,000 512,305
Santa Maria Redevelopment Agency, Revenue, Refunding
(Town Center and West Side Parking Facilities) 4.625%, 6/1/2001 (Insured; FSA) 2,665,000 2,564,450
Sierra View Local Hospital District, Health Facility Revenue:
5.80%, 3/1/2002 (Guaranteed by; State of California).................... 500,000 500,530
5.90%, 3/1/2003 (Guaranteed by; State of California).................... 755,000 756,132
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) MARCH 31, 1995
PRINCIPAL
LONG-TERM MUNICIPAL INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED) AMOUNT VALUE
------- -------
CALIFORNIA (CONTINUED)
Southern California Public Power Authority, Transmission Project Revenue,
Refunding
(Southern Transmission Project) 5.625%, 7/1/2003........................ $ 1,800,000 $ 1,845,774
Southern California Rapid Transit District, Revenue
(Special Benefit Assessment District No. A1) 5.75%, 9/1/2005 (Insured; AMBAC) 8,750,000 9,026,238
Watsonville Mammoth Lakes, COP 7.50%, 6/1/1999.............................. 65,000 64,984
U.S. RELATED-2.4%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Improvement Revenue, Refunding 5.10%, 7/1/2002. 2,000,000 1,953,020
Guam Airport Authority, Revenue 5.80%, 10/1/1999............................ 1,705,000 1,706,995
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority, Guaranteed Public Education and
Health Facilities
6.60%, 7/1/2004 (Prerefunded 7/1/2002) (b).............................. 500,000 552,055
Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority, Revenue, Refunding 6.60%, 10/1/1998 1,530,000 1,578,501
-------
TOTAL LONG-TERM MUNICIPAL INVESTMENTS
(cost $236,323,645)..................................................... $236,368,257
===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUMMARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
<S> <C> <S> <C>
AMBAC American Municipal Bond Assurance Corporation GO General Obligation
CGIC Capital Guaranty Insurance Corporation LOC Letter of Credit
COP Certificate of Participation LR Lease Revenue
FGIC Financial Guaranty Insurance Company MBIA Municipal Bond Investors Assurance Insurance
FSA Financial Security Assurance Corporation
GIC Guaranteed Investment Contract MFHR Multi-Family Housing Revenue
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUMMARY OF COMBINED RATINGS (UNAUDITED)
FITCH (C) OR MOODY'S OR STANDARD & POOR'S PERCENTAGE OF VALUE
----- ----- ---------- ------------
<S> <C> <S> <C>
AAA Aaa AAA 43.0%
AA Aa AA 15.1
A A A 32.3
BBB Baa BBB 2.5
Not Rated (d) Not Rated (d) Not Rated (d) 7.1
____
100.0%
======
</TABLE>
NOTES TO STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS:
(a) Secured by letters of credit.
(b) Bonds which are prerefunded are collateralized by U.S. Government
securities which are held in escrow and are used to pay principal and
interest on the municipal issue and to retire the bonds in full at the
earliest refunding date.
(c) Fitch currently provides creditworthiness information for a limited
number of investments.
(d) Securities which, while not rated by Fitch, Moody's or Standard &
Poor's, have been determined by the Manager to be of comparable quality
to those securities in which the Fund may invest.
See notes to financial statements.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MARCH 31, 1995
<S> <C> <C>
ASSETS:
Investments in securities, at value
(cost $236,323,645)-see statement..................................... $236,368,257
Receivable for investment securities sold............................... 3,389,069
Interest receivable..................................................... 3,347,261
Prepaid expenses........................................................ 26,480
-----------
243,131,067
LIABILITIES:
Due to The Dreyfus Corporation.......................................... $ 51,089
Due to Custodian........................................................ 2,980,256
Payable for shares of Beneficial Interest redeemed...................... 68,521
Accrued expenses and other liabilities.................................. 82,717 3,182,583
------ ---------
NET ASSETS ................................................................ $239,948,484
==============
REPRESENTED BY:
Paid-in capital......................................................... $248,137,705
Accumulated net realized (loss) on investments.......................... (8,233,833)
Accumulated net unrealized appreciation on investments-Note 3........... 44,612
---------
NET ASSETS at value applicable to 18,423,889 shares outstanding
(unlimited number of $.001 par value shares of Beneficial Interest
authorized)............................................................. $239,948,484
===============
NET ASSET VALUE, offering and redemption price per share
($239,948,484 / 18,423,889 shares)...................................... $13.02
=======
See notes to financial statements.
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1995
<S> <C> <C>
INVESTMENT INCOME:
INTEREST INCOME......................................................... $14,605,039
EXPENSES:
Management fee-Note 2(a).............................................. $ 1,608,398
Shareholder servicing costs-Note 2(b)................................. 354,788
Professional fees..................................................... 41,743
Custodian fees........................................................ 32,763
Trustees' fees and expenses-Note 2(c)................................. 25,895
Prospectus and shareholders' reports.................................. 16,056
Registration fees..................................................... 6,155
Miscellaneous......................................................... 41,483
------
2,127,281
Less-reduction in management fee due to
undertakings-Note 2(a)............................................ 1,265,273
--------
TOTAL EXPENSES.................................................. 862,008
-------
INVESTMENT INCOME-NET........................................... 13,743,031
REALIZED AND UNREALIZED (LOSS) ON INVESTMENTS:
Net realized (loss) on investments-Note 3............................... $(8,206,327)
Net unrealized appreciation on investments....................... 4,986,720
--------
NET REALIZED AND UNREALIZED (LOSS) ON INVESTMENTS............... (3,219,607)
---------
NET INCREASE IN NET ASSETS RESULTING FROM OPERATIONS........................ $10,523,424
===========
See notes to financial statements.
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
----------------
1994 1995
------- -------
<S> <C> <C>
OPERATIONS:
Investment income-net................................................... $ 13,486,373 $ 13,743,031
Net realized (loss) on investments...................................... (18,793) (8,206,327)
Net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments for the year.. (9,616,969) 4,986,720
-------- -------
NET INCREASE IN NET ASSETS RESULTING FROM OPERATIONS.................. 3,850,611 10,523,424
-------- -------
DIVIDENDS TO SHAREHOLDERS:
From investment income-net.............................................. (13,486,373) (13,743,031)
In excess of net realized gain on investments........................... (6,314) --
------- -------
TOTAL DIVIDENDS....................................................... (13,492,687) (13,743,031)
------- -------
BENEFICIAL INTEREST TRANSACTIONS:
Net proceeds from shares sold........................................... 282,941,979 125,817,911
Dividends reinvested.................................................... 10,372,642 9,983,535
Cost of shares redeemed................................................. (151,024,758) (185,996,730)
------- -------
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS FROM BENEFICIAL INTEREST TRANSACTIONS 142,289,863 (50,195,284)
------- -------
TOTAL INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS........................... 132,647,787 (53,414,891)
NET ASSETS:
Beginning of year....................................................... 160,715,588 293,363,375
------- -------
End of year............................................................. $293,363,375 $239,948,484
======== =========
SHARES SHARES
------- -------
CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS:
Shares sold............................................................. 20,646,813 9,727,979
Shares issued for dividends reinvested.................................. 758,642 773,219
Shares redeemed......................................................... (11,042,081) (14,507,181)
------- -------
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN SHARES OUTSTANDING......................... 10,363,374 (4,005,983)
========== ==========
See notes to financial statements.
</TABLE>
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Reference is made to Page ___ of the Fund's Propsectus dated August 1, 1995
(as Revises August 22, 1995).
See notes to financial statements.
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 1-SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES:
The Fund is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("Act")
as a non-diversified open- end management investment company. Dreyfus Service
Corporation, until August 24, 1994, acted as the exclusive distributor of the
Fund's shares, which are sold to the public without a sales charge. Dreyfus
Service Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Dreyfus Corporation
("Manager"). Effective August 24, 1994, the Manager became a direct
subsidiary of Mellon Bank, N.A.
On August 24, 1994, Premier Mutual Fund Service, Inc. (the "Distributor")
was engaged as the Fund's distributor. The Distributor, located at One
Exchange Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Institutional Administration Services, Inc., a provider of mutual fund
administration services, the parent company of which is Boston Institutional
Group, Inc.
(A) PORTFOLIO VALUATION: The Fund's investments are valued each business
day by an independent pricing service ("Service") approved by the Board of
Trustees. Investments for which quoted bid prices are readily available and
are representative of the bid side of the market in the judgment of the
Service are valued at the mean between the quoted bid prices (as obtained by
the Service from dealers in such securities) and asked prices (as calculated
by the Service based upon its evaluation of the market for such securities).
Other investments (which constitute a majority of the portfolio securities)
are carried at fair value as determined by the Service, based on methods
which include consideration of: yields or prices of municipal securities of
comparable quality, coupon, maturity and type; indications as to values from
dealers; and general market conditions.
(B) SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS AND INVESTMENT INCOME: Securities
transactions are recorded on a trade date basis. Realized gain and loss from
securities transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis. Interest
income, adjusted for amortization of premiums and original issue discounts on
investments, is earned from settlement date and recognized on the accrual
basis. Securities purchased or sold on a when-issued or delayed-delivery
basis may be settled a month or more after the trade date.
The Fund follows an investment policy of investing primarily in municipal
obligations of one state. Economic changes affecting the state and certain of
its public bodies and municipalities may affect the ability of issuers within
the state to pay interest on, or repay principal of, municipal obligations
held by the Fund.
(C) DIVIDENDS TO SHAREHOLDERS: It is the policy of the Fund to declare
dividends daily from investment income-net. Such dividends are paid monthly.
Dividends from net realized capital gain, if any, are normally declared and
paid annually, but the Fund may make distributions on a more frequent basis
to comply with the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. To
the extent that net realized capital gain can be offset by capital loss
carryovers, it is the policy of the Fund not to distribute such gain.
(D) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES: It is the policy of the Fund to continue to
qualify as a regulated investment company, which can distribute tax exempt
dividends, by complying with the applicable provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code, and to make distributions of income and net realized capital
gain sufficient to relieve it from substantially all Federal income and
excise taxes.
The Fund has an unused capital loss carryover of approximately $2,551,000
available for Federal income tax purposes to be applied against future net
securities profit, if any, realized subsequent to March 31, 1995. The
carryover does not include net realized securities losses from November 1,
1994 through March 31, 1995 which are treated, for Federal income tax
purposes, as arising in fiscal 1996. If
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
not applied, the carryover expires in fiscal 2003.
NOTE 2-MANAGEMENT FEE AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES:
(A) Pursuant to a management agreement ("Agreement") with the Manager,
the management fee is computed at the annual rate of .60 of 1% of the average
daily value of the Fund's net assets and is payable monthly. The Agreement
provides for an expense reimbursement from the Manager should the Fund's
aggregate expenses, exclusive of taxes, brokerage, interest on borrowings and
extraordinary expenses, exceed the expense limitation of any state having
jurisdiction over the Fund for any full fiscal year. The most stringent state
expense limitation applicable to the Fund presently requires reimbursement of
expenses in any full fiscal year that such expenses (excluding certain
expenses as described above) exceed 2 1/2% of the first $30 million, 2% of
the next $70 million and 1 1/2% of the excess over $100 million of the
average value of the Fund's net assets in accordance with California "blue
sky" regulations. However, the Manager had undertaken from April 1, 1994
through April 13, 1995, to reduce the management fee paid by the Fund, to the
extent that the Fund's aggregate expenses (excluding certain expenses as
described above) exceeded specified annual percentages of the Fund's average
daily net assets. The reduction in management fee, pursuant to the undertaking
s, amounted to $1,265,273 for the year ended March 31, 1995.
The Manager has currently undertaken from April 14, 1995 through June 30,
1995 or until such time as the net assets of the Fund exceed $375 million,
regardless of whether they remain at that level, whichever occurs sooner, to
waive receipt of the management fee payable to it by the Fund in excess of an
annual rate of .35 of 1% of the average daily value of the Funds' net assets.
(B) Pursuant to the Fund's Shareholder Services Plan, the Fund reimburses
Dreyfus Service Corporation an amount not to exceed an annual rate of .25 of
1% of the value of the Fund's average daily net assets for servicing
shareholder accounts. The services provided may include personal services
relating to shareholder accounts, such as answering shareholder inquiries
regarding the Fund and providing reports and other information, and services
related to the maintenance of shareholder accounts. During the year ended
March 31, 1995, the Fund was charged an aggregate of $158,620 pursuant to the
Shareholder Service Plan.
(C) Prior to August 24, 1994, certain officers and trustees of the Fund
were "affiliated persons," as defined in the Act, of the Manager and/or
Dreyfus Service Corporation. Each trustee who is not an "affiliated person"
receives an annual fee of $1,500 and an attendance fee of $500 per meeting.
Prior to August 10, 1994, the attendance fee was $250 per meeting. The
Chairman of the Board receives an additional 25% of such compensation.
NOTE 3-SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS:
The aggregate amount of purchases and sales of investment securities
amounted to $128,295,021 and $175,854,797, respectively, for the year ended
March 31, 1995, and consisted entirely of long-term and short-term municipal
investments.
At March 31, 1995, accumulated net unrealized appreciation on investments
was $44,612, consisting of $3,133,090 gross unrealized appreciation and
$3,088,478 gross unrealized depreciation.
At March 31, 1995, the cost of investments for Federal income tax
purposes was substantially the same as the cost for financial reporting
purposes (see the Statement of Investments).
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
REPORT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
SHAREHOLDERS AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
DREYFUS CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND
We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of
Dreyfus California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund, including the statement
of investments, as of March 31, 1995, and the related statement of operations
for the year then ended, the statement of changes in net assets for each of
the two years in the period then ended, and financial highlights for each of
the years indicated therein. These financial statements and financial
highlights are the responsibility of the Fund's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and
financial highlights based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and
financial highlights are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures
in the financial statements. Our procedures included confirmation of
securities owned as of March 31, 1995 by correspondence with the custodian.
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, 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 and financial highlights
referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of Dreyfus California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund at March 31,
1995, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in
its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the
financial highlights for each of the indicated years, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.
[Ernst and Young LLP signature logo]
New York, New York
May 2, 1995
