This Preliminary Official Statement and the information contained herein are subject to completion or amendment without notice. These securities may not be sold, nor may offers to buy them be accepted, prior to the time the Official Statement is delivered in final form. Under no circumstances shall this Preliminary Official Statement constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of, these securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration, qualification or filing under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. October __,2016. Texas, ascounseltotheUnderwriter. It is expectedthat the Bondswillbeavailable for deliverythroughthe facilities ofDTConorabout counsel toIDEA;byHaynesand Boone, LLP,ascounseltotheTrusteeandMasterTrustee;by McCall,Parkhurst&HortonL.L.P.,Dallas, legal matterswillbepassedupon byNaman,Howell,Smith&Lee,PLLC,ascounseltotheIssuer; byAndrewsKurthLLP,Houston,Texas,as certain mattersbytheAttorneyGeneral oftheStateandanopinionastolegalitybyAndrewsKurthLLP, Houston,Texas,BondCounsel.Certain particular attentiontothematerialundercaption“RISK FACTORS.” this entireOfficialStatementtoobtaininformationessential tothemakingofaninformedinvestmentdecision,andshouldpay purchased bythem.See“APPENDIX H—BOOK-ENTRYONLYSYSTEM .” will bemadeinbook-entryonlyformandpurchasersnotreceive physicalcertificatesrepresentingtheownershipinterestinBonds Company (“DTC”),NewYork,whichwillactassecuritiesdepositoryfor theBonds.PurchasesofbeneficialinterestsinBonds CLIFTON, ISPLEDGEDTOTHEPAYMENTOFPRINCIPAL ORINTERESTONTHEBONDS.ISSUERHASNOTAXINGPOWER. THE TAXINGPOWEROFSTATEORANYAGENCY ORPOLITICALSUBDIVISIONOFTHESTATE,INCLUDINGCITY CLIFTON, ISOBLIGATEDTOPAYTHEPRINCIPALOFORINTEREST ONTHEBONDSANDNEITHERFAITHCREDITNOR and hasnotaxingauthority. Education Agency.See“PLANOFFINANCE”andAPPENDIXB—IDEAANDTHECHARTERSCHOOLS.”maynotchargetuition additional campusesin August of 2017(collectively,the“CharterSchools”),all pursuant to one open-enrollmentcharter contract with the Texas charter schoolsattwenty-sixcampusesintheRioGrandeValley,AustinandSanAntonio,planstobeginoperations10 at5 Bonds (IDEAPublicSchools)Series2010A,and(iv)payingcostsofissuance.See“PLANOFFINANCE.”IDEAcurrentlyoperatesfifty-one Education RevenueBonds(IDEAPublicSchools)Series2009AandtheSanJuanHigherFinanceAuthority Revenue clauses (i)and(ii)arereferredtohereinasthe“Project”),(iii)refundingaportionofCityPharr,TexasHigherFinanceAuthority improvementsattheRiverviewCampus,EastsideCampusandRundberg(collectively Antonio CampusNo.10,and(ii) additional developmentoftheRioGrandeCityCampus,McAllenCampusNo.2,SanAntonio8,9and (i) the the benefitofholderscertainMasterNotes.See“SECURITYFORTHEBONDS.” June 6,2007,assupplemented(the“DeedofTrust”),whichencumberscertainpropertyIDEAinfavortheMasterTrusteefor notes entitledtothebenefitofMasterIndenture,“Notes”).IDEAexecutedaDeedTrustandSecurityAgreementdatedas aggregate principalamountof$438,535,000*(the“PriorMasterNotes”and,togetherwiththeSeries2016BNoteandanyadditionalpromissory related totheRefundedBonds(assuchtermsaredefinedherein),whichexpectedbepaidordefeasedwithproceedsofBonds) inthe promissory notesissuedbyIDEAthatareexpectedtobeoutstanding(excludingtheRegionsNoteandportionof notes out ofamountssecuredbytheexerciseremediesprovidedinLoanAgreement,BondIndentureandMasterIndenture. for thecreditoffundsandaccountsestablishedbyorunderBondIndenture(exceptRebateFund),(iv) in certaincircumstances, “Master Indenture”),betweenIDEAandRegionsBank,assuccessormastertrustee(theTrustee(iii) the moneyandinvestments held pursuant totheLoanAgreementandMasterTrustIndentureSecurityAgreement,datedasofMay 1, 2007, asamended(the promissorynote(the“Series2016BNote”)inanamountequaltotheprincipalofBondsdeliveredIssuer Agreement, (ii) a Agreement”). (the“Loan Public Schools,aTexasnon-profitcorporation(“IDEA”)pursuanttothetermsofLoanAgreementdatedasOctober1, 2016 between theIssuerandRegionsBank,astrustee(the“BondTrustee”).TheproceedsofBondswillbeloanedbytoIDEA delivery payablesemi-annuallyonFebruary 15 andAugust 15 ofeachyear,commencingFebruary 15, 2017, untilmaturityorearlierredemption. multiples thereof, and will mature on August 15 of the years as shown on the inside cover page. The Bonds will accrue interest from their date of willbeinauthorizeddenominationsof$5,000andintegral Schools) Series2016B(the“Bonds”).ThewillbedatedOctober 1, 2016, of theTexasEducationCode,asamendedfromtimeto(the“Act”),isissuingits$18,170,000*RevenueBonds(IDEAPublic Dated: October1,2016–Interestaccruesfromdateofdelivery for corporations. “TAX MATTERS”hereinforadiscussionoftheopinionBondCounsel,includingalternativeminimumtaxconsequences income taxpurposesunderexistinglawandisnotincludableinthealternativeminimumtaxableofindividuals.See with certaincovenantsandbasedonrepresentations,interesttheBondsisexcludablefromgrossincomeforfederal NEW ISSUE—BOOK-ENTRYONLY * Preliminary, subjecttochange. The Bondsareofferedwhen,asand ifissuedbytheIssuerandreceivedacceptedUnderwriter andsubjecttotheapprovalof This coverpagecontainscertaininformationforquickreference only.Itisnotasummaryofthisissue.Investorsmustread The Bondswillbeissuedasregisteredbondsinbook-entryonly forminthenameofCede&Co.,asnomineeTheDepositoryTrust NEITHER THESTATEOFTEXASNORAAGENCYORPOLITICAL SUBDIVISIONOFTHESTATE,INCLUDINGCITY IDEA willissuetheBondsandSeries2016A(definedherein)forpurposeoffinancingand/orrefinancingalloraportion of The Bondsaresubjecttoredemptionpriormaturity,asdescribedherein.See“THEBONDS—RedemptionProvisions.” The Series2016BNoteconstitutesadditionalindebtednessundertheMasterIndenture,andisissuedonparitywithcertain other paymentstobemadebyIDEApursuanttheLoan The BondsarespeciallimitedobligationsoftheIssuerpayablesolelyfrom(i) (the“BondIndenture”) The BondsarebeingissuedpursuanttoaTrustIndentureandSecurityAgreementdatedasofOctober1, 2016 The Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation (the “Issuer”), a non-profit corporation created and existing under Chapter 53 and 53A The deliveryoftheBonds(asdefinedbelow)issubjecttoopinionBondCounseleffectthat,assumingcompliance CLIFTON HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE CORPORATION PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED AUGUST 25, 2016
EDUCATION REVENUEBONDS (IDEA PUBLICSCHOOLS) SERIES 2016B $18,170,000* BAIRD
RATINGS: SEE“RATINGS”HEREIN Due: asshownoninsidecover
MATURITY SCHEDULE
CLIFTON HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE CORPORATION
$18,170,000* EDUCATION REVENUE BONDS (IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS) SERIES 2016B
$18,170,000* Serial Bonds
August 15 Principal Amount* Interest Rate (%) Yield (%) CUSIP No.(1) 2018 $ 685,000 187145 ____ 2019 1,340,000 187145 ____ 2020 1,390,000 187145 ____ 2021 1,470,000 187145 ____ 2022 1,525,000 187145 ____ 2023 1,610,000 187145 ____ 2024 1,695,000 187145 ____ 2025 1,840,000 187145 ____ 2026 2,015,000 187145 ____ 2027 2,195,000 187145 ____ 2028 2,405,000 187145 ____
* Preliminary, subject to change. C Yield to the first call date at par. (1) CUSIP® is a registered trademark of the American Bankers Association. CUSIP data herein is provided by CUSIP Global Services managed by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC on behalf of the American Bankers Association. This data is not intended to create a database and does not serve in any way as a substitute for the CUSIP Global Services. CUSIP numbers have been assigned by an independent company not affiliated with the Issuer, IDEA or the Underwriter and are included solely for the convenience of the holders of the Bonds. None of the Issuer, IDEA or the Underwriter are responsible for the selection or uses of these CUSIP numbers, and no representation is made as to their correctness on the Bonds or as indicated above. The CUSIP number for a specific maturity is subject to being changed after the execution and delivery of the Bonds as a result of various subsequent actions including, but not limited to, a refunding in whole or in part of such maturity or as a result of the procurement of secondary market portfolio insurance or other similar enhancement by investors that is applicable to all or a portion of the Bonds. NOTICE TO INVESTORS OF THE BONDS
Purchasers of the Bonds or any interest therein, are hereby given notice as follows:
(a) The Bonds are special, limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from revenues to be derived by the Issuer under the Loan Agreement, the Series 2016B Note, and all money and investments held for the credit of the funds and accounts established by or under the Bond Indenture (except the Rebate Fund), and in certain events out of amounts secured through the exercise of the remedies provided in the Bond Indenture, the Loan Agreement the Master Indenture and the Deed of Trust. See “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS.” The Bonds will never be payable out of any funds of the Issuer except with the revenues and in the amounts described above. NEITHER THE STATE OF TEXAS NOR A STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE IS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS AND NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE OR ANY STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS.
(b) Neither the Issuer nor any director, officer or employee thereof takes any responsibility for, and the purchaser must not rely upon any of such parties, with respect to information appearing anywhere in this Official Statement, other than the information under the captions “THE ISSUER,” and “LEGAL MATTERS — Pending and Threatened Litigation — No Proceedings Against the Issuer” (the “Issuer’s Portion” of the Official Statement). None of such parties have participated in the preparation of this Official Statement except with respect to the Issuer’s Portion of this Official Statement.
(c) Regions Bank, in its capacities as Master Trustee and Bond Trustee, assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information concerning the Issuer or IDEA or any other party contained in this document or for any failure by the Issuer or IDEA or any other party to disclose events that may have occurred and may affect the significance or accuracy of such information.
(d) Each purchaser must review this entire Official Statement and the Appendices hereto, including the information relating to the sources of repayment of the Bonds, the Projects and IDEA (including financial and operating data). This Official Statement is not guaranteed as to its accuracy or completeness.
(e) Each purchaser must be able to bear the economic risk associated with a purchase of securities such as the Bonds and must have the knowledge and experience in business and financial matters, including the analysis of a participation in the purchase of similar investments, necessary so as to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Bonds on the basis of the information and review described herein.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
i No dealer, salesman, or other person has been authorized to give any information or to make any representation, other than the information contained in this Official Statement, in connection with the offering of the Bonds, and, if given or made, such information or representation must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the Issuer, IDEA, the Bond Trustee, the Master Trustee or the Underwriter. The information in this Official Statement is subject to change without notice, and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale hereunder will, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Issuer, IDEA, the Bond Trustee, the Master Trustee or the Underwriter since the date hereof. This Official Statement does not constitute an offer or solicitation in any jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not authorized, or in which any person making such offer or solicitation is not qualified to do so, or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such offer or solicitation. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Risk of Failure to Comply with Certain General ...... 1 Covenants ...... 16 Forward-Looking Statements ...... 1 State and Local Tax Exemption ...... 16 THE ISSUER ...... 2 Unrelated Business Income ...... 16 IDEA ...... 3 Secondary Market ...... 16 PLAN OF FINANCE ...... 3 Risk of Loss from Nonpresentment upon General – The Project ...... 3 Redemption ...... 17 Contemporaneous Financing ...... 4 Risk of Amendment ...... 17 Future Financings ...... 4 THE BONDS ...... 17 Project Construction ...... 4 Description ...... 17 ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ...... 5 Redemption Provisions ...... 17 RISK FACTORS ...... 5 SECURITY FOR THE BONDS ...... 19 Additional Bonds are Required to Complete General ...... 19 the Projects ...... 5 Master Notes and the Master Indenture ...... 19 Sufficiency of Revenues ...... 5 The Bond Indenture ...... 23 Dependence on State Payments that are Subject to The Loan Agreement ...... 24 Annual Appropriation and Political Factors ...... 6 Deed of Trust ...... 25 Operating History; Reliance on Projections ...... 6 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS*(1) ...... 27 Competition for Students ...... 7 STATE FUNDING FOR TRADITIONAL SCHOOL Nonrenewal or Revocation of Charter ...... 7 DISTRICTS ...... 28 Project Approvals, Construction Process and Background on State Funding for Traditional Completion of Construction ...... 8 School Districts ...... 28 Construction Costs and Completion of Construction 8 Local Funding for School Districts ...... 29 Factors Associated with Education ...... 9 State Funding for School Districts...... 29 Failure to Provide Ongoing Disclosure ...... 9 2006 Legislation ...... 31 State Financial Difficulties ...... 9 2013 Legislation ...... 31 Changes to Charter School Laws ...... 9 2015 Legislation ...... 31 Value of Facilities May Fluctuate ...... 10 Wealth Transfer Provisions ...... 32 Foreclosure Deficiency and Delays ...... 10 STATE OPEN-ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL Changes in the School Finance System ...... 10 FUNDING ...... 33 Key Personnel ...... 10 Background on State Open-Enrollment Charter School Special, Limited Obligations ...... 10 Funding ...... 33 Pledge of State Revenues ...... 11 Tier One Funding for Charter Schools ...... 33 Damage or Destruction of the Facilities ...... 11 Tier Two Funding and ASATR for Charter Schools 33 Federal Accountability ...... 11 State Facilities Funding for Charter Schools ...... 33 Limited Remedies After Default ...... 12 Timing of State Funding ...... 33 Charter Schools in General ...... 12 Foundation School Program Funding Schedule for Litigation ...... 12 Certain Open-Enrollment Charter Schools ...... 33 Environmental Regulation ...... 12 PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION ...... 33 Potential Effects of Bankruptcy ...... 13 Prior Litigation Relating to the Texas Public School Certain Matters Relating to Enforceability of the Master Finance System ...... 33 Indenture ...... 14 Possible Effects of Changes in Law on Public School Limited Security ...... 14 Obligations ...... 34 Additional Debt ...... 14 LEGAL MATTERS ...... 34 Enforcement of Remedies ...... 14 General ...... 34 Tax-Exempt Status of the Bonds ...... 15 Pending and Threatened Litigation ...... 35 Proposed Tax Legislation ...... 15 TAX MATTERS ...... 35 Tax-Exempt Status of IDEA ...... 15 Tax Exemption ...... 35 Proposed Tax Legislation ...... 36
ii Tax Accounting Treatment of Premium on the Bonds ...... 37 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT ...... 38 General ...... 38 Compliance with Prior Undertakings ...... 38 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ...... 38 RATINGS ...... 38 MISCELLANEOUS ...... 39 Underwriting ...... 39 Financial Advisor; Independent Management Consultant ...... 39 Additional Information ...... 39 Certification ...... 40 APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TEXAS CHARTER SCHOOL LAW ...... A APPENDIX B – IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS ...... B APPENDIX C – IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Environmental Assessments ...... C APPENDIX D – FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ...... D APPENDIX E – FORM OF BOND COUNSEL OPINION ...... E APPENDIX F – FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT ...... F APPENDIX G – EXCERPTS OF THE MASTER INDENTURE, THE BOND INDENTURE AND THE LOAN AGREEMENT ...... G APPENDIX H – BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY SYSTEM .... H
iii
REGARDING USE OF THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT
For purposes of compliance with Rule 15c2-12 of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, this document constitutes an official statement of the Issuer with respect to the Bonds that has been deemed “final” by IDEA as of its date, except for the omission of no more than the information permitted by Rule 15c2-12.
This Official Statement is being provided in connection with the sale of the Bonds referred to herein and may not be reproduced for use, in whole or in part, for any other purpose. The information set forth herein under the captions “THE ISSUER,” and “LEGAL MATTERS — Pending and Threatened Litigation — No Proceedings Against the Issuer” has been obtained from the Issuer. All other information set forth herein has been obtained from IDEA and other noted sources which are believed to be reliable, but it is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.
No dealer, salesman, or other person has been authorized to give any information or to make any representation, other than the information contained in this Official Statement, in connection with the offering of the Bonds, and, if given or made, such information or representation must not be relied upon as having been authorized by the Issuer, IDEA or the Underwriter. The information in this Official Statement is subject to change without notice, and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale hereunder will, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Issuer, IDEA or the Underwriter since the date hereof. This Official Statement does not constitute an offer or solicitation in any jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not authorized, or in which any person making such offer or solicitation is not qualified to do so, or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such offer or solicitation.
The Bonds have not been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in reliance upon an exemption from the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Master Indenture and the Bond Indenture have not been qualified under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended, in reliance upon exemptions contained in such acts. The registration or qualification of the Bonds in accordance with applicable provisions of securities laws of the states in which the Bonds have been registered or qualified, if any, and the exemption from registration or qualification in other states cannot be regarded as a recommendation thereof. Neither these states nor any of their agencies have passed upon the merits of the Bonds or the accuracy or completeness of this Official Statement. Any representation to the contrary may be a criminal offense.
IN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION, INVESTORS MUST RELY ON THEIR OWN EXAMINATION OF IDEA AND THE TERMS OF THE OFFERING, INCLUDING THE MERITS AND RISKS INVOLVED. THESE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN RECOMMENDED BY ANY FEDERAL OR STATE SECURITIES COMMISSION OR REGULATORY BODY, AND NO SUCH AUTHORITIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE ACCURACY OR DETERMINED THE ADEQUACY OF THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY MAY BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
IN CONNECTION WITH THIS OFFERING, THE UNDERWRITER MAY OVERALLOT OR EFFECT TRANSACTIONS WHICH STABILIZE OR MAINTAIN THE MARKET PRICE OF THE BONDS AT A LEVEL ABOVE THAT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE PREVAIL IN THE OPEN MARKET. SUCH STABILIZING, IF COMMENCED, MAY BE DISCONTINUED AT ANY TIME.
The Underwriter has provided the following sentence for inclusion in this Official Statement. The Underwriter has reviewed the information in this Official Statement in accordance with, and as part of, its responsibilities to investors under the federal securities laws as applied to the facts and circumstances of this transaction, but the Underwriter does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information.
iv CLIFTON HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE CORPORATION $18,170,000* EDUCATION REVENUE BONDS (IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS) SERIES 2016B
INTRODUCTION
General The purpose of this Official Statement is to provide certain information concerning the issuance and sale by the Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation (the “Issuer”) of its $18,170,000* Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2016B (the “Bonds”).
The Bonds are being issued pursuant to a Trust Indenture and Security Agreement dated as of October 1, 2016 (the “Bond Indenture”) between the Issuer and Regions Bank, as trustee (the “Bond Trustee”). The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the Issuer to IDEA Public Schools, a Texas non-profit corporation (“IDEA”), pursuant to the terms of a Loan Agreement dated as of October 1, 2016 (the “Loan Agreement”) between the Issuer and IDEA.
The Bonds are limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from (i) payments to be made by IDEA pursuant to the Loan Agreement and the Master Trust Indenture and Security Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, as amended (the “Master Indenture”), between IDEA and Regions Bank, as successor master trustee (the “Master Trustee”), (ii) a promissory note (the “Series 2016B Note”) in an amount equal to the principal amount of the Bonds delivered to the Issuer pursuant to the Loan Agreement and pursuant to the Master Indenture, (iii) the money and investments held for the credit of the funds and accounts established by or under the Bond Indenture (except the Rebate Fund) and (iv) in certain circumstances, out of amounts secured by the exercise of remedies provided in the Loan Agreement, the Bond Indenture and the Master Indenture.
The Series 2016B Note constitutes additional indebtedness under the Master Indenture, and is issued on parity with certain other promissory notes issued by IDEA that are expected to be outstanding (excluding the Regions Note and the portion of the promissory notes related to the Refunded Bonds (as such terms are defined herein), which are expected to be paid or defeased with proceeds of the Bonds) in the aggregate principal amount of $438,535,000* (the “Prior Master Notes” and, together with the Series 2016B Note and any additional promissory notes entitled to the benefit of the Master Indenture, the “Master Notes”). IDEA has executed a Deed of Trust and Security Agreement dated as of June 6, 2007, as supplemented (the “Deed of Trust”), which Deed of Trust encumbers certain property of IDEA in favor of the Master Trustee for the benefit of the holders certain of the Master Notes, including the Series 2016B Note. See “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS.”
The offering of the Bonds is made only by way of this Official Statement, which supersedes any other information or materials used in connection with the offer or sale of the Bonds. This Official Statement speaks only as of its date, and the information contained herein is subject to change. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Official Statement have the meanings provided in the Bond Indenture, the Master Indenture and the Loan Agreement, as applicable. Excerpts of those documents are attached hereto in APPENDIX G.
Forward-Looking Statements This Official Statement contains statements relating to future results that are forward-looking statements of the type defined in the Private Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in this Official Statement, the words “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “may,” “will,” “continue” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statement is subject to uncertainty and risks that could cause actual results to differ, possibly materially, from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Inevitably, some assumptions used to develop forward-looking statements will not be realized or unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, investors should be aware that there are likely to be differences between forward-looking statements and actual results, and that those differences could be material.
* Preliminary, subject to change.
1 THE ISSUER Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation is a public non-profit corporation created by the City of Clifton, Texas (the “Sponsoring Entity”) and existing as an instrumentality of the Sponsoring Entity pursuant to Chapters 53 and 53A of the Texas Education Code, as amended (the “Act”). Pursuant to the Act, the Issuer is authorized to issue revenue bonds and to lend the proceeds thereof to any accredited institution of higher education, secondary schools, and primary schools and to authorized charter schools for the purpose of aiding such schools in financing or refinancing “educational facilities” and “housing facilities” (as such terms are defined in the Act) and facilities which are incidental, subordinate, or related thereto or appropriate in connection therewith.
All of the Issuer’s property and affairs are controlled by and all of its power is exercised by a board of directors (the “Board”) consisting of seven members, each of whom has been appointed by the City Council of the Sponsoring Entity. Board members serve two-year terms, and each Board member may serve an unlimited number of two-year terms. Board members serve until their successors have been appointed as described above. All vacancies on the Board are filled by the City Council as described above. Further, while there is no requirement that the Board members reside within the corporate limits of the Sponsoring Entity, no officer or employee of the Sponsoring Entity may serve as a Board member.
The officers of the Issuer consist of a president, a vice president, a secretary, a treasurer and three assistant secretaries, each selected by the Board from among its members, whose terms of office may not exceed two years and whose duties are described in the Issuer’s bylaws. All officers are subject to removal from office, with or without cause, at any time by a vote of a majority of the entire Board. Vacancies may be filled by the Board.
Neither Board members nor officers receive compensation for serving as such, but they are entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing such service.
The Issuer has no assets, property, or employees. Other than legal counsel and a financial advisor, the Issuer has not engaged any consultant or other professional. THE ISSUER HAS NO TAXING POWER.
The Issuer is receiving a fee of approximately $15,000 in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. After provision has been made for expenses of the Issuer, the remaining amount is expected to be paid to the Sponsoring Entity and may be used by the Sponsoring Entity for any lawful purpose.
Except for the issuance of the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA, the Issuer is not in any manner related to or affiliated with IDEA. The Issuer has issued the Bonds and loaned the proceeds to IDEA pursuant to the Loan Agreement solely to carry out the Issuer’s statutory purposes. IDEA has agreed to indemnify the Issuer for certain matters under the Loan Agreement.
The directors of the Issuer are not personally liable in any way for any act or omission committed or suffered in the performance of the functions of the Issuer.
Neither the Issuer nor the Sponsoring Entity has assumed any responsibility for the matters contained herein except, in the case of the Issuer, solely as to matters relating to the Issuer contained under this caption and under the caption “LEGAL MATTERS – Pending and Threatened Litigation – No Proceedings Against the Issuer.” All findings and determinations by the Issuer and the Sponsoring Entity, respectively, are and have been made by each for its own internal uses and purposes. Notwithstanding its approval of the Bonds for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code, the Sponsoring Entity does not endorse in any manner, directly or indirectly, guarantee or promise to pay the Bonds from any source of funds of the Sponsoring Entity or guarantee, warrant or endorse the creditworthiness or credit standing of IDEA, or in any manner guarantee, warrant, or endorse the investment quality or value of the Bonds. The Bonds are payable solely as described in this Official Statement and are not in any manner payable wholly or partially from any funds or properties otherwise belonging to the Issuer. By its issuance of the Bonds, the Issuer does not in any manner, directly or indirectly, guarantee, warrant or endorse the creditworthiness or credit standing of IDEA or the investment quality or value of the Bonds. The Issuer has no taxing power.
2 IDEA IDEA is a Texas non-profit corporation incorporated on January 27, 2000 and an organization described under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). IDEA currently operates fifty-one charter schools at twenty-six campuses in the Rio Grande Valley, Austin and San Antonio, and plans to begin operations at ten schools at five additional campuses in August of 2017. Set forth below is a list of IDEA’s existing schools and schools in process (collectively, the “Charter Schools”) that were previously financed or are being financed with proceeds of the Bonds. The list excludes schools that are planned but have not yet been financed.
• Donna Campus, Donna, Texas (two schools) – Established 2000-01; • Frontier Campus, Brownsville, Texas (two schools) – Established 2006-07; • Quest Campus, Edinburg, Texas (two schools) – Established 2006-07; • Mission Campus, Mission, Texas (two schools) – Established 2008-09; • San Benito Campus, San Benito, Texas (two schools) – Established 2008-09; • San Juan Campus, San Juan, Texas (two schools) – Established 2009-10; • Alamo Campus, Alamo, Texas (two schools) – Established 2010-11; • Pharr Campus, Pharr, Texas (two schools) – Established 2010-11; • Edinburg Campus, Edinburg, Texas (two schools) – Established 2011-12; • Weslaco Campus, Weslaco, Texas (two schools) – Established 2011-12; • McAllen Campus, McAllen, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2012-13; • Brownsville Campus, Brownsville, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2012-13; • Carver Campus, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – Established as an IDEA operated school in 2012-13; • South Flores Campus, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2013-14; • Allan Campus, Austin Texas (two schools) – Established in 2013-14; • Monterrey Park Campus, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2014-2015; • Walzem Campus, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2014-15; • Weslaco Pike Campus, Brownsville, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2014-2015; • Eastside Campus, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2015-16; • Riverview Campus, Brownsville, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2015-16; • Rundberg Campus, Austin, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2015-16; • North Mission Campus, Mission, Texas (two schools) (initially established at the McAllen Campus) – Established in 2015-16; • Judson Campus, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2016-17; • Mays Campus, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2016-17; • Bluff Springs Campus, Austin, Texas (two schools) – Established in 2016-17; • Edinburg Palm Campus, Edinburgh, Texas (one school) – Established in 2016-17; • Rio Grande City Campus, Rio Grande, Texas (two schools) – To be established in 2017-18; • McAllen Campus No. 2, McAllen, Texas (two schools) – To be established in 2017- 18; • San Antonio Campus No. 8, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – To be established in 2017-18; • San Antonio Campus No. 9, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – To be established in 2017-18; and • San Antonio Campus No. 10, San Antonio, Texas (two schools) – To be established in 2017-18.
IDEA plans to pursue additional expansion beyond 2017-18. The Charter Schools operate (or, in the case of schools at the prospective campuses, are contemplated to operate) pursuant to a single open enrollment charter contract between IDEA and the Texas Education Agency under Chapter 12 of the Texas Education Code, Section 12.001 et seq. (the “Charter Schools Act”). IDEA’s Board of Directors is the governing body for all of the Charter Schools. For more information regarding IDEA and the Charter Schools, see generally “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS.”
PLAN OF FINANCE
General – The Project IDEA will issue the Bonds and the Series 2016A Bonds (defined below) for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing all or a portion of (i) the development of the Rio Grande City Campus, McAllen Campus No. 2, San
3 Antonio Campus No. 8, San Antonio Campus No. 9 and San Antonio Campus No. 10, and (ii) additional improvements at the Riverview Campus, Eastside Campus and Rundberg Campus (collectively clauses (i) and (ii) are referred to herein as the “Project”), (iii) refunding a portion of the City of Pharr, Texas Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2009A and the San Juan Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2010A, and (iv) paying costs of issuance. For more information including an estimated project breakdown, see “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — The Project.”
Contemporaneous Financing It is anticipated that shortly before the issuance of the Bonds, the Issuer will issue its Education Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A (the “Series 2016A Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $99,025,000. The proceeds from the Bonds and the Series 2016A Bonds are expected to be in an amount sufficient to allow IDEA to complete the Projects. The Series 2016A Bonds have priced and are scheduled to be issued on September 14, 2016.
In order to complete the Projects, IDEA will need the proceeds of the Series 2016A Bonds. Failure to issue the Series 2016A Bonds will result in not having sufficient funds to complete the Projects.
Future Financings In conjunction with its 2022-23 five year plan, IDEA anticipates issuing additional promissory notes over the next two years on parity with the then Outstanding Master Notes to finance up to $295 million of new construction for four new campuses in Austin, two new campuses in San Antonio, four new campuses in the Rio Grande Valley, three new campuses in El Paso, two new campuses in a new region in Texas and additional expansion of existing facilities. Such plans are tentative, subject to change, dependent upon IDEA’s ongoing ability to satisfy the coverage requirements for the issuance of additional Debt, subject to locating appropriate sites, subject to meeting IDEA’s internal expansion guidelines then applicable and other factors. The anticipated debt service associated with such future financing in 2017-18 and 2018-19 is reflected in the Historical and Projected Revenues and Expenses table (TABLE 14) included in APPENDIX B. Additionally, IDEA may renew a bank loan facility that expires on December 2017 to be used for interim financing. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — History and Growth Strategy — Prior and Future Financings.”
Project Construction IDEA has engaged Project Management Services, Inc., Austin, Texas (“PMSI”) to assist it with management of the construction process regarding the new construction portion of its projects. In that connection, PMSI is overseeing a competitive sealed proposal (“CSP”) process and/or a Construction Manager (“CM”) At-Risk to select a contractor for each campus site where construction will occur. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Project Construction.” Potential investors should note that there are risks associated with new construction, including the risk that actual construction costs may exceed the amount available to IDEA for construction purposes. See “RISK FACTORS — Construction Costs and Completion of Construction.”
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
4 ESTIMATED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS* The following table sets forth anticipated sources and uses of funds in connection with the plan of finance described above:
SOURCES OF FUNDS Series 2016A The Bonds Bonds(1) Total Principal Amount $ 18,170,000 $ 99,025,000 $ 117,195,000 Premium on the Bonds 2,829,409 19,041,857 21,871,266 Release of Existing Reserve Fund – 2,055,154 2,055,154 Equity Contribution 2,627 – 2,627 TOTAL $ 21,002,036 $ 120,122,011 $ 141,124,047
USES OF FUNDS Project Fund Deposit(2) $ 19,346,163 $ 74,497,913 $ 93,844,076 Refunding Escrow Deposit – 44,043,157 44,043,157 Reserve Fund Deposit 1,232,563 – 1,232,563 Costs of Issuance(3) 423,310 1,580,941 2,004,251 TOTAL $ 21,002,036 $ 120,122,011 $ 141,124,047
(1) The Series 2016A Bonds have priced and are expected to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $99,025,000 on September 14, 2016. “See “– Contemporaneous Financing” above. (2) A portion of the amounts in the Project Fund will be used to pay the Regions Note. (3) Includes a contingency amount, Underwriter’s discount, legal fees, printing fees and other costs of issuance.
RISK FACTORS This Official Statement contains summaries of pertinent portions of the Bonds, the Bond Indenture, the Master Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Deed of Trust, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement and other relevant documents. Such summaries and references are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of such documents. The following discussion of some of the risk factors associated with the Bonds is not, and is not intended to be, exhaustive, and such risks are not necessarily presented in the order of their magnitude.
Additional Bonds are Required to Complete the Projects In order to complete the Projects, it is anticipated that prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the Issuer will issue its Education Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A (the “Series 2016A Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $99,025,000. The Series 2016A Bonds have priced and are scheduled to be issued on September 14, 2016. In order to complete the Projects, IDEA will need the proceeds of the Series 2016A Bonds. Failure to issue the Series 2016A Bonds will result in not having sufficient funds to complete the Projects.
Sufficiency of Revenues The Bonds are payable solely from certain payments, revenues and other amounts derived by the Issuer pursuant to the Loan Agreement and the Series 2016B Note and are secured only by such revenues and a pledge of certain funds and accounts created under the Bond Indenture. Based on present circumstances, and based on its projections regarding enrollment, IDEA believes it will generate sufficient revenues for payment of debt service on the Bonds. However, IDEA’s charter contract may be revoked, or the bases of the assumptions used by IDEA to formulate its beliefs may otherwise change. No representation or assurance can be made that IDEA will continue to generate sufficient revenues to make payments under the Master Notes representing debt service on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA.
* Preliminary, subject to change.
5 Dependence on State Payments that are Subject to Annual Appropriation and Political Factors State charter schools such as those operated by IDEA may not charge tuition and have no taxing authority. Payments from the State that IDEA receives for educating students comprise the primary source of revenue generated by IDEA (approximately 77.7% for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2016). The amount of State payments IDEA receives is based on a variety of factors, including enrollment at the Charter Schools. The overall amount of education aid provided by the State in any year is also subject to appropriation by the State Legislature. The Legislature may base its decisions about appropriations on many factors, including the State’s economic performance. Further, because some public officials, their constituents, commentators and others have viewed charter schools as controversial, political factors may also come to bear on charter school funding, and such factors are subject to change. As a result, the Legislature may not appropriate funds, or may not appropriate funds in a sufficient amount, for IDEA to generate sufficient revenue to meet its operating expenses and to make payments under the Master Notes and thus debt service on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA. No liability would accrue to the State in such event, and the State would not be obligated or liable for any future payments or any damages. If the State were to withhold such State payments for any reason, even for a reason that is ultimately determined to be invalid or unlawful, IDEA could be forced to cease operations.
Operating History; Reliance on Projections IDEA’s ability to make payments under the Master Notes representing debt service payments on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA depends on its receipt of payments from the State. IDEA does not have a long-operating history at many of its campuses. Further, IDEA continues to undertake an aggressive expansion plan, whereby it intends to open five additional campuses (10 schools) in time for the 2017-18 school year and four to five additional campuses per year (with two schools per campus) in the foreseeable future. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — History and Growth Strategy.” The projections of revenues and expenses contained in APPENDIX B herein were prepared by IDEA with assistance from its Independent Management Consultant and have not been independently verified by any party. No feasibility studies have been conducted with respect to operations of IDEA pertinent to the Bonds. The projections prepared by IDEA are “forward-looking statements” and are subject to the general qualifications and limitations described under “INTRODUCTION — Forward-Looking Statements” with respect to such statements. The Underwriter has not independently verified such projections, and makes no representation and gives no assurances that such projections or the assumptions underlying them, are complete or correct. Further, the projections relate only to a limited number of fiscal years and consequently do not cover the entire period that the Bonds will be outstanding.
The projections are derived from the actual operations of IDEA and from assumptions made by IDEA about its future student enrollment and expenses. The projections assume increases in enrollment to 45,438 in the 2019-20 school year. The basis for such projections are the applications for admission for IDEA’s grades currently in operation, the addition of additional grades and the physical capacity of schools under construction or to be built with proceeds of the Bonds. There can be no assurance that the actual enrollment, revenues and expenses for IDEA will be consistent with the assumptions underlying the projections contained herein. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS” to review certain of the projections and to consider the various factors that could cause actual results to differ significantly from projected results. Refer to “INTRODUCTION — Forward- Looking Statements,” above, for qualifications and limitations applicable to forward-looking statements.
NO GUARANTEE CAN BE MADE THAT THE PROJECTED INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WILL CORRESPOND WITH THE RESULTS ACTUALLY ACHIEVED IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO ASSURANCE THAT ACTUAL EVENTS WILL CORRESPOND WITH THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY IDEA. ACTUAL OPERATING RESULTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY MANY FACTORS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DIFFICULTY WITH OR FAILURE OF IDEA’S GROWTH STRATEGY, INCREASED COSTS, LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED REVENUES (AS A RESULT OF INSUFFICIENT ENROLLMENT, REDUCED PAYMENTS FROM THE STATE OR OTHERWISE), EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, CHANGES IN TAX LAWS, CHANGES IN APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, CHANGES IN DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS, FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EDUCATION, COMPETITION FOR STUDENTS AND CHANGES IN LOCAL OR GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
THE PROJECTIONS ARE FROM IDEA, AND NEITHER THE ISSUER NOR THE UNDERWRITER HAS COMMISSIONED AN INDEPENDENT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF ANY OF THE PROJECTED STUDENT ATTENDANCE FIGURES UPON WHICH IDEA’S PROJECTIONS ARE BASED. NO
6 INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION OF IDEA’S PROJECTIONS HAS BEEN MADE, AND WHILE IDEA BELIEVES ITS PROJECTIONS ARE REASONABLE, SUCH GROWTH MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR AND MAY BE AFFECTED BY A VARIETY OF FACTORS. SEE “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Projected Revenues and Expenditures.”
Competition for Students IDEA currently serves students in the Rio Grande Valley, the tri-county area just north of the Texas- Mexico border extending from Roma to Brownsville, San Antonio, Texas and Austin, Texas and intends to expand into El Paso and another undetermined region in Texas. Potential purchasers should be aware that IDEA faces constant competition for students and there can be no assurance that IDEA will continue to attract and retain the number of students that are needed to generate revenues sufficient to pay the Master Notes and thus to make payment of debt service on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA.
Nonrenewal or Revocation of Charter IDEA initially entered into its open-enrollment charter contract with the Texas State Board of Education (the “State Board of Education”) in 2000 for an initial period through June 20, 2005. Although the charter contract has been renewed (for a period through July 31, 2025) and has been amended several times to add grade offerings and school sites and to increase IDEA’s maximum enrollment to 45,000, there can be no assurance that IDEA’s charter contract will continue to be renewed or that it will not be revoked. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Charter Contract.”
Once the Projects are complete, IDEA will have the physical capacity to accommodate up to 39,216 students.
Under State law, the Commissioner of Education (the “Commissioner”) is required to revoke the charter of, or modify the governance of the holder of a charter, of an open-enrollment charter school, or reconstitute the governing body of the charter holder, if the Commissioner determines that the charter holder: (i) committed a material violation of the charter, including failure to satisfy accountability provisions prescribed by the charter; (ii) failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management; (iii) failed to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the students enrolled at the school; (iv) failed to comply with any applicable law or rule; (v) failed to satisfy the performance framework standards adopted under Section 12.1181 of the Texas Education Code; or (vi) is imminently insolvent as determined by the Commissioner in accordance with Commissioner Rule. The taking of any such actions by the Commissioner could have a material adverse effect on the ability of IDEA to pay the Master Notes and thus to make payment of debt service on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA.
The Commissioner is required to revoke the charter of an open-enrollment charter school if for the three preceding school years (i) the charter holder has been assigned an unacceptable performance rating (“Accountability Rating”) under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code; (ii) the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating (“FIRST Rating”) under Subchapter D, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code indicating performance lower than satisfactory; or (iii) the charter holder has been assigned any combination of the ratings described in (i) or (ii).
Under State Law, the Commissioner is required to deny renewal of the charter of an open-enrollment charter school at the end of the term of a charter school if: (i) the charter holder has been assigned the lowest performance rating as its Accountability Rating for any three of the five preceding school years; (ii) the charter holder has been assigned a FIRST Rating that is lower than satisfactory for any three of the five preceding school years; (iii) the charter holder has been assigned any combination of the ratings described in (i) or (ii) for any three of the five preceding school years; or (iv) any campus operating under the charter has been assigned the lowest performance rating as its Accountability Rating for the three preceding school years and such campus has not been closed.
IDEA has not had an unsatisfactory Accountability Rating or First Rating at the district level in the last five years.
7 See “APPENDIX A — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TEXAS CHARTER SCHOOL LAW — GENERAL — CHARTER REVISION, REVOCATION, NON-RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION OF GOVERNANCE” and “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Charter Contract — Revocation, Nonrenewal, Modification of Governance and Automatic Revocation.” If IDEA’s charter contract is revoked or if the charter contract is not renewed in the future, IDEA could be forced to cease operations.
Project Approvals, Construction Process and Completion of Construction IDEA will use a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to finance the construction and renovation of facilities. For more information including an estimated breakdown of Project costs, see “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS – The Project.” IDEA expects to obtain all necessary approvals, consents, certificates and permits as needed in order to complete such construction in a timely manner. Any failure by IDEA to obtain such approvals, consents, certificates and permits could result in delay with respect to completion of construction and any such delay could adversely affect IDEA’s operations and its ability to generate revenues sufficient to pay the Master Notes and thus debt service on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA. The risks associated with any such delay are heightened by the fact that IDEA is relying on the new campuses and the expanded classroom space to accommodate its projected increased enrollment in the near term. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Enrollment.”
In order to mitigate the risks inherent in the construction process, including the risk of a failure to complete the Projects on time, IDEA has engaged Project Management Services, Inc., Austin, Texas (“PMSI”) to assist it with management of the construction process regarding the new construction portion of its Projects. In that connection, PMSI is overseeing a competitive sealed proposal (“CSP”) process and/or a Construction Manager (“CM”) At-Risk to select a contractor for each campus site where construction will occur. The CSP process entails, first, after the design phase is complete, the publication of a request for proposals (“RFP”) that includes relevant construction documents, details and selection criteria. Once RFP responses are received, a contractor for each campus site is selected (the same contractor may be selected for more than one campus site) based on which contractor is judged by IDEA, with assistance from PMSI, as providing the best value. After selection has been made, construction contracts and project elements are negotiated with the selected contractor(s). The CM At-Risk process provides IDEA with the capability of contracting with the contractor at an earlier stage of the design and the contractor providing a Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”) as a cost plus a fee contract arrangement.
IDEA expects PMSI to take certain measures (such as check pricing) to help ensure that the amount borrowed by IDEA for construction will be sufficient to finance the construction of the Projects to their full extent. IDEA has already negotiated the construction contracts (with respect to construction of the Project). However, unforeseen factors (entailing unforeseen costs) may arise, such as an overrun of allowance items, unexpected site problems, or delays due to the fault of IDEA, the selected contractor(s) or others that IDEA retains in connection with the Project. In such event, IDEA would plan first to scale back aspects of the Projects unrelated to classroom space. However, such excess costs could ultimately result in less classroom space than anticipated. Although IDEA intends for the contracts it enters into to place responsibility for such additional, unforeseen costs with the selected contractor(s), there can be no assurance that such contracts will completely protect IDEA against such additional costs or that remedies under such contracts could be exercised without significant delay. Therefore, there is a risk that construction will not be completed on time or as planned. This risk is heightened by the fact that IDEA is relying on the new campuses and the expanded classroom space to accommodate its projected increased enrollment in the near term. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — History and Growth Strategy” and “— Enrollment.”
Construction Costs and Completion of Construction If plans regarding the new construction component of the Projects result in construction costs that exceed the amount available to pay such costs, IDEA’s construction plans would have to be modified to lower construction costs, and there is a risk that the construction would not be completed or would not be completed as planned. In addition, unforeseen factors (entailing unforeseen costs) may arise, such as an overrun of allowance items, unexpected site problems, or delays due to the fault of IDEA, the selected contractor(s), or others that IDEA retains in connection with the Projects. Therefore, there is a risk that construction will not be completed on time or as planned. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Project Construction.” This risk may be heightened by the fact that IDEA is relying on campus expansion to accommodate growth at its existing
8 campuses. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — History and Growth Strategy” and “— Enrollment.”
Factors Associated with Education There are a number of factors affecting schools in general, including the Charter Schools, which could have an adverse effect on IDEA’s financial position and the ability of IDEA to generate sufficient revenues to pay the Master Notes and thus debt service on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA. These factors include, but are not limited to, IDEA’s ability to successfully execute its growth strategy; IDEA’s ability to attract and retain a sufficient number of students; increasing costs of compliance with federal or State regulatory laws or regulations, including, without limitation, laws or regulations concerning environmental quality, work safety and accommodating persons with disabilities; increasing operating costs of IDEA; changes in existing statutes pertaining to the powers of IDEA and legislation or regulations which may affect funding. IDEA cannot assess or predict the ultimate effect of these factors on its operations or financial results of operations.
Failure to Provide Ongoing Disclosure IDEA has previously entered into Continuing Disclosure Agreements, and, in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, will enter into a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2–12 (17 CFR Part 240, § 240.15c2–12) (the “Rule”). IDEA has previously failed to make certain required filings. Failure to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Agreements or the Rule could adversely affect the liquidity for the Bonds and their market price in the secondary market. See “CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT” and “APPENDIX F — FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.”
State Financial Difficulties Charter schools depend on revenues from the State for a large portion of their operating budgets. The availability of State funds for public education is a function of legal provisions affecting school district revenues and expenditures, the condition of the State economy and the biennial budget process. Decreases in State revenues may adversely affect education appropriations made by the Legislature. The Legislature bases its decisions about appropriations on many factors, including the State’s economic performance, and, because some public officials, their constituents, commentators and others have viewed charter schools as controversial, political factors may also come to bear on charter school funding. See “RISK FACTORS — Dependence on State Payments that are Subject to Annual Appropriation and Political Factors” above.
Any future decreases in State revenues or increases in State expenditures may adversely affect education appropriations made by the Legislature. Neither IDEA nor any other party to the bond transaction can predict how State revenues or State education funding will vary over the entire term of the Bonds.
No parties to the bond transaction take any responsibility for informing owners of the Bonds about any such changes. Information about the financial condition of the State, as well as its budget and spending for education, is available and regularly updated on various State-maintained websites. Such information is prepared by the respective State entity maintaining each such website and not by any of the parties to this transaction. The parties to the bond transaction take no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of such information, and no such information is incorporated herein by these references.
Changes to Charter School Laws The law applicable to charter schools in the State has frequently changed, including changes to the school funding system and relating to revocation and non-renewal and the respective rights of the parties. See “STATE FUNDING FOR TRADITIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS” and “STATE OPEN-ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING” below. The law affecting charter schools is subject to additional changes. Changes to applicable law by the State Legislature could be adverse to the financial interests of IDEA and could adversely affect the ability of IDEA to generate sufficient revenues to pay the Master Notes and thus debt service on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA. There can be no assurance that the Legislature will not change such laws in the future in a manner which is adverse to the interests of the registered owners of the Bonds. Adverse State budget considerations could increase the likelihood that the State Legislature would change the laws governing charter schools, and in particular charter school funding provisions. Further, State budget considerations may adversely affect appropriations for charter school funding.
9 Value of Facilities May Fluctuate The value of IDEA’s educational facilities at any given time will be directly affected by market and financial conditions which are not in the control of the parties involved in this transaction. At any time there may be a difference between the actual market value of IDEA’s educational facilities subject to the Deed of Trust and the amount of outstanding Master Notes secured by the Deed of Trust, and that difference may be substantial. In particular, it cannot be determined with certainty what the value of the property subject to the Deed of Trust would be in the event of foreclosure under the Deed of Trust. Real property values can fluctuate substantially depending on a variety of factors. There is nothing associated with IDEA's educational facilities, which are designed for use as charter schools, which would suggest that their values would remain stable or would increase if the general values of property in the community were to decline. It should be noted that the land acquired in Rio Grande City is required to be used as a school or school related facility for 15 years from the time of acquisition, which could impact the value of the property in the event of foreclosure under the Deed of Trust.
Foreclosure Deficiency and Delays If revenues produced by IDEA are insufficient to make payments on the Master Notes representing debt service on the Bonds and all other bonds secured by Master Notes, the Master Trustee may seek to foreclose on the Deed of Trust. There can be no assurance that the value of IDEA’s educational facilities will be sufficient to meet all remaining debt service requirements with respect to the Master Notes secured by the Deed of Trust at the time of any foreclosure. See “— Value of Facilities May Fluctuate” above. In addition, the time necessary to institute and complete foreclosure proceedings would likely substantially delay receipt of funds from a foreclosure.
Changes in the School Finance System Because State charter schools are ultimately funded from the same sources as State public school districts, changes in the system of school finance could significantly affect how charter schools are funded. Neither the Issuer nor IDEA can make any representation or prediction concerning how or if the State Legislature may change the public school finance system, and how those changes may affect the funding or operations of charter schools. See “STATE OPEN-ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING” and “PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION” herein.
Key Personnel IDEA’s creation, curriculum, educational philosophy and operations have depended on the vision and commitment of a few, key personnel who comprise the senior leadership of IDEA. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Senior Leadership.” Loss of any such key personnel could adversely affect IDEA’s growth plans, operations, ability to attract and retain students and ultimately its financial results. Of particular importance to IDEA are Tom Torkelson, IDEA’s Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, and JoAnn Gama, IDEA’s Co-Founder and Chief Schools Officer, whose contributions to IDEA’s development and whose ongoing responsibilities are significant. For more information regarding Mr. Torkelson, Ms. Gama and other of IDEA’s key personnel, see “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Senior Leadership.”
Special, Limited Obligations The Bonds are special, limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from revenues to be derived by the Issuer under the Loan Agreement, the Series 2016B Note, all money and investments held for the credit of the funds and accounts established by or under the Bond Indenture (except the Rebate Fund), and in certain events out of amounts secured through the exercise of the remedies provided in the Bond Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Master Indenture and the Deed of Trust. See “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS.”
The Bonds will never be payable out of any funds of the Issuer except with such revenues and in such amounts described above. NEITHER THE STATE NOR A STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, INCLUDING THE CITY OF CLIFTON, IS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS AND NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE OR ANY STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, INCLUDING THE CITY OF CLIFTON, IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS.
10 Pledge of State Revenues The Master Indenture provides that all of IDEA’s Adjusted Revenues will be deposited into one or more deposit accounts pledged to the Master Trustee pursuant to Deposit Account Control Agreements (unless such Adjusted Revenues or portion thereof are required to be deposited to the Revenue Fund). Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default under the Master Indenture, the Master Trustee is entitled, at the direction of the holders of not less than 25% in principal amount of the Master Notes Outstanding to (i) issue a Notice of Exclusive Control under the Deposit Account Control Agreements and (ii) collect and receive all of the IDEA’s Adjusted Revenues to be applied as specified in the Master Indenture. While the Holders of not less than 25% in principal amount of Master Notes Outstanding are entitled to direct the Master Trustee in the exercise of remedies following an Event of Default, such percentage may be composed wholly or partially of the holders of Master Notes other than the Series 2016B Note.
Damage or Destruction of the Facilities The Master Indenture requires that IDEA’s educational facilities be insured against certain risks. See “APPENDIX G — EXCERPTS OF THE MASTER INDENTURE, THE BOND INDENTURE, AND THE LOAN AGREEMENT — MASTER INDENTURE” and “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Insurance Coverage.” There can be no assurance that the amount of such insurance required to be obtained or actually obtained will be adequate, or that the cause of any damage or destruction to IDEA’s educational facilities will be as a result of a risk which is insured. Further, there can be no assurance with respect to the ongoing creditworthiness of the insurance companies from which IDEA obtains insurance policies.
Federal Accountability On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”) into law, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (the “1965 Act”) and replaces the No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLB”) of 2001. TEA is in the process of working through the specific details of ESSA as applicable to Texas schools. In general, many changes made to the 1965 Act by ESSA will not be fully implemented until the 2016-17 school year.
Formerly, Title I of the 1965 Act, as reauthorized by the now defunct NCLB, required each state, as a condition of receiving funds under the Title I program, to implement a single, statewide accountability system applicable to all its public schools, including charter schools. NCLB uses Adequate Yearly Progress (“AYP”) to measure and hold charter schools and districts responsible for student achievement.
The Texas Education Agency (“TEA”) was granted a waiver through the 2013-14 school year from certain aspects of NCLB which included a request to use the State’s new accountability system to evaluate campuses and districts in place of AYP. The State submitted an amended request in 2014 incorporating final guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems for the waiver to extend beyond the 2013-14 school year that met the requirements for ESEA flexibility, which was approved. The State requested an extension of the U.S. Department of Education’s (the “USDE”) approval to implement the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“ESEA”) flexibility through the end of the 2014-2015 school year. In 2014, the USDE granted the request for an extension through the end of the 2014-15 school year.
In January, 2015, the USDE sent a letter to the TEA stating that “Texas has not yet adopted guidelines for teacher and principal evaluations and support systems that meet all requirements of ESEA flexibility, nor does it have a process for ensuring that each district in Texas develops, adopts, pilots, and implements teacher and principal evaluation and support systems consistent with those guidelines as required by ESEA flexibility.” The letter stated that “[i]f Texas chooses to renew its ESEA flexibility request, Texas must submit to [USDE] through the renewal process an amended request incorporating its final guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems consistent with all requirements for…ESEA flexibility and consistent with the renewal requirements.” The TEA submitted a waiver renewal application on June 2, 2015 and was approved to waive specific provisions of the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, giving additional flexibility to local education agencies.
The ESSA replaces NCLB in whole and provides relief from its more onerous provisions. Final rulemaking and guidelines from the U.S. Department of Education is ongoing and will be followed by TEA rulemaking and guidance for implementation the State level. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Federal Accountability”
11 Various other sections of this Official Statement discuss IDEA’s performance under the State’s current accountability system. See “APPENDIX A — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Charter Contract — Revocation, Nonrenewal, Modification of Governance and Automatic Revocation,” “— Accountability Ratings and Student Performance” and “— Federal Accountability”; see also “RISK FACTORS — Nonrenewal or Revocation of Charter.” If the performance of IDEA’s Charter Schools (that receives Title I, Part A funds) under the State’s new accountability framework, or their performance under other applicable AYP standards if the State’s waiver status is not continued in the future, were to result in its failure to meet AYP, those Charter Schools would be subject to certain requirements such as offering supplemental education services, offering school choice, and/or taking other corrective actions. Any such failure in this regard may have a material adverse effect on IDEA and its ability to generate revenues sufficient to make payments under the Series 2016B Note and sufficient to pay debt service on the Bonds and on any other outstanding Master Notes.
Limited Remedies After Default Remedies available to registered owners of Bonds in the event of a default by the Issuer on its obligations under the Bonds or the Bond Indenture or by IDEA under the Loan Agreement or the Master Indenture are limited to the terms of such instruments, and may prove to be expensive, time-consuming, and difficult to enforce. Further, as noted above, the Bonds are special and limited obligations of the Issuer and the existence of any remedy does not guarantee sufficient assets of IDEA pledged to payment of the Master Notes to secure such payment. See “Special, Limited Obligations” herein.
Remedies with respect to foreclosure under the Deed of Trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries thereof may be further limited by State constitutional and statutory limitations on foreclosure, including the right of redemption of foreclosed property granted to debtors under the Texas Constitution.
The enforceability of the rights and remedies of the registered owners may further be limited by laws relating to bankruptcy, reorganization, or other similar laws of general application affecting the rights of creditors. See “Potential Effects of Bankruptcy” herein.
Charter Schools in General Nationally, charter schools have come under criticism as having failed to meet certain objectives in educating students to a success level above students in traditional public school systems. Proponents of charter schools have indicated that comparisons used in such critiques often fail to measure performances between similarly situated schools, or fail to acknowledge the time that will be required for a charter school system to develop historically significant data. The politically sensitive issues surrounding the development of charter schools will continue to garner public attention, and any development of a national sense that charter schools do not present a fiscally responsible alternative could adversely affect the willingness of states, including the State, to fund charter school operations, to take legislative or regulatory action adverse to charter schools, or the willingness to approve or renew charter contracts.
Litigation Schools are often the subject of litigation. Actions alleging wrongful conduct that seek punitive damages often are filed against education providers such as IDEA. Litigation may also arise from the corporate and business activities of IDEA, such as employee-related matters. Many of these risks are covered by insurance, but some are not. For example, some business disputes and worker’s compensation claims are not covered by insurance or other sources and may be a liability of IDEA if determined or settled adversely. Although IDEA maintains insurance policies covering liability, management of IDEA is unable to predict the availability, cost or adequacy of such insurance in the future. There is no known litigation pending or threatened against IDEA as of the date of this Official Statement. Additionally, management of IDEA has no knowledge of any litigation threatened against IDEA, (i) which in any way questions or affects the validity of the Bonds, or any proceedings or transactions relating to their issuance, sale and delivery, or (ii) which would, if adversely determined, cause any material adverse change in the financial conditions of IDEA.
Environmental Regulation IDEA’s properties are and will be subject to various federal, State and local laws and regulations governing health and the environment. In general, these laws and regulations could result in liability for remediating adverse
12 environmental conditions on or relating to such properties, whether arising from pre-existing conditions or conditions arising as a result of activities conducted in connection with the ownership of and operations at the properties. Costs incurred with respect to environmental remediation or liability could adversely affect IDEA’s financial condition and its ability to generate revenues sufficient to pay debt service on the Master Notes and thus debt service on the Bonds and other bonds issued for the benefit of IDEA. Excessive costs in connection with any such environmental remediation or any such liability to third parties could also make it difficult to successfully re-let such facilities.
IDEA has previously engaged various parties to conduct Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and certain other assessments at many of its school campus sites, but has not engaged any party to conduct such an assessment with respect to its headquarters space (in condominium units) and with respect to certain other real estate that is not expected to be developed. See "APPENDIX C — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Environmental Assessments" for a description of the environmental assessments on properties pledged under the Deed of Trust. The reports prepared in connection with the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments speak only as of their dates. Potential purchasers should refer to complete copies of the reports for additional information. Copies are available as described under "MISCELLANEOUS — Additional Information" below.
Potential Effects of Bankruptcy The legal right and practical ability of the Bond Trustee to enforce rights and remedies under the Loan Agreement and the Master Indenture may be limited by laws relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, fraudulent conveyance or moratorium and by other similar laws affecting creditors rights. Enforcement of such rights and remedies may require judicial actions that are subject to discretion and delay, that otherwise may not be readily available or that may be limited by certain legal principles.
Upon the bankruptcy of IDEA, the rights and remedies of the holders of the Bonds are subject to various provisions of the federal Bankruptcy Code. If IDEA were to file a petition in bankruptcy, payments made by the IDEA during the 90-day (or perhaps one-year) period immediately preceding the filing of such petition may be voidable as preferential transfers to the extent such payments allow the recipients to receive more than they would have received in the event of any such debtor’s liquidation. Security interests and other liens granted to the Bond Trustee or Master Trustee and perfected during such preference period also may be voided as preferential transfers to the extent such security interest or other lien secures obligations that arose prior to the date of such perfection. Such a bankruptcy filing would operate as an automatic stay of the commencement or continuation of any judicial or other proceeding against IDEA and its property and as an automatic stay of any act or proceeding to enforce a lien upon or to otherwise exercise control over its property as well as various other actions to enforce, maintain or enhance the rights of the Bond Trustee or the Master Trustee. The rights of the Bond Trustee or Master Trustee to enforce any security interests it may have could be delayed during the pendency of the rehabilitation proceeding.
If IDEA becomes the subject of a bankruptcy petition, it could file a plan of reorganization for the adjustment of its debts, which could include provisions modifying or altering the rights of creditors generally or any class of them, secured or unsecured. The plan, when confirmed by a court, binds all creditors who had notice or knowledge of the plan and, with certain exceptions, discharges all claims against the debtor to the extent provided for in the plan. No plan may be confirmed unless certain conditions are met, among which are conditions that the plan is feasible and that it has been accepted by each class of claims impaired thereunder. Each class of claims has accepted the plan if at least two-thirds in dollar amount and more than one-half in number of the class cast votes in its favor. Even if the plan is not so accepted, it may be confirmed if the court finds that the plan is fair and equitable with respect to each class of non-accepting creditors impaired thereunder and does not discriminate unfairly. Moreover, there is no assurance that certain covenants, including tax covenants contained in the Loan Agreement or other documents would survive. Accordingly, IDEA as debtor in possession, or a bankruptcy trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court could take action that would adversely affect the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Furthermore IDEA’s charter contract is subject to adverse action by the State, including loss of accreditation as a public school, suspension of operations, suspension of or delays to State funding and revocation or non-renewal in the event of a bankruptcy filing.
The various legal opinions delivered concurrently with the issuance of the Bonds are qualified as to the enforceability of the various legal instruments by limitations imposed by state and federal laws, rulings, policies and
13 decisions affecting remedies and by bankruptcy, reorganization or other laws of general application affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights or the enforceability of certain remedies or document provisions.
Certain Matters Relating to Enforceability of the Master Indenture The obligations of IDEA under the Master Notes will be limited to the same extent as the obligations of debtors typically are affected by bankruptcy, insolvency and the application of general principles of creditors’ rights and as additionally described above.
The obligations described herein of IDEA to make payments of debt service on Master Notes issued under the Master Indenture (including transfers in connection with voluntary dissolution or liquidation) may not be enforceable to the extent enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, moratorium, reorganization or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights and by general equitable principles
Limited Security The lien granted under the Deed of Trust provides limited security for certain outstanding Master Notes. Property that is subject to the Deed of Trust consists of educational facilities. Consequently, it could be difficult to find a buyer or lessee for the property, and, upon default, the Master Trustee may not obtain an amount equal to the aggregate liabilities of IDEA (including liabilities in respect of the Bonds then outstanding) from the sale or lease of the property, whether pursuant to a judgment against IDEA or otherwise. See “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS.”
The effectiveness of the security interest in IDEA’s Adjusted Revenues granted in the Master Indenture may be limited by a number of factors, including: (i) federal bankruptcy laws which would, among other things, preclude enforceability of the security interest as to revenues arising subsequent to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings and limit such enforceability as to revenues arising prior to such commencement to the extent a security interest therein would constitute a voidable preference or fraudulent conveyance, (ii) rights of third parties in cash, securities and instruments arising in favor of the United States of America or any agency thereof, (iii) present or future prohibitions against assignment in any state or federal statutes or regulations, (iv) constructive trusts, equitable liens or other rights impressed or conferred by any state or federal court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction and rights of donors of property, (v) claims that might obtain priority if continuation statements or financing statement amendments are not filed in accordance with applicable laws, (vi) the rights of holders of prior perfected security interests in equipment and other goods owned by IDEA and in the proceeds of sale of such property, and (vii) statutory liens. Accordingly, such security interest is expected to provide only limited value upon an event of default.
Additional Debt The Master Indenture permits the issuance of additional Debt on parity with the Master Notes if certain conditions are met. See “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS — Master Notes and the Master Indenture — Additional Debt” and “APPENDIX G — EXCERPTS OF THE MASTER INDENTURE, THE BOND INDENTURE, AND THE LOAN AGREEMENT — MASTER INDENTURE.” Assuming it is able to meet the additional debt test, IDEA presently intends to issue additional Master Notes in the next two years which are expected to be on parity with the Master Notes to finance approximately $295 million of new campus projects. IDEA’s expansion plan will likely involve the issuance of additional Debt after the next two years as well. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — History and Growth Strategy — Prior and Future Financings.” Bonds secured by such additional Debt may or may not be guaranteed by the Permanent School Fund. The issuance of additional Debt and bonds may adversely affect the investment security of the Bonds.
Enforcement of Remedies The remedies available to registered owners of the Bonds upon an Event of Default depend in many respects upon judicial actions which are often subject to discretion and delay. Under existing constitutional and statutory law and judicial decisions, the remedies provided in the Bond Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Master Indenture and the Deed of Trust may not be readily available or may be limited. The various legal opinions to be delivered concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds will be qualified as to the enforceability of the various legal instruments by limitations imposed by bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or other similar laws affecting the rights of creditors generally.
14 Tax-Exempt Status of the Bonds The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), imposes a number of requirements that must be satisfied in order for interest on state and local obligations, such as the Bonds, to be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes. These requirements include limitations on the use of bond proceeds, limitations on the investment earnings of bond proceeds prior to expenditure, a requirement that certain investment earnings on bond proceeds be paid periodically to the United States and a requirement that issuers file an information report with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”). IDEA has agreed that it will comply with all such requirements. Failure to comply with the requirements stated in the Code and related regulations, rulings, and policies may result in the interest on the Bonds being treated as taxable for federal income tax purposes. Such adverse treatment may be retroactive to the date of issuance. See “TAX MATTERS.”
In December 1999, as a part of a larger reorganization of the IRS, the IRS commenced operation of its Tax- Exempt and Government Entities Division (the “TE/GE Division”) as the successor to its Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations division. The TE/GE Division has a subdivision that is specifically devoted to tax-exempt bond compliance. The number of tax-exempt bond examinations has increased significantly under the TE/GE Division. IDEA has not sought to obtain a private letter ruling from the IRS with respect to the Bonds, and the opinion of Bond Counsel is not binding on the IRS. There is no assurance that any IRS examination of the Bonds will not adversely affect the market value of the Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS.”
If a Determination of Taxability (as defined in the Bond Indenture) were to occur, the Bonds would be subject to mandatory redemption, as a whole and not in part, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof plus accrued interest to the redemption date not more than 120 days following receipt of notice by the Bond Trustee of such determination, subject to certain conditions and notice requirements. See “THE BONDS — Redemption Provisions — Mandatory Redemption Upon Determination of Taxability.”
Proposed Tax Legislation Tax legislation, administrative actions taken by tax authorities, and court decisions may cause interest on the Bonds to be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal income taxation or state income taxation, or otherwise prevent the beneficial owners of the Bonds from realizing the full current benefit of the tax status of such interest. For example, future legislation to resolve certain federal budgetary issues may significantly reduce the benefit of, or otherwise affect, the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on all state and local obligations, including the Bonds. In addition, such legislation or actions (whether currently proposed, proposed in the future or enacted) could affect the market price or marketability of the Bonds. Prospective purchasers of the Bonds should consult their own tax advisors regarding any pending or proposed federal or state tax legislation, regulations or litigation, and its impact on their individual situations, as to which Bond Counsel expresses no opinion.
Tax-Exempt Status of IDEA The tax-exempt status of the Bonds depends in part upon maintenance by IDEA of its status as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. The maintenance of this status depends on compliance with general rules regarding the organization and operation of tax-exempt entities, including operation for charitable and educational purposes and avoidance of transactions that may cause earnings or assets to inure to the benefit of private individuals, such as the private benefit and inurement rules. In addition, the qualification of IDEA to hold the open-enrollment charter from the Texas Education Agency presently depends upon maintenance by the Borrower of its status as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code. If IDEA loses its exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, the charter from the State is automatically revoked as a matter of law.
Tax-exempt organizations are subject to scrutiny from and face the potential for sanctions and monetary penalties imposed by the IRS. One primary penalty available to the IRS under the Code with respect to a tax- exempt entity engaged in inurement or unlawful private benefit is the revocation of tax-exempt status. Loss of tax- exempt status by IDEA could result in loss of tax exemption of the Bonds and defaults in covenants regarding the Bonds and other obligations would likely be triggered. Loss of tax-exempt status by IDEA could also result in substantial tax liabilities on its income. For these reasons, loss of tax-exempt status of IDEA could have material adverse consequences on the financial condition of IDEA.
15 On December 20, 2007, the IRS issued an updated version of Form 990, the return that charities and other tax-exempt organizations are required to file annually, for tax year 2008 (returns filed in 2009). The updated Form 990 implemented more stringent reporting requirements for tax-exempt organizations than were previously in effect. Major revisions were made to the form’s summary page, governance section, and various schedules, including those relating to executive compensation, related organizations, and tax-exempt bonds. The IRS also announced a phase-in of the new form’s schedules for tax-exempt bonds (Schedule K). The additional oversight required to comply with the new Form 990 in the future will almost certainly require an increased investment of time and money on the part of IDEA and may increase the potential for sanctions and monetary penalties imposed by the IRS.
With increasing frequency, the IRS has imposed substantial monetary penalties and future charity or public benefit obligations on tax-exempt entities, as well as requiring that certain transactions be altered, terminated, or avoided in the future and/or requiring governance or management changes. These penalties and obligations typically are imposed on the tax-exempt organization pursuant to a “closing agreement,” a contractual agreement pursuant to which a taxpayer and the IRS agree to settle a disputed matter. Given the exemption risks involved in certain transactions, IDEA may be at risk for incurring monetary and other liabilities imposed by the IRS. These liabilities could be materially adverse.
Less onerous sanctions, referred to generally as “intermediate sanctions,” have been enacted that focus enforcement on private persons who transact business with an exempt organization rather than the exempt organization itself, but these sanctions do not replace the other remedies available to the IRS, as mentioned above.
IDEA may be audited by the IRS. Because of the complexity of the tax laws and the presence of issues about which reasonable persons can differ, an IRS audit could result in additional taxes, interest, and penalties. An IRS audit ultimately could affect the tax-exempt status of IDEA, as well as the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on the Bonds and any other tax-exempt debt issued for benefit of IDEA.
Risk of Failure to Comply with Certain Covenants Failure of the Issuer to comply with certain covenants contained in the Bond Indenture or of IDEA with certain covenants in the Loan Agreement on a continuing basis prior to the maturity of the Bonds could result in interest on the Bonds becoming taxable retroactive to the date of original issuance. See “TAX MATTERS.”
State and Local Tax Exemption The State has not been as active as the IRS in scrutinizing the tax-exempt status of non-profit organizations. It is possible that legislation may be proposed to strengthen the role of the Attorney General of the State in supervising non-profit organizations. It is likely that the loss by IDEA of federal tax exemption also would trigger a challenge to the State or local tax exemption of IDEA. Depending on the circumstances, such event could be adverse and material.
It is not possible to predict the scope or effect of future legislative or regulatory actions with respect to taxation of non-profit corporations. There can also be no assurance that future change of circumstances or changes in the laws and regulations of federal, State, or local governments will not materially adversely affect the operations and financial conditions of IDEA by requiring IDEA to pay income or local property taxes.
Unrelated Business Income The IRS and State, county, and local tax authorities may undertake audits and reviews of the operations of tax-exempt organizations with respect to the generation of unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”). IDEA may participate in activities that generate UBTI. An investigation or audit could lead to a challenge that could result in taxes, interest, and penalties with respect to UBTI and, in some cases, ultimately could affect the tax-exempt status of IDEA as well as the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest payable on the Bonds.
Secondary Market There is no guarantee that a secondary trading market will develop for the Bonds. Consequently, prospective purchasers should be prepared to hold their Bonds to maturity or prior redemption. Subject to
16 applicable securities laws and prevailing market conditions, the Underwriter intends, but is not obligated, to make a market in the Bonds.
Risk of Loss from Nonpresentment upon Redemption The rights of the registered owners of the Bonds to receive interest will terminate on the date, if any, on which the Bonds are to be redeemed pursuant to a call for redemption, notice of which has been given under the terms of the Bond Indenture.
Risk of Amendment Most of the provisions of the Master Indenture may be amended with the consent of the holders of a majority in principal amount of Outstanding Master Notes. If Master Notes are issued in an amount greater than the previously Outstanding Master Notes, such new Master Notes could cause the Master Indenture to be amended in material ways. Additionally, such amendment could result if the underwriter for the new bonds were to vote such bonds to direct the related bond trustee to vote such new Master Notes to amend the Master Indenture prior to the distribution of the new bonds to the purchasers.
THE BONDS
Description The Bonds will be issued in the aggregate principal amounts, will mature on the dates and in the amounts, and will bear interest at the rates per annum set forth on the inside cover page of this Official Statement. Interest on the Bonds will accrue from the date of delivery and will be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30- day months payable on February 15, 2017, and on each August 15 and February 15 thereafter until the earlier of maturity or redemption.
The Bonds will be initially issued in book-entry only form, as discussed under “APPENDIX H — BOOK– ENTRY–ONLY SYSTEM” herein, but may be subsequently issued in fully registered form only, without coupons, and in any case, will be issued in denominations of $5,000.
The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Amounts due on the Bonds will be paid by check mailed to the owner thereof at its address as it appears on the bond registration books on the first day of the calendar month in which such payment date occurs (the “Record Date”). Upon written request of a registered owner of at least $1,000,000 in principal amount of Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on Bonds will be paid by wire transfer (at the risk and expense of such registered owner) in immediately available funds to an account in the United States designated by such registered owner upon five days written notice before a Record Date to the Bond Trustee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, while the Bonds are held in book-entry-only form, interest, principal, and redemption premium, if any, will be paid through The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) as described under “APPENDIX H — BOOK– ENTRY–ONLY SYSTEM.”
Redemption Provisions The Bonds. The Bonds are subject to redemption as described below:
Optional Redemption. The Bonds maturing on or after August 15, 20__, are subject to optional redemption prior to scheduled maturity, in whole or in part, on August 15, 20__, and on any date thereafter, at the option of IDEA at a redemption price of par, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. Mandatory Redemption Upon Determination of Taxability. The Bonds will be redeemed in whole prior to maturity on a date selected by IDEA which is not more than 120 days following the occurrence of a Determination of Taxability at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof plus interest to the redemption date.
“Determination of Taxability,” as used herein, means a determination that the interest income on any of the Bonds does not qualify as interest excluded from gross income of the recipient thereof for the purpose of federal income taxation (“exempt interest”) under Section 103 of the Code (in the case of a private activity bond, for a reason other than a registered owner is or a former registered owner was a substantial user within the meaning of
17 Section 147 of the Code), which determination will be deemed to have been made upon the first to occur of any of the following: (i) the date on which the Bond Trustee is notified that an opinion of counsel is unable to be delivered to the effect that the interest on the Bonds qualifies as exempt interest; or (ii) the date on which the Bond Trustee is notified by or on behalf of the Issuer that a change in law or regulation has become effective or that the Internal Revenue Service has issued any public or private ruling, or technical advice memorandum or that there has occurred a ruling or decision of a court of competent jurisdiction with or to the effect that the interest income on any of the Bonds does not qualify as such exempt interest; or (iii) the date on which IDEA receives notice from the Bond Trustee in writing that the Bond Trustee has been notified by the Internal Revenue Service, or has been advised by the Issuer, IDEA or any owner or former owner of a Bond that the Internal Revenue Service has issued a final determination (after the Issuer has exhausted all administrative appeal remedies and has determined not to pursue any remedies in a court of competent jurisdiction) which asserts that the interest on any of the Bonds does not qualify as such exempt interest.
Extraordinary Optional Redemption. The Bonds are subject to extraordinary redemption, at the option of the Issuer upon the request of IDEA, at a redemption price of par plus interest accrued thereon to the redemption date, without premium, on any date, in the event the Projects are damaged, destroyed, or condemned or threatened to be condemned, (i) in whole, if, in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement, the Projects are not reconstructed, repaired or replaced upon the change or destruction thereof, from insurance or condemnation proceeds transferred from the Construction Fund established pursuant to the Bond Indenture to the Debt Service Fund established pursuant to the Bond Indenture which, together with an amount required to be paid by IDEA pursuant to the Loan Agreement, will be sufficient to pay the Bonds in full, or (ii) in part, after reconstruction, repair, or replacement of the Projects in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement, from excess insurance or condemnation proceeds transferred from the Construction Fund established pursuant to the Bond Indenture to the Debt Service Fund established pursuant to the Bond Indenture for such purpose.
Redemption in Part. If less than all of the Bonds of a stated maturity are called for redemption, the particular Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed will be redeemed by the Bond Trustee in accordance with the written direction of IDEA; provided, however, that portions of the Bonds will be redeemed in Authorized Denominations; and provided further, that no redemption will result in an outstanding Bond being held in less than an Authorized Denomination.
In case part, but not all, of a Bond is selected for redemption, the owner thereof or his attorney or legal representative must present and surrender the Bond to the Bond Trustee for payment of the redemption price, and the Issuer will cause to be executed, authenticated, and delivered to or upon the order of such owner or his attorney or legal representative, without charge therefor, in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal amount of such Bond so surrendered, a Bond of the same maturity and bearing interest at the same rate.
Notice of Redemption. At least 30 days prior to the date fixed for any redemption of the Bonds, but not more than 60 days prior to any redemption date, the Bond Trustee will cause a written notice of such redemption to be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the holders of the Bonds to be redeemed, at such holder’s address appearing on the bond registration books on the date such notice is mailed by the Bond Trustee. Any notice mailed as provided herein will be conclusively presumed to have been given, irrespective of whether or not received. By the date fixed for any such redemption, due provision is required to be made with the Bond Trustee and the Paying Agent for the payment of the redemption price, premium, if any, and interest accrued thereon. If such written notice of redemption is made, due provision for payment of the redemption price is made, and all conditions to the redemption have been fulfilled, all as provided above and in the Bond Indenture, the Bonds which are to be redeemed will become due and payable at the redemption price and after such date will cease to bear interest. Such Bonds will not be regarded as being Outstanding except for the right of the Owner to receive the redemption price out of the funds provided for such payment. If any Bond is not paid upon the surrender thereof for redemption, such Bond will continue to be Outstanding under the Bond Indenture and will continue to bear interest until paid at the interest rate borne by such Bond.
Defeasance. The Bonds may be discharged, or advance refunded in advance of their optional redemption date in any manner now or hereafter permitted by law. Upon any discharge, defeasance or refunding of all or a portion of the Bonds, such Bonds shall no longer be regarded to be outstanding or unpaid; provided, however, the Issuer will remain obligated for all payments, including the contribution of additional money or securities to any
18 defeasance escrow or trust account, if necessary to provide sufficient amounts to satisfy the payment obligations (but only from the sources described herein).
SECURITY FOR THE BONDS
General The Bonds are special, limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from revenues to be derived from the Loan Agreement, the Series 2016B Note, the money and investments held for the credit of the funds and accounts established by or under the Bond Indenture (except the Rebate Fund); and in certain events out of amounts secured through the exercise of the remedies provided in the Bond Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Master Indenture and the Deed of Trust.
NEITHER THE STATE NOR A STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, INCLUDING THE CITY OF CLIFTON, IS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS AND NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE OR ANY STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, INCLUDING THE CITY OF CLIFTON, IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF OR INTEREST ON THE BONDS. THE ISSUER HAS NO TAXING POWER.
Master Notes and the Master Indenture General
To evidence its obligations under the Loan Agreement, IDEA will execute and deliver to the Bond Trustee, as the assignee of the Issuer, the Series 2016B Note in principal amount equal to the principal amount of the Bonds. Payments under the Series 2016B Note are scheduled to be made at the times and in the amounts required to pay debt service on the Bonds and will be credited against the Loan Payments required to be made by IDEA under the Loan Agreement.
The Series 2016B Note is a duly authorized promissory note of IDEA issued pursuant to and secured by the Master Indenture. The Series 2016B Note constitutes additional indebtedness under the Master Indenture, and, except as otherwise described herein with respect to real and personal property, is issued on parity with: (i) the promissory note issued by IDEA to evidence its obligations with respect to the Texas Public Finance Authority Charter School Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools Project) Series 2007A (the “Series 2007 Bonds”), which are currently outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $2,660,000, (ii) the promissory notes issued by IDEA to evidence its obligations with respect to the City of Pharr, Texas Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2009A (the “Series 2009 Bonds”), which are outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $27,625,000 ($13,495,000 of which is expected to be defeased with proceeds of the Bonds), (iii) the promissory notes issued by IDEA to evidence its obligations with respect to the San Juan Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2010A and Taxable Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2010Q (collectively, the “Series 2010 Bonds”), which are outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $39,220,000 ($23,175,000 of which is expected to be defeased with proceeds of the Bonds), (iv) the promissory note issued by IDEA to evidence its obligations with respect to the Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2011 (the “Series 2011 Bonds”), which is outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $25,555,000, (v) the promissory note issued by IDEA to evidence its obligation with respect to the Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2012 (the “Series 2012 Bonds”), which is outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $57,505,000, (vi) the promissory note issued by IDEA to evidence its obligation with respect to the Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2013 (the “Series 2013 Bonds”), which is outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $62,130,000, (vii) the promissory note issued by IDEA to evidence its obligation with respect to the Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue and Refunding Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2014 (the “Series 2014 Bonds”), which is outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $90,600,000, (viii) the promissory note issued by IDEA to evidence its obligation with respect to the Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2015 (the “Series 2015 Bonds”), which is outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $70,885,000, (ix) the Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue and Refunding Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2016A Bonds
19 expected to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $99,025,000, and (x) the promissory note (the “Regions Note”) issued to Regions Bank to evidence a revolving line of credit in a maximum amount of $20,000,000, $7,369,510 of which was outstanding as of June 30, 2016 (it is anticipated that the total outstanding amount of the Regions Note will be repaid with proceeds of the Series 2016A Bonds).
Under the Master Indenture, all of the Master Notes are equally and ratably secured by the pledge and assignment of a security interest in the Trust Estate (provided, however, that the Series 2014 Note, the Series 2015 Note and the Series 2016A Note are not secured by the Deed of Trust). See “APPENDIX G — EXCERPTS OF THE MASTER INDENTURE, THE BOND INDENTURE, AND THE LOAN AGREEMENT — MASTER INDENTURE — Granting Clauses,” and “ — Issuance and Form of Notes –Section 210. Security for Notes.” Under the Master Indenture the Trust Estate consists of:
(i) all Adjusted Revenues (defined below) of IDEA except items which by their terms or by reason of applicable law would be void or voidable if granted by IDEA, or which cannot be granted without the consent of other parties whose consent is not secured, or without subjecting the Master Trustee to liability not otherwise contemplated by the provisions of the Master Indenture, or which otherwise may not be lawfully and effectively granted, pledged, and assigned by IDEA;
(ii) all money and securities, if any, at any time held by the Master Trustee in the Revenue Fund and any other fund or account established under the terms of the Master Indenture, or held by other banks or fiduciary institutions which are collaterally assigned to the Master Trustee as security for the Master Notes including the depository account specified in the Deposit Account Control Agreement and all securities, financial assets and securities entitlements and, with respect to book- entry securities, in the applicable Federal Book Entry Regulations, carried in or credited to such fund or account;
(iii) all accounts, bank accounts, general intangibles, contract rights and related rights of IDEA, whether now owned or hereafter assigned or arising and wherever located;
(iv) any and all other property of every kind and nature conveyed, pledged, assigned or transferred as additional security under the Master Indenture by IDEA or by anyone on its behalf to the Master Trustee, subject to the terms thereof, including, without limitation, funds of IDEA held by the Master Trustee as security for the Master Notes;
(v) the lien of the Deed of Trust; and
(vi) proceeds of the foregoing.
In addition, the Trust Estate under the Master Indenture includes all goods, documents, instruments, tangible and electronic chattel paper, letter of credit rights, investment property, accounts, deposit accounts, general tangibles (including payment intangibles and software), money and other items of personal property, including proceeds (as each such term is defined in the UCC) which constitute any of the property described in the paragraphs above.
“Adjusted Revenues” means, for any period of calculation, the total of all operating and non-operating revenues of IDEA, including but not limited to State Revenues, federal and local funds for school lunches and other food programs, special education, and transportation, including accounts receivable and rights to receive the same plus investment and other income of IDEA for such period; provided, however, Adjusted Revenues exclude (i) income derived from Defeasance Obligations that are irrevocably deposited in escrow to pay the principal of or interest on Debt, or Related Bonds, (ii) any gains or losses resulting from the early extinguishment of Debt, the sale, exchange or other disposition of property not in the ordinary course of business, or the reappraisal, reevaluation of write-up of assets, or any other extraordinary gains or losses, (iii) gifts, grants (excluding grants from the State), bequests or donations and income thereon restricted as to use by the donor or grantor for a purpose inconsistent with the payment of debt service on Debt or related bonds or Master Notes (i.e. unrelated to the purposes for which such obligations were issued), (iv) net unrealized gain (losses) on investments and financial products agreements, and (v) proceeds of borrowing.
20 Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, State Revenues received by each of IDEA’s campuses are required to be used in accordance with Section 12.101, Texas Education Code.
Revenue Fund
The Master Indenture provides for the creation of a Revenue Fund, which contains a principal account and an interest account. Upon an Event of Default under the Master Indenture, IDEA is required to deposit to the Revenue Fund, within five business days of receipt, all of its Adjusted Revenues, including without limitation, amounts subject to the Deposit Account Control Agreement for which a notice of exclusive control has been delivered (except as otherwise provided in the Master Indenture), as well as any insurance and condemnation proceeds, beginning on the first day of such Event of Default until no payment default exists. The Master Indenture provides that the Master Trustee shall immediately withdraw and pay or deposit from the amounts on deposit in the Revenue Fund the following amounts in the order of priority indicated:
FIRST: to the Master Trustee any fees or expenses which are then due and payable;
SECOND: equally and ratably to the Holder of each instrument evidencing a Master Note on which there has been a default in the payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Master Notes, an amount equal to all defaulted principal of, premium, if any, and interest on such Master Note;
THIRD: to the Interest Account an amount necessary to accumulate in equal amounts the interest on the Master Notes due and payable on the next Interest Payment Date; provided, however, that to the extent available, each transfer made on the 5th Business Day before the end of the month immediately preceding each Interest Payment Date shall be in an amount to provide, together with amounts then on deposit in the Interest Account, the balance of the interest due on the Master Notes on the next succeeding Interest Payment Date. There shall be paid from the Interest Account equally and ratably to the Holder of each instrument evidencing a Master Note the amount of interest on each Master Note as such interest becomes due;
FOURTH: to the Principal Account the amount necessary to accumulate in equal monthly installments the principal of the Master Notes maturing or subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on the next Principal Payment Date taking into account with respect to each such payment (i) any other money actually available in the Principal Account for such purpose and (ii) any credit against amounts due on each Principal Payment Date granted pursuant to other provisions of the Master Indenture; provided, however, that to the extent available, the transfer made on the 5th Business Day before the end of each month immediately preceding such Principal Payment Date shall be in an amount to provide, together with amounts then on deposit in the Principal Account, the balance of the principal maturing or subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on such Principal Payment Date. There shall be paid from the Principal Account equally and ratably to the Holder of each instrument evidencing a Master Note the amount of principal payments due on each Master Note, whether at maturity or earlier mandatory redemption (other than by reason of acceleration of maturity or other demand for payment), as such principal becomes due;
FIFTH: to the Holder of any Master Note entitled to maintain a reserve fund for the payment of such Master Note, an amount sufficient to cause the balance on deposit in such reserve fund to equal the required balance in 12 equal monthly installments or as otherwise required by the applicable bond documents; and
SIXTH: to IDEA, the amount specified in a request of IDEA as the amount of ordinary and necessary expenses of IDEA for its operations for the following month.
The Master Indenture provides that any balance remaining in the Revenue Fund on the day following the end of the month in which all Events of Default under the Master Indenture relating to the payment of the principal
21 of, premium, if any, or interest or any other amount due on any Master Note have been cured or waived, will be paid to IDEA at its depository bank upon request for deposit in a deposit account of IDEA that is subject to a Deposit Account Control Agreement to be used for any lawful purpose.
Additional Debt
Under the Master Indenture, Additional Debt payable from the Adjusted Revenues of IDEA may be delivered pursuant to the Master Indenture to pay the costs associated with such additional Debt and/or for the purpose of refunding any Outstanding Debt if the following conditions have been met:
(i) an Officer’s Certificate is delivered stating that the Master Indenture is in effect and no Event of Default exists under the Master Indenture or any Debt Outstanding or any agreement entered into in conjunction with such Debt;
(ii) the additional Debt is secured on parity with respect to the Trust Estate and is payable by the issuer solely from the Adjusted Revenues and other amounts derived from the loan agreement relating to such Debt (except to the extent paid out of money attributable to the proceeds derived from the sale of the additional Debt or to income from the temporary investment thereof);
(iii) (A) an Officer’s Certificate is delivered stating that, for either IDEA’s most recently completed fiscal year or for any consecutive 12 months out of the most recent 18 months immediately preceding the issuance of the additional Debt, the Available Revenues equal at least 1.10x the Maximum Annual Debt Service on all Debt then Outstanding prior to the issuance of the additional Debt; and (B) an Independent Management Consultant selected by IDEA and approved by each Bond Insurer provides a written report setting forth projections which indicate that the estimated Available Revenues are equal to at least 1.20x the Maximum Annual Debt Service for all Debt then Outstanding, including the proposed additional Debt, in the fiscal year immediately following the completion of the Project being financed;
(iv) Instead of the requirements described in clause (iii) above, IDEA may deliver an Officer’s Certificate stating that, based on the audited results of the operations for the most recently completed fiscal year, the Available Revenues equal at least 1.10x the Maximum Annual Debt Service on all Debt then Outstanding as well as the additional Debt;
(v) Bond Counsel must render an opinion to the Master Trustee to the effect that the issuance of the proposed additional Debt will not cause the interest on the Related Bonds Outstanding issued as tax-exempt bonds to be includable in the gross income of the Owners thereof for purposes of federal income taxation;
(vi) IDEA must obtain and provide to the Master Trustee on or prior to the closing date of the proposed additional Debt, an Opinion of Counsel addressed to the Master Trustee and the Bond Insurer to the effect that the security interest in fixtures and equipment and personal property granted under the Deed of Trust has been created and perfected under the Uniform Commercial Code as currently in effect in the State, including but not limited to, Article 9, as amended; and
(vii) So long as the Trust Estate contains the lien of the Deed of Trust upon any real property of IDEA, IDEA shall obtain and provide to the Master Trustee an endorsement of the title insurance policy issued in connection with the Debt increasing the coverage thereunder by an amount equal to the aggregate principal amount of the additional Debt.
Under the Master Indenture, if additional Debt is being issued for the purpose of refunding any Outstanding Debt, the report required by clauses (iii) and (iv) above will not apply so long as both the total and Maximum Annual Debt Service Requirements on all Outstanding Debt after issuance of the additional Debt will not exceed both the total and the Maximum Annual Debt Service Requirements on all Outstanding Debt prior to the issuance of such additional Debt.
22 If additional Debt is being issued or incurred for the purpose of completing any Project (as that term is defined in connection with the issuance of additional Debt) for which additional Debt is issued or incurred, such series of completion bonds may be issued in amounts not to exceed 10% of the principal amount of the Debt originally issued for such Project upon delivery of an Officer’s Certificate that such additional Debt is required to fund the costs of completion, provided that such additional Debt must comply with any applicable requirements imposed by the Bond Indenture and Related Loan Documents (as defined in the Master Indenture).
Under the Master Indenture, IDEA reserves the right to issue and incur Short-Term Debt.
Under the Master Indenture, notwithstanding the foregoing, if any Bond Insurer is providing bond insurance for any series of Related Bonds Outstanding, such conditions and requirements as are set forth in the Bond Indenture and Related Loan Documents related to such series of Related Bonds must be met prior to the issuance of additional Debt, as evidenced by the written approval or appropriate waiver of such Bond Insurer delivered to the Master Trustee.
Except as otherwise described above, no other additional Debt may be issued by IDEA, whether or not issued under the Master Indenture, without the prior written consent of each Bond Insurer; provided however, IDEA may incur subordinate Debt in any amount that is subordinate to any Debt secured under the Master Trust Indenture, without the prior written consent of ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation, the Bond Insurer with respect to the Series 2007 Bonds.
The Bond Indenture General
Under the Bond Indenture, the Issuer will grant to the Bond Trustee for the equal and ratable benefit of the holders of the Bonds, all of the Issuer’s right, title, and interest in and to, among other things, the following: (i) the Loan Agreement, including all amounts payable thereunder, including but not limited to the Loan Payments thereunder, the Series 2016B Note, any and all security granted or held for the payment thereof, and the present and continuing right to bring actions and proceedings under the Loan Agreement or for the enforcement thereof and to do any and all things which the Issuer is or may become entitled to do thereunder, but excluding certain amounts agreed to be paid by IDEA noted in such Loan Agreement (the “Issuer’s Unassigned Rights”), (ii) all money and investments held for the credit of the funds and accounts established by or under the Bond Indenture (except the Rebate Fund) as described in such Bond Indenture, and (iii) any and all property that may by delivery or by writing of any kind, be subjected to the lien and security interest of the Bond Indenture by the Issuer or by anyone on its behalf, subject to the limitations provided in the Bond Indenture. See “APPENDIX G — EXCERPTS OF THE MASTER INDENTURE, THE BOND INDENTURE, AND THE LOAN AGREEMENT — THE SERIES 2016B BOND INDENTURE — Granting Clauses.”
Debt Service Fund
The Bond Indenture establishes a Debt Service Fund for the Bonds. The money deposited into the Debt Service Fund, together with all investments thereof and investment income therefrom, will be held in trust and applied solely as provided in the Bond Indenture. On the date of issuance of the Bonds, the Bond Trustee is required to deposit into the Debt Service Fund any accrued interest and additional proceeds on such Bonds as may be set forth in an order of the Issuer, for the purpose of paying a portion of the interest coming due on such Bonds on the interest payment date therefor. The Bond Trustee is required to deposit to the credit of the Debt Service Fund immediately upon receipt: (i) amounts due and payable by IDEA pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement and the Series 2016B Note, (ii) any other amounts required by the Bond Indenture, including transfers from the Debt Service Reserve Fund, and (iii) any other amounts delivered to the Bond Trustee for deposit thereto. On each Interest Payment Date, the Bond Trustee will withdraw money first from the Debt Service Fund to pay the principal and interest due on the Bonds.
Debt Service Reserve Fund
A Debt Service Reserve Fund for the benefit of the Bonds is required to be established pursuant to the Bond Indenture. There will initially be deposited in the Debt Service Reserve Fund from the proceeds of the Bonds the amount required to make the amount on deposit in the Debt Service Reserve Fund equal to the Reserve Fund
23 Requirement. The Reserve Fund Requirement will be equal to the lesser of one-half of Maximum Annual Debt Service on the Bonds, one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the average annual Debt Service on the Bonds, or ten percent (10%) of the initial principal amount of the Bonds (or sale proceeds in the event that the amount of original issue discount exceeds two percent multiplied by the stated redemption price at maturity of the Bonds). The Debt Service Reserve Fund will at all times be maintained at an amount equal to the Reserve Fund Requirement.
IDEA reserves the right at any time to satisfy all or any part of the Reserve Fund Requirement by obtaining for the benefit of the Debt Service Reserve Fund one or more Reserve Fund Guaranties. If IDEA elects to substitute at any time a Reserve Fund Guaranty for any funded amounts in the Debt Service Reserve Fund, it may apply any proceeds thereby released, including investment earnings on such proceeds, to any purposes for which the Bonds were issued and any other funds thereby released to any purposes for which such funds may lawfully be used. A Reserve Fund Guaranty is a Guaranty Agreement issued by the Texas Public Finance Authority Charter School Finance Corporation pursuant to Section 53.351(e), Texas Education Code in a principal amount equal to the portion of Reserve Fund Requirement to be satisfied. The premium for any such policy is required to be paid from Bond proceeds or other funds of the Issuer or IDEA lawfully available for such purpose.
If there are insufficient funds in the Debt Service Fund to pay the Debt Service on the Bonds by 12:00 noon (Central Time) four Business Days prior to the day on which payment of the Debt Service on the Bonds is due, there is required to be transferred from the Debt Service Reserve Fund to the Debt Service Fund amounts necessary to make such payments from such Debt Service Fund on the day on which payment of the Debt Service on the Bonds is due.
If the amount in the Debt Service Reserve Fund is less than the Reserve Fund Requirement because funds in the Debt Service Reserve Fund have been applied to pay Debt Service on the Bonds, IDEA is required to be promptly notified in writing that a deficiency in the Debt Service Reserve Fund exists, and IDEA will (i) within 30 days of receipt of such notice, pay the full amount needed to restore the Debt Service Fund to the Reserve Fund Requirement or (ii) in twelve (12) consecutive equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the withdrawal, pay such deficiency for deposit into the Debt Service Reserve Fund to restore the amount in the Debt Service Reserve Fund to equal the Reserve Fund Requirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, money in the Debt Service Reserve Fund may be applied to pay the final Debt Service payment at the final maturity of the Bonds without violating the foregoing requirement to maintain the Debt Service Reserve Fund in an amount equal to the Reserve Fund Requirement.
The Loan Agreement General
The Bonds are payable from and secured in part by a pledge and assignment to the Bond Trustee of the Issuer’s rights under the Loan Agreement and the rights of the Issuer to receive loan payments thereunder (excluding certain fees and expenses and certain indemnity payments payable to the Issuer). Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, IDEA agrees to make Loan Payments sufficient to provide funds to make required payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds in full. See “APPENDIX G — EXCERPTS OF THE MASTER INDENTURE, THE BOND INDENTURE, AND THE LOAN AGREEMENT — THE SERIES 2016B LOAN AGREEMENT.”
Debt Service Coverage Ratio Covenant
Under the Loan Agreement, IDEA covenants that as long as the Bonds remain outstanding, its Available Revenues for each Fiscal Year must be equal to at least 1.10x the Annual Debt Service Requirements of IDEA. If IDEA does not maintain Available Revenues for any Fiscal Year, of at least 1.10x the Annual Debt Service Requirements during such Fiscal Year, the failure to maintain such ratio will not constitute an Event of Default so long as IDEA, at its sole expense, promptly employs (within 30 days of the date a certificate describing the such circumstances was required to be submitted) a Management Consultant to review and analyze the operations and administration of IDEA, inspect the facilities, and submit to IDEA and the Bond Trustee written reports, and make such recommendations as to the operation and administration of IDEA as such Management Consultant deems appropriate, including any recommendation as to a revision of the methods of operation thereof. IDEA agrees to consider any recommendations by the Management Consultant and, to the fullest extent legally permissible and
24 practicable, to adopt and carry out such recommendations. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the debt service coverage ratio falls below 1.0x the Annual Debt Service Requirements of IDEA, it will constitute a default under the Loan Agreement.
Negative Pledge
IDEA is not allowed to create or allow any liens to exist on any of its property or equipment included within the Deed of Trust, except such liens as are expressly permitted by the Deed of Trust, including without limitation, any mortgage or other lien on the property comprising IDEA’s Participating Campuses (except in connection with the issuance of additional Debt for such campuses and provided that any such mortgage or other lien on such campuses is also required to secure the Bonds in addition to such additional Debt).
Disposition of Assets
Property and Equipment (“P&E”). No P&E of IDEA may be sold or otherwise disposed of unless (i) the P&E is obsolete or worn out or (ii) fair market value is received in return or (iii) the market value of all P&E disposed of in any fiscal year does not exceed five percent (5%) of the total market value of all P&E of IDEA, and such disposition must comply with the requirements of Section 45.082, Texas Education Code.
Cash, Investments and Other Current Assets (“Liquid Assets”). No Liquid Assets of IDEA may be sold or otherwise disposed of unless (i) fair market value is received in return or (ii) the total market value of Liquid Assets disposed of in any Fiscal Year does not exceed one percent (1%) of all Liquid Assets of IDEA.
Deed of Trust In connection with the issuance of the Bonds, IDEA will issue a Twenty-Third Supplement to Deed of Trust and Security Agreement, dated October 1, 2016, which supplements a Deed of Trust and Security Agreement, dated June 6, 2007, as previously supplemented (as supplemented, the "Deed of Trust"). The Deed of Trust assigns certain Collateral (as defined in the Deed of Trust) in favor of the Master Trustee for the benefit of the Holders of the Master Notes. Such Collateral includes certain of IDEA's real estate and premises as described in the Deed of Trust, as well as existing or future buildings and improvements on such real property, related fixtures and equipment and other Collateral. IDEA's campus sites subject to the Deed of Trust are identified in "APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — TABLE 2: EXISTING/PROPOSED FACILITIES."
Promissory Notes entitled to the benefit of the Deed of Trust include the Master Notes related to the Series 2007 Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds, the Series 2010 Bonds, the Series 2011 Bonds, the Series 2012 Bonds, the Series 2013 Bonds, the Regions Note and the Series 2016B Bonds, but not the Master Notes related to the Series 2014 Bonds, the Series 2015 Bonds or the Series 2016A Bonds. The table below reflects the Borrower’s campuses encumbered by the Deed of Trust.
PROPERTY ENCUMBERED BY THE DEED OF TRUST
Donna Campus Brownsville Campus Frontier Campus Carver Campus Quest Campus South Flores Campus Mission Campus Monterrey Park Campus San Benito Campus Weslaco Pike Campus San Juan Campus (owned facilities only) Allan Campus Alamo Campus Eastside Campus Pharr Campus Rundberg Campus Edinburg Campus San Antonio Campus No. 8 Weslaco Campus
25 The Master Trustee is required to consent to the release of portions of the real property included in the Deed of Trust upon receipt of a written Request for such release and a certificate of an authorized representative providing that (i) the requested release is for a facility funded solely with restricted donations (the “Endowed Facility”), (ii) the Endowed Facility is solely owned by the Borrower, (iii) the Borrower has no outstanding Debt incurred in connection with the construction of the Endowed Facility, (iv) the real property requested for release is limited to the immediate area occupied by the Endowed Facility, and (v) the release thereof, does not materially impair the value of the aggregate real property then-securing all outstanding Debt, and (vi) the Endowed Facility is complete.
In addition, the Master Trustee is required to consent to the release of portions of the real property included in the Deed of Trust upon receipt of (i) a certificate of an authorized representative requesting the release, (ii) the identification of the facility and land requested for release (the “Released Facility”), (iii) an appraisal of the facility and land that remain subject to the Deed of Trust (the “Retained Facility”), (iv) evidence that cash, letter of credit or securities have been deposited with the Master Trustee that, together with the appraised value of the Retained Facility, equal at least 50% of the principal amount of all Notes Outstanding under the Master Indenture, and (vi) a Supplemental Master Indenture permitting the substitution of cash, letter of credit or securities for real property in the Trust Estate along with a written confirmation from each Rating Service that such change will not result in a withdrawal or reduction in its credit rating assigned to any series of Notes or Related Bonds.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
26 DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS*(1) Set forth in the following table are the aggregate debt service requirements relating to the Series 2007 Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds, the Series 2010 Bonds, the Series 2011 Bonds, the Series 2012 Bonds, the Series 2013 Bonds, the Series 2014 Bonds, the Series 2015 Bonds, the Series 2016A Bonds and the Bonds.
THE SERIES 2016A BONDS THE SERIES 2016B BONDS OUTSTANDING BONDS Period Ending
June 30 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest Total 2017 – $ 1,937,833 – $ $ 5,860,000 $ 17,047,985 $ 2018 $ 75,000 4,619,250 – 7,240,000 16,793,080 2019 85,000 4,617,225 $ 685,000 7,535,000 16,483,936 2020 85,000 4,614,675 1,340,000 7,855,000 16,141,483 2021 90,000 4,612,050 1,390,000 8,235,000 15,760,844 2022 90,000 4,608,900 1,470,000 8,630,000 15,354,214 2023 95,000 4,605,200 1,525,000 9,060,000 14,928,694 2024 100,000 4,601,300 1,610,000 9,510,000 14,462,700 2025 105,000 4,597,200 1,695,000 10,025,000 13,940,075 2026 110,000 4,592,900 1,840,000 10,545,000 13,364,594 2027 115,000 4,588,400 2,015,000 11,085,000 12,750,113 2028 120,000 4,583,700 2,195,000 11,660,000 12,104,631 2029 120,000 4,578,900 2,405,000 12,255,000 11,426,650 2030 2,455,000 4,527,400 – 12,885,000 10,714,700 2031 4,030,000 4,397,700 – 12,060,000 10,026,825 2032 4,190,000 4,233,300 – 12,725,000 9,362,475 2033 5,355,000 4,042,400 – 12,380,000 8,723,481 2034 5,950,000 3,816,300 – 12,595,000 8,125,294 2035 6,225,000 3,541,675 – 13,215,000 7,509,219 2036 6,535,000 3,222,675 – 13,895,000 6,827,619 2037 6,860,000 2,887,800 – 14,640,000 6,076,144 2038 7,200,000 2,536,300 – 15,435,000 5,283,856 2039 7,565,000 2,167,175 – 13,985,000 4,505,494 2040 7,940,000 1,779,550 – 14,750,000 3,741,644 2041 6,080,000 1,429,050 – 15,525,000 2,970,344 2042 4,045,000 1,196,150 – 16,305,000 2,192,481 2043 4,230,000 1,009,500 – 15,225,000 1,429,025 2044 4,445,000 792,625 – 12,075,000 778,550 2045 4,675,000 564,625 – 7,970,000 333,400 2046 4,915,000 324,875 – 4,350,000 87,000 2047 5,140,000 101,000 – – – Total: $ 99,025,000 $ 99,727,633 $ 18,170,000 $ $ 339,510,000 $ 279,246,548 $
* Preliminary, subject to change. (1) The foregoing table excludes the portion of the promissory notes relating to the Refunded Bonds, the Regions Note, certain capital leases and other obligations of IDEA. See “APPENDIX B — IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Debt Summary” and “APPENDIX D — FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.”
27 STATE FUNDING FOR TRADITIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Background on State Funding for Traditional School Districts The following is a description of the system of State funding for traditional school districts in the State (the “Finance System”) and not for open-enrollment charter schools. However, it is necessary to understand the Finance System in order to understand the system of State funding applicable to open-enrollment charter schools. For a more complete description of school finance and fiscal management in the State, reference is made to the Texas Education Code, Chapters 41 through 46, as amended.
Funding for school districts in the State is provided primarily from State and local sources. State funding for all school districts is provided through a set of funding formulas comprising the “Foundation School Program,” as well as two facilities funding programs. Generally, the Finance System is designed to promote wealth equalization among school districts by balancing State and local sources of funds available to school districts. In particular, because districts with relatively high levels of property wealth per student can raise more local funding, such districts receive less State aid, and in some cases, are required to disburse local funds to equalize their overall funding relative to other school districts. Conversely, because districts with relatively low levels of property wealth per student have limited access to local funding, the Finance System is designed to provide more State funding to such districts. Thus, as a school district’s property wealth per student increases, State funding to the school district is reduced. As a school district’s property wealth per student declines, the Finance System is designed to increase that district’s State funding. The Finance System provides a similar equalization system for facilities funding wherein districts with the same tax rate for debt service raise the same amount of combined State and local funding. Facilities funding for debt incurred in prior years is expected to continue in future years; however, State funding for new school facilities has not been consistently appropriated by the Texas Legislature (the “Legislature”), as further described below.
Local funding is derived from collections of ad valorem taxes levied on property located within each district’s boundaries. School districts are authorized to levy two types of property taxes: a limited maintenance and operation (“M&O”) tax to pay current expenses and an unlimited interest and sinking fund (“I&S”) tax to pay debt service on bonds. Generally, under current law, M&O tax rates are subject to a statutory maximum rate of $1.17 per $100 of taxable value for most school districts (a few districts can exceed the $1.17 limit as a result of authorization approved in the 1960s). Current law also requires school districts to demonstrate their ability to pay debt service on outstanding indebtedness through the levy of an ad valorem tax at a rate of not to exceed $0.50 per $100 of taxable property at the time bonds are issued. Once bonds are issued, however, districts may levy a tax to pay debt service on such bonds unlimited as to rate or amount. As noted above, because property values vary widely among school districts, the amount of local funding generated by the same tax rate is also subject to wide variation among school districts.
In response to certain litigation related to the Finance System, the Texas Legislature (the “Legislature”) enacted House Bill 1 (“HB 1”), which made substantive changes in the way the Finance System is funded, as well as other legislation which, among other things, established a special fund in the State treasury to be used to collect new tax revenues that are dedicated under certain conditions for appropriation by the Legislature to reduce M&O tax rates, broadened the State business franchise tax, modified the procedures for assessing the State motor vehicle sales and use tax and increased the State tax on tobacco products (HB 1 and other described legislation are collectively referred to herein as the “Reform Legislation”). The Reform Legislation generally became effective at the beginning of the 2006–07 fiscal year of each district.
The Reform Legislation made substantive changes to the Finance System which are summarized below. While each school district’s funding entitlement was calculated based on the same formulas that were used prior to the 2006-07 fiscal year, the Reform Legislation made changes to local district funding by reducing each districts’ 2005 M&O tax rate by one-third over two years through the introduction of the “State Compression Percentage,” with M&O tax levies declining by approximately 11% in fiscal year 2006-07 and approximately another 22% in fiscal year 2007-08. (Prior to the Reform Legislation, the maximum M&O tax rate for most school districts was $1.50 per $100 of taxable assessed valuation. Because most school districts levied an M&O rate of $1.50 in 2005, the application of the Reform Legislation compression formula reduced the majority of school districts’ M&O tax rates to $1.00). Subject to local referenda, a district may increase its local M&O tax rate from $1.04 up to the statutory limit, which is $1.17 for most school districts.
28 Local Funding for School Districts The primary source of local funding for school districts is collections from ad valorem taxes levied against taxable property located in each school district. As noted above, prior to the Reform Legislation, the maximum M&O tax rate for most school districts was generally limited to $1.50 per $100 of taxable value, and the majority of school districts were levying an M&O tax rate of $1.50 per $100 of taxable value at the time the Reform Legislation was enacted. The Reform Legislation required each school district to “compress” its tax rate by an amount equal to the “State Compression Percentage.” For fiscal years 2007-08 through 2015-16, the State Compression Percentage has been set at 66.67%, effectively setting the maximum compressed M&O tax rate for most school districts at $1.00 per $100 of taxable value. The State Compression Percentage is set by legislative appropriation for each State fiscal biennium or, in the absence of legislative appropriation, by the Commissioner. School districts are permitted, however, to generate additional local funds by raising their M&O tax rate by up to $0.04 above the compressed tax rate without voter approval (for most districts, up to $1.04 per $100 of taxable value). In addition, if the voters approve a tax rate increase through a local referendum, districts may, in general, increase their M&O tax rate up to a maximum M&O tax rate of $1.17 per $100 of taxable value and receive State equalization funds for such taxing effort. Elections authorizing the levy of M&O taxes held in certain school districts under older laws, however, may subject M&O tax rates in such districts to other limitations.
State Funding for School Districts State funding for school districts is provided through the Foundation School Program, which provides each school district with a minimum level of funding (a “Basic Allotment”) for each student in average daily attendance (“ADA”). The Basic Allotment is calculated for each school district using various weights and adjustments based on the number of students in ADA and also varies depending on each district’s compressed tax rate. This Basic Allotment formula determines most of the allotments making up a district’s basic level of funding and is referred to as “Tier One” of the Foundation School Program. The basic level of funding is then “enriched” with additional funds known as “Tier Two” of the Foundation School Program. Tier Two provides a guaranteed level of funding for each cent of local tax effort that exceeds the compressed tax rate (for most districts, M&O tax rates above $1.00 per $100 of taxable value). The Finance System also provides an Existing Debt Allotment (“EDA”) to subsidize debt service on eligible outstanding school district bonds and an Instructional Facilities Allotment (“IFA”) to subsidize debt service on newly issued bonds. IFA primarily addresses the debt service needs of property-poor school districts. A New Instructional Facilities Allotment (“NIFA”) also is available to help pay operational expenses associated with the opening of a new instructional facility; however, NIFA awards were not funded by the Legislature for either the 2012-13 or the 2014-15 State fiscal biennium. In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature did appropriate funds in the amount of $1,445,100,000 for the 2016-17 State fiscal biennium for an increase in the Basic Allotment, EDA, IFA and NIFA support, as further described below.
Tier One and Tier Two allotments represent the State’s share of the cost of M&O expenses of school districts, with local M&O taxes representing the district’s local share. EDA and IFA allotments supplement a school district’s local I&S taxes levied for debt service on eligible bonds issued to construct, acquire and improve facilities. Tier One and Tier Two allotments and existing EDA and IFA allotments are generally required to be funded each year by the Legislature. Since future-year IFA awards were not funded by the Legislature for the 2014-15 fiscal biennium or the 2015-16 school year, and debt service assistance on school district bonds that are not yet eligible for EDA is not available, debt service on new bonds issued by districts to construct, acquire and improve facilities must be funded solely from local I&S taxes. For the 2016-17 school year, the Legislature has appropriated $55.5 million for IFA allotments.
Tier One allotments are intended to provide all districts a basic level of education necessary to meet applicable legal standards. Tier Two allotments are intended to guarantee each school district that is not subject to the wealth transfer provisions described below an opportunity to supplement that basic program at a level of its own choice; however, Tier Two allotments may not be used for the payment of debt service or capital outlay.
As described above, the cost of the basic program is based on an allotment per student known as the “Basic Allotment.” For fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Basic Allotment is $5,140 for each student in ADA. The Basic Allotment is then adjusted for all districts by several different weights to account for inherent differences between school districts. These weights consist of (i) a cost adjustment factor intended to address varying economic conditions that affect teacher hiring known as the “cost of education index,” (ii) district-size adjustments for small and mid-size districts and (iii) an adjustment for the sparsity of the district’s student population. The cost of
29 education index and district-size adjustments applied to the Basic Allotment, create what is referred to as the “Adjusted Allotment.” The Adjusted Allotment is used to compute a “regular program allotment,” as well as various other allotments associated with educating students with other specified educational needs.
Tier Two supplements the basic funding of Tier One and provides two levels of enrichment with different guaranteed yields (i.e., guaranteed levels of funding by the State) depending on the district’s local tax effort. The first six cents of tax effort that exceeds the compressed tax rate (for most districts, M&O tax rates ranging from $1.01 to $1.06 per $100 of taxable value) will, for most districts, generate a guaranteed yield of $74.28 and $77.53 per cent of tax effort per weighted student in average daily attendance (“WADA”) for the fiscal year 2015-16 and fiscal year 2016-17, respectively. The second level of Tier Two is generated by tax effort that exceeds the district’s compressed tax rate plus six cents (for most districts eligible for this level of funding, M&O tax rates ranging from $1.06 to $1.17 per $100 of taxable value) and has a guaranteed yield per cent per WADA of $31.95 for fiscal years 2015-16 and 2016-17. Property-wealthy school districts that have an M&O tax rate that exceeds the district’s compressed tax rate plus six cents are subject to recapture above this tax rate level at the equivalent wealth per student of $319,500 (see “– Wealth Transfer Provisions” below).
Because districts with compressed rates of less than $1.00 have not been receiving the full Basic Allotment, the 84th Texas Legislature amended the Foundation School Program to enable some districts (known as “fractionally funded districts”) to increase their Tier One participation by moving the district’s local tax effort that would be equalized under Tier Two at $31.95 per penny to the Tier 1 Basic Allotment. The compressed tax rate of a school district that adopted a 2005 M&O Tax Rate below the maximum $1.50 tax rate for the 2005 tax year can now include the portion of a district’s current M&O tax rate in excess of the first six cents above the district’s compressed tax rate until the district’s compressed tax rate is equal to the state maximum compressed tax rate of $1.00, thereby eliminating the penalty against the Basic Allotment. For these districts, each one cent of M&O tax levy above the district’s compressed tax rate plus six cents, will have a guaranteed yield based on Tier One funding instead of the $31.95 Tier Two yield for the fiscal year 2015-16 and fiscal year 2016-17. These conversions are optional for each applicable district in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years and are automatic beginning in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
In addition to the operations funding components of the Foundation School Program discussed above, the Foundation School Program provides a facilities funding component consisting of the IFA program and the EDA program. These programs assist school districts in funding facilities by, generally, equalizing a district’s I&S tax effort. The IFA guarantees each awarded school district a specified amount per student (the “IFA Guaranteed Yield”) in State and local funds for each cent of tax effort to pay the principal of and interest on eligible bonds issued to construct, acquire, renovate or improve instructional facilities. The guaranteed yield per cent of local tax effort per student in ADA has been $35 since this program first began in 1997. To receive an IFA award, a school district must apply to the Commissioner in accordance with rules adopted by the Commissioner before issuing the bonds to be paid with IFA state assistance. The total amount of debt service assistance over a biennium for which a district may be awarded is limited to the lesser of (1) the actual debt service payments made by the district in the biennium in which the bonds are issued; or (2) the greater of (a) $100,000 or (b) $250 multiplied by the number of students in ADA. The IFA is also available for lease-purchase agreements and refunding bonds meeting certain prescribed conditions. Once a district receives an IFA award for bonds, it is entitled to continue receiving State assistance for such bonds without reapplying to the Commissioner. The guaranteed level of State and local funds per student per cent of local tax effort applicable to the bonds may not be reduced below the level provided for the year in which the bonds were issued. For the fiscal years 2011-12 through 2015-16, no funds were appropriated for new IFA awards by the Legislature, although all prior awards were funded throughout such periods. The 84th Texas Legislature appropriated funds in the amount of $55,500,000 for new IFA awards to be made during the 2016-17 fiscal year only.
State financial assistance is provided for certain existing eligible debt issued by school districts through the EDA program. The EDA guaranteed yield (the “EDA Yield”) is the same as the IFA Guaranteed Yield ($35 per cent of local tax effort per student in ADA), subject to adjustment as described below. For bonds that became eligible for EDA funding after August 31, 2001, and prior to August 31, 2005, EDA assistance was less than $35 in revenue per student for each cent of debt service tax, as a result of certain administrative delegations granted to the Commissioner under State law. The portion of a district’s local debt service rate that qualifies for EDA assistance is limited to the first 29 cents of debt service tax (or a greater amount for any year provided by appropriation by the
30 Legislature). In general, a district’s bonds are eligible for EDA assistance if (i) the district made payments on the bonds during the final fiscal year of the preceding State fiscal biennium or (ii) the district levied taxes to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds for that fiscal year. Each biennium, access to EDA funding is determined by the debt service taxes collected in the final year of the preceding biennium. A district may not receive EDA funding for the principal and interest on a series of otherwise eligible bonds for which the district receives IFA funding.
A district may also qualify for a NIFA allotment, which provides assistance to districts for operational expenses associated with opening new instructional facilities. For the 2012-13 and 2014-15 State fiscal biennia, no funds were appropriated by the Legislature for new NIFA allotments. The 84th Texas Legislature did appropriate funds in the amount of $23,750,000 for each of the 2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years for NIFA allotments.
2006 Legislation Since the enactment of the Reform Legislation in 2006, most school districts in the State have operated with a “target” funding level per student (“Target Revenue”) that is based upon the “hold harmless” principles embodied in the Reform Legislation. This system of Target Revenue was superimposed on the Foundation School Program and made existing funding formulas substantially less important for most school districts. As noted above, the Reform Legislation was intended to lower M&O tax rates in order to give school districts “meaningful discretion” in setting their M&O tax rates, while holding school districts harmless by providing them with the same level of overall funding they received prior to the enactment of the Reform Legislation. Under the Target Revenue system, each school district is generally entitled to receive the same amount of revenue per student as it did in either the 2005–2006 or 2006–07 fiscal year (under existing laws prior to the enactment of the Reform Legislation), as long as the district adopted an M&O tax rate that was at least equal to its compressed rate. The reduction in local M&O taxes resulting from the mandatory compression of M&O tax rates under the Reform Legislation, by itself, would have significantly reduced the amount of local revenue available to fund the Finance System. To make up for this shortfall, the Reform Legislation authorized Additional State Aid for Tax Reduction (“ASATR”) for each school district in an amount equal to the difference between the amount that each district would receive under the Foundation School Program and the amount of each district’s Target Revenue funding level.
However, in subsequent legislative sessions, the Texas Legislature has gradually reduced the reliance on ASATR by increasing the funding formulas. This phase-out of ASATR began with actions adopted by the 83rd Legislature. Beginning with the 2017-18 school year, the statutes authorizing ASATR are repealed.
2013 Legislation The 83rd Legislature concluded its regular session on May 27, 2013. During the session, the Legislature adopted a biennial budget that “restored” $3.2 billion of the $4 billion that was cut from basic state aid for the Finance System during the 82nd Texas Legislature and some $100 million of the $1.3 billion cut from grant programs during the 82nd Legislature. The revenues that were added back to the Finance System do not take into account growing student enrollment in the State. The Legislature did not materially change the Finance System during the session.
2015 Legislation As a general matter, the 84th Legislature, which concluded on June 1, 2015, did not enact substantive changes to the Finance System. However, Senate Joint Resolution 1 was passed during the session, which proposed a constitutional amendment increasing the mandatory homestead exemption for school districts from $15,000 to $25,000, and requiring that the tax limitation for taxpayers who are age 65 and older or disabled be reduced to reflect the additional exemption. The proposed constitutional amendment was approved by the voters at a statewide election held on November 3, 2015, and is effective for the tax year beginning January 1, 2015. Legislation was also passed by the 84th Legislature that includes provisions allowing for additional State aid to hold school districts harmless during the State’s 2016-17 biennium for tax revenue losses resulting from the increased homestead exemption. Any hold harmless funding for future biennia must be approved in subsequent legislative sessions. The 2016-17 hold harmless legislation also prohibits a school district from reducing the amount of, or repealing, an optional homestead exemption that was in place for the 2014 tax year (fiscal year 2015) through the period ending December 31, 2019. An optional homestead exemption reduces both the tax revenue and State aid received by a school district.
31 Before the next regular session of the Texas Legislature convenes in 2017, the Governor is authorized to call one or more special sessions of the Legislature, and any such session could include legislation affecting public school finance. During this time, the Legislature may enact laws that materially change the current public school finance or affect ad valorem tax matters.
Wealth Transfer Provisions Some districts have sufficient property wealth per student in WADA (“wealth per student”) to generate their statutory level of funding through collections of local property taxes alone. Districts whose wealth per student generates local property tax collections in excess of their statutory level of funding are referred to as “Chapter 41” districts because they are subject to the wealth equalization provisions contained in Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code. Chapter 41 districts may receive State funds for certain competitive grants and a few programs that remain outside the Foundation School Program, as well as receiving ASATR until their overall funding meets or exceeds their Target Revenue level of funding. Otherwise, Chapter 41 districts are not eligible to receive State funding. Furthermore, Chapter 41 districts must exercise certain options in order to reduce their wealth level to equalized wealth levels of funding, as determined by formulas set forth in the Reform Legislation. For most Chapter 41 districts, this equalization process entails paying the portion of the district’s local taxes collected in excess of the equalized wealth levels of funding to the State (for redistribution to other school districts) or directly to other school districts with a wealth per student that does not generate local funds sufficient to meet the statutory level of funding; a process known as “recapture.”
The equalized wealth levels that subject Chapter 41 districts to wealth equalization measures for fiscal year 2015-16 are set at (i) $514,000 per student in WADA with respect to that portion of a district’s M&O tax effort that does not exceed its compressed tax rate (for most districts, the first $1.00 per $100 of taxable value) and (ii) $319,500 per WADA with respect to that portion of a district’s M&O tax effort that is beyond its compressed rate plus $0.06 (for most districts, M&O taxes levied above $1.06 per $100 in taxable value). M&O taxes levied above $1.00 but below $1.07 per $100 of taxable value are not subject to the wealth equalization provisions of Chapter 41. Chapter 41 districts with a wealth per student above the lower equalized wealth level but below the higher equalized wealth level must equalize their wealth only with respect to the portion of their M&O tax rate, if any, in excess of $1.06 per $100 of taxable value. Chapter 41 districts may be entitled to receive ASATR from the State in excess of their recapture liability of $514,000 for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years, and certain of such districts may use their ASATR funds to offset their recapture liability.
Under Chapter 41, a district has five options to reduce its wealth per student so that it does not exceed the equalized wealth levels: (i) a district may consolidate by agreement with one or more districts to form a consolidated district; all property and debt of the consolidating districts vest in the consolidated district; (ii) a district may detach property from its territory for annexation by a property-poor district; (iii) a district may purchase attendance credits from the State; (iv) a district may contract to educate nonresident students from a property-poor district by sending money directly to one or more property-poor districts; or (v) a district may consolidate by agreement with one or more districts to form a consolidated taxing district solely to levy and distribute either M&O taxes or both M&O taxes and I&S taxes. A Chapter 41 district may also exercise any combination of these remedies. Options (iii), (iv) and (v) require prior approval by the Chapter 41 district’s voters; certain Chapter 41 districts may apply ASATR funds to offset recapture and to achieve the statutory wealth equalization requirements, as described above, without approval from voters.
A district may not adopt a tax rate until its effective wealth per student is at or below the equalized wealth level. If a district fails to exercise a permitted option, the Commissioner must reduce the district’s property wealth per student to the equalized wealth level by detaching certain types of property from the district and annexing the property to a property-poor district or, if necessary, consolidate the district with a property-poor district. Provisions governing detachment and annexation of taxable property by the Commissioner do not provide for assumption of any of the transferring district’s existing debt. The Commissioner has not been required to detach property in the absence of a district failing to select another wealth-equalization option.
32 STATE OPEN-ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING
Background on State Open-Enrollment Charter School Funding State funding for open-enrollment charter schools is an adaptation of the Finance System described above under “STATE FUNDING FOR TRADITIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS” and “STATE OPEN- ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING.”
Tier One Funding for Charter Schools With respect to Tier One funding, open-enrollment charter schools are generally entitled to receive the greater of: (i) the Basic Allotment (which includes adjustments for students with differing education needs) that the school would have received during the 2009-10 school year under the school finance formulas of the Foundation School Program in existence on January 1, 2009, plus an additional $120 per WADA, each multiplied by 92.35% for the 2013 fiscal year, and by 92.63% for the 2014 and 2015 fiscal year; or (ii) the statewide average funding per student in WADA. Because the Regular Program Adjustment Factor (“RPAF”) was applied to the Tier One Basic Allotment for traditional school districts and open-enrollment charter schools alike, charter schools were equally subject to State budget cuts. By setting the RPAF at 1.00% for the 2014-15 fiscal biennia, the Legislature essentially restored the funding that was previously cut during the 2011 Legislative Session.
Tier Two Funding and ASATR for Charter Schools With respect to Tier Two funding, open-enrollment charter schools are entitled to receive a funding amount based on the statewide “average tax effort” of traditional school districts. Similarly, open-enrollment charter schools are entitled to receive ASATR in an amount based on the statewide average ASATR received by traditional school districts. Open-enrollment charter schools are also entitled to funds that are available to school districts from the TEA or the Commissioner in the form of grants or other discretionary funding unless the authorizing statute specifically provides that open-enrollment charter schools are not entitled to such funding.
State Facilities Funding for Charter Schools Open-enrollment charter schools are not entitled to receive any form of State funding to assist with the construction of new facilities.
Timing of State Funding IDEA receives State funding payments monthly in approximately even amounts (i.e., either 8.3% or 8.4% of its overall annual entitlement, monthly). The amount of any installment can be modified to provide the proper amount to which IDEA may be entitled and to correct errors in the allocation or distribution of funds.
Foundation School Program Funding Schedule for Certain Open-Enrollment Charter Schools House Bill 2251 (“HB 2251”), passed during the 84th Legislature, provides open-enrollment charter schools that have experienced a 10% or greater increase in enrollment from the prior year with the option of an accelerated payment of Foundation School Program funding. Eligible charter schools that choose the accelerated payment schedule prescribed by HB 2251 will receive such payments for three school years and then must reestablish eligibility.
PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION
Prior Litigation Relating to the Texas Public School Finance System On seven occasions in the last thirty years, the Texas Supreme Court (the “Court”) has issued decisions assessing the constitutionality of the Finance System. The litigation has primarily focused on whether the Finance System, as amended by the Texas Legislature (the “Legislature”) from time to time (i) met the requirements of article VII, section 1 of the Texas Constitution, which requires the Legislature to “establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools,” or (ii) imposed a statewide ad valorem tax in violation of article VIII, section 1-e of the Texas Constitution because the statutory limit on property taxes levied by school districts for maintenance and operation purposes had allegedly denied school districts meaningful discretion in setting their tax rates. In response to the Court’s previous decisions, the
33 Legislature enacted multiple laws that made substantive changes in the way the Finance System is funded in efforts to address the prior decisions declaring the Finance System unconstitutional.
On May 13, 2016, the Court issued its opinion in the most recent school finance litigation, Morath, et.al v. The Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition, et al., No. 14-0776 (Tex. May 13, 2016) (“Morath”). The plaintiffs and intervenors in the case had alleged that the Finance System, as modified by the Legislature in part in response to prior decisions of the Court, violated article VII, section 1 and article VIII, section 1-e of the Texas Constitution. In its opinion, the Court held that “[d]espite the imperfections of the current school funding regime, it meets minimum constitutional requirements.” The Court also noted that:
Lawmakers decide if laws pass, and judges decide if those laws pass muster. But our lenient standard of review in this policy-laden area counsels modesty. The judicial role is not to second-guess whether our system is optimal, but whether it is constitutional. Our Byzantine school funding "system" is undeniably imperfect, with immense room for improvement. But it satisfies minimum constitutional requirements.
Possible Effects of Changes in Law on Public School Obligations The Court’s decision in Morath upheld the constitutionality of the Finance System but noted that the Financing System was “undeniably imperfect.” While not compelled by the Morath decision to reform the Finance System, the Legislature could enact future changes to the Finance System. Any such changes could benefit or be a detriment to independent school districts in the State. If the Legislature enacts future changes to, or fails adequately to fund the Finance System, or if changes in circumstances otherwise provide grounds for a challenge, the Finance System could be challenged again in the future. In its 1995 opinion in Edgewood Independent School District v. Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717 (Tex. 1995), the Court stated that any future determination of unconstitutionality “would not, however, affect the district’s authority to levy the taxes necessary to retire previously issued bonds, but would instead require the Legislature to cure the system’s unconstitutionality in a way that is consistent with the Contract Clauses of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions” (collectively, the “Contract Clauses”), which prohibit the enactment of laws that impair prior obligations of contracts. As a matter of law, public school obligations, upon issuance and delivery, will be entitled to the protections afforded previously existing contractual obligations under the Contract Clauses.
NEITHER IDEA NOR ANY OTHER PARTY TO THE BOND TRANSACTION CAN MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR PREDICTIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT THIS LITIGATION MAY HAVE ON IDEA’S FINANCIAL CONDITION, REVENUES OR OPERATIONS.
LEGAL MATTERS
General All legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds by the Issuer are subject to the approval of the Attorney General of the State and the legal opinion of Andrews Kurth L.L.P., Houston, Texas, Bond Counsel, in substantially the form of the opinions set forth in “APPENDIX E — FORM OF BOND COUNSEL OPINION.” The opinion of Bond Counsel will express no opinion and make no comment with respect to the sufficiency of the security for, or the marketability of, the Bonds.
Certain legal matters will be passed upon by Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, P.L.L.C., as counsel to the Issuer; by Andrews Kurth L.L.P., Houston, Texas, counsel to IDEA; by Haynes and Boone, LLP, Houston, Texas, as counsel to the Trustee and Master Trustee; and by McCall, Parkhurst & Horton L.L.P., Dallas, Texas, as counsel to the Underwriter.
The various legal opinions to be delivered concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds express the professional judgment of the attorneys rendering the opinions as to the legal issues explicitly addressed therein. By rendering a legal opinion, the opinion giver does not become an insurer or guarantor of that expression of professional judgment of the transaction opined upon or of the future performance of parties to such transaction. Further, the various legal opinions to be delivered concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds will be qualified as to the enforceability of the various legal instruments by limitations imposed by the valid exercise of the constitutional powers of the State and the United States of America and bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or other similar
34 laws affecting the rights of creditors generally and by general principles of equity (regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in a proceeding in equity or at law).
Pending and Threatened Litigation No Proceedings Against IDEA
In connection with the issuance of the Bonds, IDEA will deliver a certificate or certificates which will state that, as of the date of issuance of the Bonds, there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, public board or body pending or, to the best of its knowledge, threatened against or affecting IDEA, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would adversely affect the transactions contemplated by the Bond Indenture, the Master Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the bond purchase agreement (referred to in “MISCELLANEOUS — Underwriting”) or this Official Statement, or the validity and enforceability of the Bond Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Master Indenture, the bond purchase agreement, the Bonds, the Series 2016B Note or the operations (financial, operational or otherwise) of IDEA.
No Proceedings Against the Issuer
In connection with the issuance of the Bonds, the Issuer will deliver a certificate or certificates which will state that, as of the date of issuance of the Bonds, there is no pending or threatened litigation seeking to restrain or enjoin the issuance, sale, execution or delivery of the Bonds, questioning or affecting the validity of the Bonds or any proceedings of the Issuer taken with respect to the issuance or sale thereof, questioning or affecting the validity of the pledge or application of any money, revenues or security provided for the payment of the Bonds, questioning or affecting the right of the Issuer to enter into the Bond Indenture, the Loan Agreement or the bond purchase agreement, or questioning or affecting the existence or powers of the Issuer.
TAX MATTERS
Tax Exemption In the opinion of Andrews Kurth LLP, Houston, Texas, Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is (i) excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and (ii) not included in determining the alternative minimum taxable income of individuals or, except as described below, corporations.
Interest on the Bonds owned by a corporation will be included in such corporation’s adjusted current earnings for purposes of calculating the alternative minimum taxable income of such corporation, other than an S corporation, a qualified mutual fund, a real estate investment trust, a real estate mortgage investment conduit or a financial asset securitization investment trust (“FASIT”). A corporation’s alternative minimum taxable income is the basis on which the alternative minimum tax imposed by Section 55 of the Code will be computed.
The foregoing opinions of Bond Counsel are based on the Code and the regulations, rulings and court decisions thereunder in existence on the date of issue of the Bonds. Such authorities are subject to change and any such change could prospectively or retroactively result in the inclusion of the interest on the Bonds in gross income of the owners thereof or change the treatment of such interest for purposes of computing alternative minimum taxable income.
In rendering its opinion, Bond Counsel has assumed that the Issuer and IDEA will comply with all requirements of the Code that must be satisfied subsequent to the issuance of the Bonds in order that interest thereon be, or continue to be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. The Issuer and IDEA have covenanted in the Bond Indenture and the Loan Agreement to comply with each such requirement. In providing the opinions set forth in the preceding paragraph, Bond Counsel has relied upon representations of the Issuer, IDEA and the Underwriter with respect to matters solely within the knowledge of the Issuer, IDEA and the Underwriter, respectively, that Bond Counsel has not independently verified, and has assumed continuing compliance with the procedures, safeguards and covenants in the Bond Indenture and the Loan Agreement pertaining to those sections of the Code that affect the status of IDEA as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, the requirements of Section 145 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder relating to projects for 501(c)(3) organizations and the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax
35 purposes. Bond Counsel has also relied, with the permission of the Issuer and IDEA and without independent verification, on representations of IDEA pertaining to the applicable requirements of Sections 501(c)(3) and 145 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Included among such representations are those representations of IDEA set forth in IDEA’s Tax Certificate and those representations of IDEA and the Issuer set forth in the Issuer’s Federal Tax Certificate. The matters that are the subject of such representations are (1) matters that Bond Counsel has assumed to be solely within the knowledge of the respective persons making such representations and (2) matters that Bond Counsel has not independently verified. Bond Counsel has assumed that subsequent to the date hereof there will be continuous compliance with the procedures, safeguards and covenants in the Bond Indenture and the Loan Agreement that pertain to the requirements of Section 103, 141 through 150 and 501(c)(3) of the Code. Failure to comply with certain of such requirements may cause the inclusion of interest on the Bonds in gross income for federal income tax purposes to be retroactive to the date of issuance of the Bonds regardless of the date on which the event causing such taxability occurs. The Code and existing regulations, rulings and court decisions thereunder upon which the foregoing opinions of Bond Counsel are based, are subject to change, which could prospectively or retroactively result in the inclusion of the interest on the Bonds in gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes.
Except as stated above, Bond Counsel will express no opinion as to any federal, state or local tax consequences resulting from the ownership of, receipt or accrual of interest on or acquisition or disposition of the Bonds.
Bond Counsel’s opinion is not a guarantee of a result, but represents its legal judgment based upon its review of existing statutes, regulations, published rulings and court decisions and the representations and covenants of the Board described above. No ruling has been sought from the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) with respect to the matters addressed in the opinion of Bond Counsel, and Bond Counsel’s opinion is not binding on the Service. The Service has an ongoing program of auditing the tax-exempt status of the interest on municipal obligations. If an audit of the Bonds is commenced, under current procedures the Service is likely to treat the Issuer as the “taxpayer,” and the owners of the Bonds may have no right to participate in the audit process. In responding to or defending an audit of the tax-exempt status of the interest on the Bonds, the Issuer may have different or conflicting interests from the owners of the Bonds. Public awareness of any future audit of the Bonds could adversely affect the value and liquidity of the Bonds during the pendency of the audit, regardless of its ultimate outcome.
Under the Code, taxpayers are required to provide information on their returns regarding the amount of tax- exempt interest, such as interest on the Bonds, received or accrued during the year.
Prospective purchasers of the Bonds should be aware that the ownership of tax-exempt obligations, such as the Bonds, may result in collateral federal income tax consequences to, among others, financial institutions, life insurance companies, property and casualty insurance companies, certain foreign corporations doing business in the United States, certain S corporations with Subchapter C earnings and profits, individual recipients of Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits, taxpayers who are deemed to have incurred or continued indebtedness to purchase or carry tax-exempt obligations, taxpayers owning an interest in a FASIT that holds tax-exempt obligations, and individuals otherwise eligible for the earned income tax credit. Such prospective purchasers should consult their tax advisors as to the consequences of investing in the Bonds.
Proposed Tax Legislation Tax legislation, administrative actions taken by tax authorities, and court decisions may cause interest on the Bonds to be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal income taxation or state income taxation, or otherwise prevent the beneficial owners of the Bonds from realizing the full current benefit of the tax status of such interest. For example, future legislation to resolve certain federal budgetary issues may significantly reduce the benefit of, or otherwise affect, the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on all state and local obligations, including the Bonds. In addition, such legislation or actions (whether currently proposed, proposed in the future or enacted) could affect the market price or marketability of the Bonds. Prospective purchasers of the Bonds should consult their own tax advisors regarding any pending or proposed federal or state tax legislation, regulations or litigation, and its impact on their individual situations, as to which Bond Counsel expresses no opinion.
36 Tax Accounting Treatment of Premium on the Bonds Some of the Bonds may be offered at an initial offering price which is less than the stated redemption price payable at maturity of such Bonds. If a substantial amount of any maturity of the Bonds is sold to members of the public (which for this purpose excludes bond houses, brokers and similar persons or entities acting in the capacity of wholesalers or underwriters) at such initial offering price, each of the Bonds of that maturity (a “Discount Bond”) will be considered to have “original issue discount” for federal income tax purposes equal to the difference between (a) the stated redemption price payable at the maturity of such Discount Bond and (b) the initial offering price to the public of such Discount Bond. Under existing law, such original issue discount will be treated for federal income tax purposes as additional interest on a Bond and such initial owner will be entitled to exclude from gross income for federal income tax purposes that portion of such original issue discount deemed to be earned (as discussed below) during the period while such Discount Bond continues to be owned by such initial owner. Except as otherwise provided herein, the discussion regarding interest on the Bond under the caption “TAX MATTERS -- Tax Exemption” generally applies to original issue discount deemed to be earned on a Discount Bond while held by an owner who has purchased such Discount Bond at the initial offering price in the initial public offering of the Bonds and that discussion should be considered in connection with this portion of the Official Statement.
In the event of a redemption, sale, or other taxable disposition of a Discount Bond prior to its stated maturity, however, any amount realized by such initial owner in excess of the basis of such Discount Bond in the hands of such owner (increased to reflect the portion of the original issue discount deemed to have been earned while such Discount Bond continues to be held by such initial owner) will be includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
Because original issue discount on a Discount Bond will be treated for federal income tax purposes as interest on a Bond, such original issue discount must be taken into account for certain federal income tax purposes as it is deemed to be earned even though there will not be a corresponding cash payment. Corporations that purchase a Discount Bond must take into account original issue discount as it is deemed to be earned for purposes of determining alternative minimum tax. Other owners of a Discount Bond may be required to take into account such original issue discount as it is deemed to be earned for purposes of determining certain collateral federal tax consequences of owning a Bond. See “TAX MATTERS -- Tax Exemption” for a discussion regarding the alternative minimum taxable income consequences for corporations and for a reference to collateral federal tax consequences for certain other owners.
The characterization of original issue discount as interest is for federal income tax purposes only and does not otherwise affect the rights or obligations of the owner of a Discount Bond or of the Issuer or the Borrower. The portion of the principal of a Discount Bond representing original issue discount is payable upon the maturity or earlier redemption of such Discount Bond to the registered owner of the Discount Bond at that time.
Under special tax accounting rules prescribed by existing law, a portion of the original issue discount on each Discount Bond is deemed to be earned each day. The portion of the original issue discount deemed to be earned each day is determined under an actuarial method of accrual, using the yield to maturity as the constant interest rate and semi-annual compounding.
The federal income tax consequences of the purchase, ownership, redemption, sale or other disposition of Discount Bonds by an owner that did not purchase such Discount Bonds in the initial public offering and at the initial offering price may be determined according to rules which differ from those described above. All prospective purchasers of Discount Bonds should consult their tax advisors with respect to the determination for federal, state and local income tax purposes of interest and original issue discount accrued upon redemption, sale or other disposition of such Discount Bonds and with respect to the federal, state, local and foreign tax consequences of the purchase, ownership, redemption, sale or other disposition of such Discount Bonds.
The initial public offering price of certain of the Bonds (the “Premium Bonds”) may be greater than the amount payable at maturity of such Premium Bonds. An amount equal to the difference between the initial public offering price of a Premium Bond (assuming that a substantial amount of the Premium Bonds of that maturity are sold to the public at such price) and the amount payable at maturity constitutes premium to the initial purchaser of such Premium Bond. The basis for federal income tax purposes of a Premium Bond in the hands of such initial purchaser must be reduced each year by the amortizable premium, even though no corresponding deduction is
37 allowable. Such reduction in basis will increase the amount of any gain (or decrease the amount of any loss) to be recognized for federal income tax purposes upon a sale or other taxable disposition of a Premium Bond. Generally, no corresponding deduction is allowed for federal income tax purposes for the reduction in basis resulting from amortizable bond premium with respect to the Premium Bonds. The amount of premium that is amortizable each year by an initial purchaser is determined by using such purchaser’s yield to maturity. Purchasers of the Premium Bonds should consult with their own tax advisors with respect to the determination of amortizable premium with respect to the Premium Bonds for federal income tax purposes and with respect to the state and local tax consequences of owning Premium Bonds.
The federal income tax consequences of the purchase, ownership, redemption, sale or other disposition by an owner of Premium Bonds that are not purchased in the initial offering or which are purchased at an amount representing a price other than the initial offering price for the Premium Bonds of the same maturity may be determined according to rules which differ from those described above. Moreover, all prospective purchasers of Bonds should consult their tax advisors with respect to the federal, state, local and foreign tax consequences of the purchase, ownership, redemption, sale or other disposition of Premium Bonds.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
General IDEA will enter into and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the “Continuing Disclosure Agreement”) with respect to the Bonds. The Continuing Disclosure Agreement is made for the benefit of the registered and Beneficial Owners of the Bonds and in order to assist the Underwriter in complying with its obligations pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Rule”). See “APPENDIX F — FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.”
Compliance with Prior Undertakings In a prior undertaking, IDEA agreed to use its best efforts to cause certain interim data to be filed (in addition to annual reports required by such undertakings). Such interim data was not filed for the August 31, 2011 fiscal quarter. The prior undertakings provide that failure to provide such interim information is not a failure under the undertaking, does not give rise to a requirement to provide notice to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) or otherwise, and does not provide the basis for any remedy or enforcement action under the undertaking. IDEA has filed all subsequent interim filings. IDEA also agreed to cause its annual budget to be filed within certain required time periods. Such budgets were not filed on a timely basis. However, such budgets were subsequently filed, along with a notice of failure to file. Except as described above, in the previous five years, IDEA has not failed to comply in all material respects with any previous undertakings under the Rule. IDEA has engaged FSC Continuing Disclosure Services, a division of Hilltop Securities Inc., as dissemination agent under the Continuing Disclosure Agreement to assist future compliance with the terms of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement. See “APPENDIX F — FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.”
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The annual financial reports of IDEA, for the 12 month periods ending June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014, included in this Official Statement in “APPENDIX D — FINANCIAL STATEMENTS,” have been audited by Padgett Stratemann & Co., San Antonio, Texas (“Padgett Stratemann”), to the extent and for the periods indicated in their reports thereon. Such financial statements have been included in reliance upon the report of Padgett Stratemann. IDEA is not aware of any facts that would make such financial statements misleading.
Padgett Stratemann has not been engaged to perform, and has not performed, since the date of its reports included herein, any procedures on the financial statements addressed in the reports. Padgett Stratemann also has not performed any procedures relating to this Official Statement.
RATINGS S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”) has assigned the rating of “BBB” to the Bonds. Such rating reflects only the views of S&P and any desired explanation of the significance of such rating should be obtained from S&P at 55 Water Street, New York, New York 10041. Generally, rating agencies base their ratings on the information and
38 materials furnished to them and on investigations, studies and assumptions of their own. There is no assurance that any such rating will continue for any given period of time or that such rating will not be revised downward or withdrawn entirely by the rating agency, if, in the judgment of such agency, circumstances so warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal may have an adverse effect on the market price of the Bonds.
MISCELLANEOUS
Underwriting Subject to the terms and conditions of a bond purchase agreement (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”) entered into by and among the Issuer, IDEA and Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, as underwriter (the “Underwriter”), the Bonds are being sold by the Issuer to the Underwriter at an underwriting discount of $______. Expenses associated with the issuance of the Bonds are being paid from proceeds of the Bonds. The right of the Underwriter to receive compensation in connection with the Bonds is contingent upon the actual sale and delivery of the Bonds. The Underwriter has initially offered the Bonds to the public at the prices set forth on the inside front cover page of this Official Statement. Such prices may subsequently change without any requirement of prior notice. The Underwriter reserves the right to join with dealers and other investment banking firms in offering the Bonds to the public.
Financial Advisor; Independent Management Consultant FirstSouthwest, a Division of Hilltop Securities Inc. (“FirstSouthwest”) is serving as financial advisor to IDEA and Buck Financial Advisors LLC, Englewood, Colorado (“Buck Financial Advisors”) is serving as an Independent Management Consultant to IDEA in connection with the offering of the Bonds. Neither FirstSouthwest nor Buck Financial Advisors is obligated or has undertaken to make an independent verification or assumed any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this Official Statement. Certain of the fees for services rendered paid to such parties are contingent upon the issuance and delivery of the Bonds.
Additional Information The summaries of or references to constitutional provisions, statutes, resolutions, agreements, contracts, financial statements, reports, publications and other documents or compilations of data or information set forth in this Official Statement do not purport to be complete statements of the provisions of the items summarized or referred to and are qualified in their entirety by the actual provisions of such items, copies of which are either publicly available or available upon request and the payment of a reasonable copying, mailing and handling charge from the Underwriter, 210 University Boulevard, Suite 900, Denver, Colorado 80206.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
39 Certification The preparation of this Official Statement and its distribution have been authorized by IDEA and the Issuer. This Official Statement is not to be construed as an agreement or contract between IDEA or the Issuer and any purchaser, owner or holder of any of the Bonds.
IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
By: /s/ Bill Martin Board Chairman
40 APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TEXAS CHARTER SCHOOL LAW
SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TEXAS CHARTER SCHOOL LAW
This Appendix summarizes certain provisions of Texas charter school law. This Appendix provides a summary only and is for informational purposes only. Potential investors should refer to and independently evaluate applicable provisions of the charter school law in its entirety, with assistance from counsel as necessary, for a complete understanding of its terms. During the 84th Legislature of the State of Texas, changes to the laws affecting charter schools were made, many of which went into effect on September 1, 2015 (the “Current Law”). This Appendix summarizes certain provisions of the resulting changes found in the Current Law. The Current Law provides that, in certain situations, the law as it existed prior to Current Law (the “Prior Law”) will apply. However, to avoid additional levels of complexity and detail which would be required to summarize both the Prior Law and Current Laws adequately, we do not provide a summary of the Prior Law below. Further, potential investors should note that the provisions summarized below are subject to change, and this summary only pertains to certain aspects of currently existing law. See “RISK FACTORS — Future Changes to Charter School Laws.”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL ...... A-1 Bylaws; Annual Report ...... A-13 Background ...... A-1 Responsibility for Open-Enrollment Charter Purposes of Chapter ...... A-1 School ...... A-14 Classes of Charter; Authorization ...... A-1 Property Purchased or Leased With State Charter Applicants ...... A-1 Funds ...... A-14 Charter Authorization for High-Performing Principal and Teacher Qualifications ...... A-14 Entities ...... A-3 Minimum Principal and Teacher Charter Authorizer Accountability ...... A-3 Qualifications ...... A-14 Charter Authorization for Schools Primarily Notice of Teacher Qualifications ...... A-14 Serving Students with Disabilities ...... A-4 STATE FUNDING ...... A-15 Authority Under Charter ...... A-4 General ...... A-15 General Applicability of Laws ...... A-4 Entitlement ...... A-15 Applicability of Title ...... A-4 Recovery of Certain Funds ...... A-15 Status ...... A-5 Status and Use of Funds ...... A-16 Open Meetings ...... A-5 Foundation School Program ...... A-16 Local Government Records ...... A-5 General ...... A-16 Public Purchasing and Contracting ...... A-5 Average Daily Attendance ...... A-16 Conflicts of Interest ...... A-5 PEIMS System ...... A-17 Immunity from Liability ...... A-6 Equalized Funding Elements ...... A-17 Membership in Teacher Retirement System ...... A-6 Determination of Funding Levels ...... A-17 Applicability of Other Laws ...... A-6 Basic and Regular Program Allotments ...... A-18 Tuition and Fees Restricted ...... A-6 General ...... A-18 Transportation ...... A-7 Special Allotments ...... A-19 Charter Application, Content and Form ...... A-7 Special Education ...... A-19 Application ...... A-7 Other Special Allotments ...... A-20 Charter Content ...... A-7 Financing the Program ...... A-21 Charter Revision, Revocation, Non-Renewal and General ...... A-21 Modification of Governance ...... A-8 Additional State Aid ...... A-21 General ...... A-8 Local Share of Program Cost (Tier One) ...... A-21 Related Procedures ...... A-11 Distribution of Foundation School Fund ...... A-22 Effect of Revocation, Non-Renewal or Recovery of Overallocated Funds ...... A-24 Surrender ...... A-12 Foundation School Fund Transfers ...... A-24 Additional Sanctions ...... A-12 Foundation School Fund Transfers to Certain Charter Audit by Commissioner ...... A-12 Schools ...... A-26 Admission and Evaluation ...... A-12 Use of Certain Funds ...... A-27 Admission ...... A-12 Guaranteed Yield Program ...... A-27 Evaluation ...... A-13 Purpose ...... A-27 Performance Frameworks; Annual Allotment ...... A-27 Evaluations...... A-13 Limitation on Enrichment Tax Rate ...... A-29 Governance ...... A-13
(i) GENERAL
BACKGROUND
Purposes of Chapter (Texas Education Code §§ 12.001, 12.0011)
In 1995, the Texas legislature adopted Chapter 12 of the Texas Education Code, which provides for the creation and development of public charter schools to be operated within the State of Texas. The stated purposes of authorizing charter schools are to improve student learning, increase the choice of learning opportunities within the public school system, create professional opportunities that will attract new teachers to the public school system, establish a new form of accountability for public schools, and encourage different and innovative learning methods. As an alternative to operating in the manner generally provided in the Texas Education Code, the Texas legislature authorized independent school districts, school campuses, and educational programs to choose to operate under a charter in accordance with Chapter 12 of the Texas Education Code.
Classes of Charter; Authorization (Texas Education Code §§ 12.002, 12.152)
Three classes of charters are provided for under the Texas Education Code: (i) home-rule school district charters, (ii) campus or campus programs charters, and (iii) open-enrollment charters. In addition, the legislature has authorized granting a charter on the application of a public senior college or university or a public junior college for an open-enrollment charter school to operate on the campus of the public senior college or university or public junior college or in the same county in which the campus of the public senior college or university or public junior college is located. Each of these types of charters is governed under a different subchapter of Chapter 12 of the Texas Education Code.
The remaining sections that follow provide additional information applicable to open-enrollment charter schools, such as the Borrower, and with respect to the Foundation School Program, which is the funding scheme for charter schools.
Charter Applicants (Texas Education Code § 12.101)
The Commissioner may grant a charter for an open-enrollment charter school on the application of: (i) certain institutions of higher education (including private or independent institutions of higher education); (ii) organizations that are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (iii) governmental entities. Such a charter for an open-enrollment charter school may only be granted by the Commissioner to an applicant that meets the financial, governing, educational, and operational standards adopted by the Commissioner under the Open-Enrollment Charter School subchapter of the Texas Education Code. The Commissioner must determine that the applicant is capable of carrying out the responsibilities provided by the charter and likely to operate a school of high quality, and:
(i) has not within the preceding 10 years had a charter under Chapter 12 of the Texas Education Code or a similar charter issued under the laws of another state surrendered under a settlement agreement, revoked, denied renewal, or returned; or
(ii) is not, under rules adopted by the Commissioner, considered to be a corporate affiliate of or substantially related to an entity that has within the preceding 10 years had a charter under Chapter 12 of the Texas Education Code or a similar charter issued under the laws of another state surrendered under a settlement agreement, revoked, denied renewal, or returned.
The Commissioner shall notify the State Board of Education of each charter the Commissioner proposes to grant under Subchapter D of the Texas Education Code. Unless, before the 90th day after the date on which the board receives the notice from the Commissioner, a majority of the members of the board present and voting vote against the grant of that charter, the Commissioner’s proposal to grant the charter takes effect. The board may not deliberate or vote on any grant of a charter that is not proposed by the Commissioner.
A-1 The Commissioner may not grant a total of more than:
• 215 charters for an open-enrollment charter school through the fiscal year ending August 31, 2014; • 225 charters beginning September 1, 2014; • 240 charters beginning September 1, 2015; • 255 charters beginning September 1, 2016; • 270 charters beginning September 1, 2017; and • 285 charters beginning September 1, 2018.
Beginning September 1, 2019, the total number of charters for open-enrollment charter schools that may be granted is 305 charters.
The Commissioner may not grant more than one charter for an open-enrollment charter school to any charter holder. The Commissioner may consolidate charters for an open-enrollment charter school held by multiple charter holders into a single charter held by a single charter holder with the written consent to the terms of consolidation by or at the request of each charter holder affected by the consolidation.
Notwithstanding Texas Education Code Section 12.114, approval of the Commissioner under that section is not required for establishment of a new open-enrollment charter school campus if the requirements of this subsection are satisfied. A charter holder having an accreditation status of accredited and at least 50 percent of its student population in grades assessed under Subchapter B, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, or at least 50 percent of the students in the grades assessed having been enrolled in the school for at least three school years may establish one or more new campuses under an existing charter held by the charter holder if:
(i) the charter holder is currently evaluated under the standard accountability procedures for evaluation under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code and received a district rating in the highest or second highest performance rating category under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, for three of the last five years with at least 75 percent of the campuses rated under the charter also receiving a rating in the highest or second highest performance rating category and with no campus with a rating in the lowest performance rating category in the most recent ratings;
(ii) the charter holder provides written notice to the Commissioner of the establishment of any campus hereunder in the time, manner, and form provided by rule of the Commissioner; and
(iii) not later than the 60th day after the date the charter holder provides written notice under Subdivision (ii) above, the Commissioner does not provide written notice to the charter holder that the commissioner has determined that the charter holder does not satisfy the requirements of this section.
The initial term of a charter granted under Section 12.101 of the Texas Education Code is five years. The Commissioner shall adopt rules to modify criteria for granting a charter for an open-enrollment charter school as described herein to the extent necessary to address changes in performance rating categories or in the financial accountability system under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code.
A charter granted as described herein for a dropout recovery school is not considered for purposes of the limit on the number of charters for open-enrollment charter schools imposed herein. For purposes of this subsection, an open-enrollment charter school is considered to be a dropout recovery school if the school meets the criteria for designation as a dropout recovery school under Section 12.1141(c) of the Texas Education Code. In adopting any financial standards under Subchapter D of the Texas Education Code that an applicant for a charter for an open enrollment charter school must meet, the Commissioner shall not:
(i) exclude any loan or line of credit in determining an applicant’s available funding; or
A-2 (ii) exclude an applicant from the grant of a charter solely because the applicant fails to demonstrate having a certain amount of current assets in cash.
Charter Authorization for High-Performing Entities (Texas Education Code § 12.1011)
Notwithstanding Texas Education Code Section 12.101(b), the Commissioner may grant a charter for an open-enrollment charter school to an applicant that is:
(i) an eligible entity under Section 12.101(a)(3) of the Texas Education Code that proposes to operate the charter school program of a charter operator that operates one or more charter schools in another state and with which the eligible entity is affiliated and, as determined by the Commissioner in accordance with Commissioner rule, has performed at a level of performance comparable to performance under the highest or second highest performance rating category under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code; or
(ii) an entity that has operated one or more charter schools established under Subchapters C, D or E of the Texas Education Code and, as determined by the Commissioner in accordance with Commissioner rule, has performed in the highest or second highest performance rating category under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code.
A charter holder granted a charter for an open-enrollment charter school under Subdivision (i) above may vest management of corporate affairs in a member entity provided that the member entity may change the members of the governing body of the charter holder before the expiration of a member’s term only with the express written approval of the Commissioner. The initial term of a charter granted under Section 12.1011 of the Texas Education Code is five years.
Charter Authorizer Accountability (Texas Education Code § 12.1013)
The Commissioner shall select a center for education research authorized by Texas Education Code Section 1.005 to prepare an annual report concerning the performance of open-enrollment charter schools by authorizer compared to campus charters and matched traditional campuses, which shall be provided annually under Subchapters J and K of Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code.
The format of the report must enable the public to distinguish and compare the performance of each type of public school by classifying the schools as follows: (i) open-enrollment charters granted by the State Board of Education; (ii) open-enrollment charters granted by the Commissioner; (iii) charters granted by school districts; and (iv) matched traditional campuses.
The report must include the performance of each public school in each class described in the preceding paragraph as measured by the student achievement indicators adopted under Section 39.053 of the Texas Education Code and student attrition rates. The report must also: (i) aggregate and compare the performance of open- enrollment charter schools granted charters by the State Board of Education, open-enrollment charter schools granted charters by the Commissioner, campuses and programs granted charters by school districts, and matched traditional campuses; and (ii) rate the aggregate performance of elementary, middle or junior high, and high schools within each class described in the preceding paragraph as indicated by the composite rating that would be assigned to the class of elementary, middle or junior high, and high schools if the students attending all schools in that class were cumulatively enrolled in one elementary, middle or junior high, or high school.
The report must also include an analysis of whether the performance of matched traditional campuses would likely improve if there were consolidation of school districts within the county in which the campuses are located. Such analysis is only applicable to a county that includes at least seven school districts and at least 10 open-enrollment charter schools.
A-3 Charter Authorization for Schools Primarily Serving Students with Disabilities (Texas Education Code § 12.1014)
The Commissioner may grant under Texas Education Code Section 12.101 a charter on the application of an eligible entity for an open-enrollment charter school intended primarily to serve students eligible to receive services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29 of the Texas Education Code.
The limit on the number of charters for open-enrollment charter schools imposed by Section 12.101 of the Texas Education Code does not apply to a charter granted under this section to a school at which at least 50 percent of the students are eligible to receive services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29 of the Texas Education Code. Not more than five charters may be granted for such schools. For purposes of the applicability of state and federal law, including a law prescribing requirements concerning students with disabilities, an open-enrollment charter school intended primarily to serve students eligible to receive services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29 of the Texas Education Code, is considered the same as any other school for which a charter is granted under Section 12.101 of the Texas Education Code.
To the fullest extent permitted under federal law, a parent of a student with a disability may choose to enroll the parent’s child in an open-enrollment charter school described by Subchapter A, Chapter 29 of the Texas Education Code regardless of whether a disproportionate number of the school’s students are students with disabilities.
An open-enrollment charter school is not authorized to discriminate in admissions or in the services provided based on the presence, absence, or nature of an applicant’s or student’s disability. The Commissioner and the State Board for Educator Certification are required to adopt rules as necessary to administer this section.
Authority Under Charter (Texas Education Code § 12.102)
An open-enrollment charter school: (i) provides instruction to students at one or more elementary or secondary grade levels as provided by the charter; (ii) is governed under the governing structure described by the charter; (iii) retains authority to operate under the charter (contingent on the status of the charter as determined under Sections 12.1141, and 12.115 of the Texas Education Code and Subchapter E, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code); and (iv) does not have authority to impose taxes.
General Applicability of Laws (Texas Education Code § 12.103)
An open-enrollment charter school is generally subject to federal and state laws and rules governing public schools and to municipal zoning ordinances governing public schools. However, an open-enrollment charter school is only subject to the Texas Education Code and rules adopted thereunder to the extent specifically provided for in the Texas Education Code or rules adopted thereunder. In addition, a campus of an open-enrollment charter school located in whole or in part in a municipality with a population of 20,000 or less is not subject to municipal zoning ordinances governing public schools.
Applicability of Title (Texas Education Code § 12.104)
An open-enrollment charter school has the powers generally granted to schools under the Public Education Title of the Texas Education Code. An open-enrollment charter school is subject to provisions of the Public Education Title of the Texas Education Code establishing a criminal offense and prohibitions, restrictions, or requirements, as applicable, imposed by the Public Education Title of the Texas Education Code or a rule adopted under the Public Education Title of the Texas Education Code, including those relating to: the Public Education Information Management System (“PEIMS”); criminal history records; reading instruments and accelerated reading instruction programs; accelerated instruction; high school graduation requirements; special education programs; bilingual education; prekindergarten programs; extracurricular activities; discipline management practices or behavior management techniques; health and safety; public school accountability; requirements to report an educator’s misconduct; intensive programs of instruction and the right of a school employee to report a crime. During the first three years an open-enrollment charter school is in operation, the agency shall assist the school as necessary in complying with PEIMS requirements.
A-4 An open-enrollment charter school is entitled to the same level of services provided to school districts by regional education service centers. The Commissioner has adopted rules that provide for the representation of open- enrollment charter schools on the boards of directors of regional education service centers, and may by rule permit an open-enrollment charter school to voluntarily participate in any state program available to school districts, including a purchasing program, if the school complies with all terms of the program.
Status (Texas Education Code § 12.105)
Open-enrollment charter schools are part of the Texas public school system.
Open Meetings (Texas Education Code § 12.1051)
The governing body of a charter holder and the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school are considered to be governmental bodies for some purposes of Texas law. With respect to the Open Meetings and Public Information Chapters of the Texas Government Code, or another law that concerns open meetings or the availability of information, that apply to a school district, the board of trustees of a school district, or public school students also apply to an open-enrollment charter school, the governing body of a charter holder, the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school, or students attending an open-enrollment charter school.
Local Government Records (Texas Education Code § 12.1052)
With respect to operations, an open-enrollment charter school is considered to be a local government for purposes of the Records Provisions Applying to More Than One Type of Local Government provisions of the Texas Local Government Code and the Preservation and Management of Local Government Records provisions of the Texas Government Code. Records of an open-enrollment charter school and records of a charter holder that relate to an open-enrollment charter school are government records for all purposes under Texas State law. Any requirement in either the Records Provisions Applying to More Than One Type of Local Government provisions of the Texas Local Government Code or the Preservation and Management of Local Government Records provisions of the Texas Government Code that applies to a school district, the board of trustees of a school district, or an officer or employee of a school district applies to an open-enrollment charter school, the governing body of a charter holder, the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school, or an officer or employee of an open-enrollment charter school. The records of an open-enrollment charter school that ceases to operate are required to be transferred in the manner specified by the Commissioner to a custodian designated by the Commissioner. The Commissioner may designate any appropriate entity to serve as custodian, including the Texas Education Agency, a regional education service center, or a school district. In designating a custodian, the Commissioner shall ensure that the transferred records, including student and personnel records, are transferred to a custodian capable of maintaining the records, making the records readily accessible to students, parents, former school employees, and other persons entitled to access, and complying with applicable state or federal law restricting access to the records.
Public Purchasing and Contracting (Texas Education Code § 12.1053)
Unless an open-enrollment charter school's charter otherwise describes procedures for purchasing and contracting and those procedures are approved by the Commissioner, an open-enrollment charter school is treated as a governmental entity for purposes of the Real Property Held in Trust provisions of the Texas Government Code and for purposes of the Competitive Bidding on Certain Public Works Contracts provisions of the Texas Government Code, a political subdivision for purposes of the Professional Services provisions of the Texas Government Code, and a local government for purposes of the Authorized Investments provisions of the Texas Public Funds Investment Act. Requirements in a law previously mentioned in this paragraph that apply to a school district or the board of trustees of a school district generally apply to an open-enrollment charter school, the governing body of a charter holder, or the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school.
Conflicts of Interest (Texas Education Code § 12.1054)
An open-enrollment charter school is generally subject to conflict-of-interest laws. A member of the governing body of a charter holder, a member of the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school, or an officer of an open-enrollment charter school is considered to be a local public official for purposes of the Regulation of Conflicts of Interest of Officers of Municipalities, Counties, and Certain Other Local Government provisions of
A-5 the Texas Local Government Code, and is thereby subject to various restrictions under the Texas Local Government Code.
Immunity from Liability (Texas Education Code § 12.1056)
In matters related to operation of an open-enrollment charter school, an open-enrollment charter school or charter holder is immune from liability and suit to the same extent as a school district, and the employees and volunteers of the open-enrollment charter school or charter holder are immune from liability and suit to the same extent as school district employees and volunteers. A member of the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school or of a charter holder is immune from liability and suit to the same extent as a school district trustee.
An open-enrollment charter school is a governmental unit as defined by Section 101.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and is subject to liability only as provided by Chapter 101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and only in the manner that liability is provided by that chapter for a school district. An open-enrollment charter school is a local government as defined by Section 102.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and a payment on a tort claim must comply with Chapter 102, Civil Practice and Remedies Code. An open-enrollment charter school is a local governmental entity as defined by Section 271.151, Local Government Code, and is subject to liability on a contract as provided by Subchapter I, Chapter 271, Local Government Code, and only in the manner that liability is provided by that subchapter for a school district.
Membership in Teacher Retirement System (Texas Education Code § 12.1057)
An employee of an open-enrollment charter school who qualifies for membership in the Teacher Retirement System of Texas is covered under the system to the same extent a qualified employee of a school district is covered. For each employee of the school covered under the system, the school is responsible for making any contribution that otherwise would be the legal responsibility of the school district, and the state is responsible for making contributions to the same extent it would be legally responsible if the employee were a school district employee.
Applicability of Other Laws (Texas Education Code § 12.1058)
An open-enrollment charter school is considered to be a local government for purposes of Chapter 791, Government Code, a local government for purposes of Chapter 2259, Government Code, a political subdivision for purposes of Chapter 172, Local Government Code, and a local government entity for purposes of Subchapter I, Chapter 271, Local Government Code.
An open-enrollment charter school may elect to extend workers’ compensation benefits to employees of the school through any method available to a political subdivision under Chapter 504, Labor Code. An open-enrollment charter school that elects to extend workers’ compensation benefits is considered to be a political subdivision for all purposes under Chapter 504, Labor Code. An open-enrollment charter school that self-insures either individually or collectively under Chapter 504, Labor Code, is considered to be an insurance carrier for purposes of Subtitle A, Title 5, Labor Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, an open-enrollment charter school operated by a tax exempt entity as described by Section 12.101(a)(3) of the Texas Education Code is not considered to be a political subdivision, local government, or local governmental entity unless the applicable statute specifically states that the statute applies to an open-enrollment charter school.
Tuition and Fees Restricted (Texas Education Code § 12.108)
An open-enrollment charter school may not charge tuition to an eligible student who applies under the admission procedures. The governing body of an open-enrollment charter school may require a student to pay certain fees that the board of trustees of a school district may charge, and may not require a student to pay certain fees that the board of trustees of a school district may not charge.
A-6 Transportation (Texas Education Code § 12.109)
Open-enrollment charter schools are required to provide transportation to each student attending the school to the same extent a school district is required by law to provide transportation to district students.
CHARTER APPLICATION, CONTENT AND FORM
Application (Texas Education Code § 12.110)
The Commissioner is required under the Texas Education Code to adopt an application form and a procedure that must be used to apply for a charter for an open-enrollment charter school and criteria to use in selecting a program for which to grant a charter. As part of the application procedure, the Commissioner may require a petition supporting a charter for a school signed by a specified number of parents or guardians of school- age children residing in the area in which a school is proposed or may hold a public hearing to determine parental support for the school. The Commissioner shall approve or deny an application based on: (i) documented evidence collected through the application review process; (ii) merit; and (iii) other criteria as adopted by the Commissioner, which must include: (a) criteria relating to the capability of the applicant to carry out the responsibilities provided by the charter and the likelihood that the applicant will operate a school of high quality; (b) criteria relating to improving student performance and encouraging innovative programs; and (c) a statement from any school district whose enrollment is likely to be affected by the open-enrollment charter school, including information relating to any financial difficulty that a loss in enrollment may have on the district.
The Commissioner shall give priority to applications that propose an open-enrollment charter school campus to be located in the attendance zone of a school district campus assigned an unacceptable performance rating under Section 39.054 of the Texas Education Code for the two preceding school years.
Charter Content (Texas Education Code § 12.111)
Each open-enrollment charter must:
(i) describe the educational program to be offered, which must include the required curriculum;
(ii) provide that continuation of the charter is contingent on the status of the charter as determined under Section 12.1141 or 12.115 of the Texas Education Code or under Subchapter E, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code;
(iii) specify the academic, operational, and financial performance expectations by which a school operating under the charter will be evaluated, which must include applicable elements of the performance frameworks adopted under Section 12.1181 of the Texas Education Code;
(iv) specify any basis, in addition to a basis specified in Subchapter D of Chapter 12 of the Texas Education Code, or Subchapter E, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, on which the charter may be revoked, renewal of the charter may be denied, or the charter may be allowed to expire; and the standards for evaluation of a school operating under the charter for purposes of charter renewal, denial of renewal, expiration, revocation, or other intervention in accordance with Section 12.1141 or 12.115 of the Texas Education Code or Subchapter E, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, as applicable;
(v) prohibit discrimination in admission policy on the basis of sex, national origin, ethnicity, religion, disability, academic, artistic, or athletic ability, or the district the child would otherwise attend in accordance with the Texas Education Code (nevertheless, the charter may provide for: (a) the exclusion of a student who has a documented history of a criminal offense, a juvenile court adjudication, or certain discipline problems, and (b) an admission policy that requires a student to demonstrate artistic ability if the school specializes in performing arts);
A-7 (vi) specify the grade levels to be offered;
(vii) describe the governing structure of the program (including the officer positions designated, the manner in which members of the governing body of the school are selected and removed from office, the manner in which vacancies on the governing body are filled, the term for which members of that governing body serve, and whether the terms are to be staggered);
(viii) specify the powers or duties of the governing body of the school that the governing body may delegate to an officer;
(ix) specify the manner in which the school will distribute to parents information related to the qualifications of each professional employee of the program;
(x) describe the process by which the person providing the program will adopt an annual budget;
(xi) describe the manner in which an annual audit of the financial and programmatic operations of the program is to be conducted;
(xii) describe the facilities to be used;
(xiii) describe the geographical area served by the program;
(xiv) specify any type of enrollment criteria to be used;
(xv) provide information, as determined by the Commissioner, relating to any management company that will provide management services to a school operating under the charter; and
(xvi) specify that the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school accepts and may not delegate ultimate responsibility for the school, including the school’s academic performance and financial and operational viability, and is responsible for overseeing any management company providing management services for the school and for holding the management company accountable for the school’s performance.
A charter holder of an open-enrollment charter school is required to consider including in the school's charter a requirement that the school develop and administer personal graduation plans.
CHARTER REVISION, REVOCATION, NON-RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION OF GOVERNANCE
General (Texas Education Code §§§ 12.114, 12.1141 and 12.115)
The charter of an open-enrollment charter school may be revised only with the approval of the Commissioner, and an open-enrollment charter school may request approval to revise the maximum student enrollment described by the school's charter not more than once each year. Not later than the 60th day after the date that a charter holder submits to the Commissioner a completed request for approval for an expansion amendment, as defined by Commissioner rule, including a new school amendment, the Commissioner shall provide to the charter holder written notice of approval or disapproval of the amendment.
The Commissioner shall develop and by rule adopt a procedure for renewal, denial of renewal, or expiration of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school at the end of the term of the charter. The procedure must include consideration of the performance under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code of the charter holder and each campus operating under the charter and must include three distinct processes, which must be expedited renewal, discretionary consideration of renewal or denial of renewal, and expiration. To renew a charter at the end of the term, the charter holder must submit a petition for renewal to the Commissioner in the time and manner established by Commissioner rule.
A-8 At the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the Commissioner a petition for expedited renewal of the charter, the charter automatically renews unless, not later than the 30th day after the date the charter holder submits the petition, the Commissioner provides written notice to the charter holder that expedited renewal of the charter is denied. The Commissioner may not deny expedited renewal of a charter if:
(i) the charter holder has been assigned the highest or second highest performance rating under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, for the three preceding school years;
(ii) the charter holder has been assigned a financial performance accountability rating under Subchapter D, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, indicating financial performance that is satisfactory or better for the three preceding school years; and
(iii) no campus operating under the charter has been assigned the lowest performance rating under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, for the three preceding school years or such a campus has been closed.
At the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the Commissioner a petition for renewal of the charter and the charter does not meet the criteria for expedited renewal or for expiration as described above and below, the Commissioner shall use the discretionary consideration process. The Commissioner’s decision under the discretionary consideration process must take into consideration the results of annual evaluations under the performance frameworks established under Section 12.1181 of the Texas Education Code. The renewal of the charter of an open-enrollment charter school that is registered under the agency’s alternative education accountability procedures for evaluation under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code shall be considered under the discretionary consideration process regardless of the performance ratings under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, of the open-enrollment charter school or of any campus operating under the charter, except that if the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating under Subchapter D, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, indicating financial performance that is lower than satisfactory for any three of the five preceding school years, the Commissioner shall allow the charter to expire under Section 12.1141(d) of the Texas Education Code. In considering the renewal of the charter of an open-enrollment charter school that is registered under the agency’s alternative education accountability procedures for evaluation under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, such as a dropout recovery school or a school providing education within a residential treatment facility, the Commissioner shall use academic criteria established by Commissioner rule that are appropriate to measure the specific goals of the school. The criteria established by the Commissioner shall recognize growth in student achievement as well as educational attainment. For purposes of Section 12.1141(c) of the Texas Education Code, the Commissioner shall designate as a dropout recovery school an open-enrollment charter school or a campus of an open-enrollment charter school:
(i) that serves students in grades 9 through 12 and has an enrollment of which at least 50 percent of the students are 17 years of age or older as of September 1 of the school year as reported for the fall semester Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) submission; and
(ii) that meets the eligibility requirements for and is registered under alternative education accountability procedures adopted by the Commissioner.
At the end of the term of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, if a charter holder submits to the Commissioner a petition for renewal of the charter, the Commissioner may not renew the charter and shall allow the charter to expire if:
(i) the charter holder has been assigned the lowest performance rating under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, for any three of the five preceding school years;
(ii) the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating under Subchapter D, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, indicating financial performance that is lower than satisfactory for any three of the five preceding school years;
A-9 (iii) the charter holder has been assigned any combination of the ratings described by Subdivision (i) or (ii) in this paragraph for any three of the five preceding school years; or
(iv) any campus operating under the charter has been assigned the lowest performance rating under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, for the three preceding school years and such a campus has not been closed.
Notwithstanding any other law, a determination by the Commissioner under Section 12.1141(d) of the Texas Education Code is final and may not be appealed.
Not later than the 90th day after the date on which a charter holder submits a petition for renewal of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school at the end of the term of the charter, the Commissioner shall provide written notice to the charter holder, in accordance with Commissioner rule, of the basis on which the charter qualified for expedited renewal, discretionary consideration, or expiration, and of the Commissioner’s decision regarding whether to renew the charter, deny renewal of the charter, or allow the charter to expire.
Except for a final, non-appealable determination by the Commissioner under Section 12.1141(d) of the Texas Education Code, a decision by the Commissioner to deny renewal of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school is subject to review by the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Notwithstanding Chapter 2001, Government Code:
(i) the administrative law judge shall uphold a decision by the Commissioner to deny renewal of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school unless the judge finds the decision is arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous; and
(ii) a decision of the administrative law judge under Section 12.1141(g)(2) of the Texas Education Code is final and may not be appealed.
If a charter holder submits a petition for renewal of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school, notwithstanding the expiration date of the charter, the charter term is extended until the Commissioner has provided notice to the charter holder of the renewal, denial of renewal, or expiration of the charter.
The term of a charter renewed under Section 12.1141 of the Texas Education Code is 10 years for each renewal.
The Commissioner is required to adopt rules to modify criteria for renewal, denial of renewal, or expiration of a charter for an open-enrollment charter school under this section to the extent necessary to address changes in performance rating categories or in the financial accountability system under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code.
For purposes of determination of renewal under Section 12.1141 of the Texas Education Code, Subsections (b)(1) or (3) or (d)(1) or (4), performance during the 2011-2012 school year may not be considered. For purposes of determination of renewal under Section 12.1141 of the Texas Education Code, Subsections (b)(1) or (3) or (d)(1) or (4), the initial three school years for which performance ratings under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, shall be considered are the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2012-2013 school years. For purposes of determination of renewal under Section 12.1141 of the Texas Education Code, Subsections (b)(2) or (d)(2), the earliest school year for which financial accountability performance ratings under Subchapter D, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, may be considered is the 2010-2011 school year. The renewal qualifications in this paragraph, described in Section 12.1141(k) of the Texas Education Code, expire September 1, 2016.
The Commissioner shall revoke the charter of, or modify the governance of the holder of a charter, of an open-enrollment charter school, or reconstitute the governing body of the charter holder, if the Commissioner determines that the charter holder:
(i) committed a material violation of the charter, including failure to satisfy accountability provisions prescribed by the charter;
A-10 (ii) failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management;
(iii) failed to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the students enrolled at the school;
(iv) failed to comply with any applicable law or rule;
(v) failed to satisfy the performance framework standards adopted under Section 12.1181 of the Texas Education Code; or
(vi) is imminently insolvent as determined by the Commissioner in accordance with Commissioner rule.
Any action (described above) that the Commissioner takes must be based on the best interest of the open- enrollment charter school's students, the severity of the violation, any previous violation the school has committed, and the accreditation status of the school.
The Commissioner shall revoke the charter of an open-enrollment charter school if:
(i) the charter holder has been assigned an unacceptable performance rating under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, for the three preceding school years;
(ii) the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating under Subchapter D, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, indicating financial performance lower than satisfactory for the three preceding school years; or
(iii) the charter holder has been assigned any combination of the ratings described by Subdivision (i) or (ii) of this paragraph for the three preceding school years.
For purposes of revocation under Subdivision (i) in the preceding paragraph, performance during the 2011- 2012 school year may not be considered. For purposes of revocation under Subdivision (i) in the preceding paragraph, the initial three school years for which performance ratings under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, shall be considered are the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2012-2013 school years. For purposes of revocation under Subdivision (ii) in the preceding paragraph, the initial three school years for which financial accountability performance ratings under Subchapter D, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code, shall be considered are the 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 school years. The revocation qualifications in this paragraph, described in Section 12.115(c-1) of the Texas Education Code, expire September 1, 2016.
In reconstituting the governing body of a charter holder under this section, the Commissioner shall appoint members to the governing body and shall consider local input from community members and parents; and appropriate credentials and expertise for membership, including financial expertise, whether the person lives in the geographic area the charter holder serves, and whether the person is an educator; and may reappoint current members of the governing body.
If a governing body of a charter holder subject to reconstitution governs enterprises other than the open- enrollment charter school, the Commissioner may require the charter holder to create a new, single-purpose organization that is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to govern the open-enrollment charter school and may require the charter holder to surrender the charter to the Commissioner for transfer to the organization created. The Commissioner shall appoint the members of the governing body. The Commissioner shall adopt rules necessary to administer this section. The Commissioner shall adopt initial rules not later than September 1, 2014. The authority of the attorney general to take any action authorized by law is not limited by such requirements.
Related Procedures (Texas Education Code § 12.116)
The Commissioner is required to adopt an informal procedure to be used for (i) revoking the charter of an open-enrollment charter school, or for reconstituting the governing body of the charter holder, and (ii) denying the renewal of a charter of an open-enrollment charter school.
A-11 The procedure adopted for the denial of renewal of a charter or the revocation of a charter or reconstitution of a governing body of a charter holder must allow representatives of the charter holder to meet with the Commissioner to discuss the Commissioner’s decision and must allow the charter holder to submit additional information to the Commissioner relating to the Commissioner’s decision. In a final decision issued by the Commissioner, the Commissioner shall provide a written response to any information the charter holder submits under this subsection. The Administrative Procedures Act of the Texas Government Code does not apply to a procedure that is related to a revocation or modification of governance described above.
A decision by the Commissioner to revoke a charter is subject to review by the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Notwithstanding the Administrative Procedures Act, the administrative law judge is required to uphold a decision by the Commissioner to revoke a charter unless the judge finds the decision is arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous; and a decision of the administrative law judge under this subsection is final and may not be appealed.
If the Commissioner revokes the charter of an open-enrollment charter school, the Commissioner may manage the school until alternative arrangements are made for the school's students; and assign operation of one or more campuses formerly operated by the charter holder who held the revoked charter to a different charter holder who consents to the assignment.
Effect of Revocation, Non-Renewal or Surrender (Texas Education Code § 12.1161)
If the Commissioner revokes or denies the renewal of a charter of an open-enrollment charter school, or an open-enrollment charter school surrenders its charter, the school may not continue to operate or receive State funds.
Additional Sanctions (Texas Education Code § 12.1162)
The Commissioner may take a variety of actions if an open-enrollment charter school commits a material violation of the school's charter, fails to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management, or fails to comply with any applicable law or rule. The Commissioner may: (i) temporarily withhold funding; (ii) suspend the authority of an open-enrollment charter school to operate; or (iii) take any other reasonable action the Commissioner determines necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of students enrolled at the school based on evidence that conditions at the school present a danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students. If the Commissioner takes such action, the open-enrollment charter school may not receive funding and may not resume operating until a determination is made that: (i) despite initial evidence, the conditions at the school do not present a danger of material harm to the health, safety, or welfare of students, or (ii) the conditions at the school that presented a danger of material harm to the health, safety, or welfare of students have been corrected.
Not later than the third business day after the date the Commissioner takes action, the Commissioner must provide the charter holder an opportunity for a hearing, after which the Commissioner must take action under Section 12.116 of the Texas Education Code or cease any temporary sanctions.
Audit by Commissioner (Texas Education Code § 12.1163)
The Commissioner may audit the records of an open-enrollment charter school, and such audit must be limited to matters directly related to the management or operation of an open-enrollment charter school, including any financial and administrative records. Unless the Commissioner has specific cause to conduct an additional audit, the Commissioner may not conduct more than one on-site audit during any fiscal year, including any financial and administrative records. For purposes of this provision, an audit of a charter holder or management company associated with an open-enrollment charter school is not considered an audit of the school.
ADMISSION AND EVALUATION
Admission (Texas Education Code § 12.117)
For admission to an open-enrollment charter school, the governing body of the school shall: (i) require the applicant to complete and submit an application not later than a reasonable deadline the school establishes; and (ii) on receipt of more acceptable applications for admission than available positions in the school: (a) fill the
A-12 available positions by lottery; or (b) fill the available positions in the order in which applications were received before the application deadline, subject to the school publishing a notice of the opportunity to apply for admission to the school, which states the application deadline and is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the school is located not later than the seventh day before the application deadline.
Evaluation (Texas Education Code § 12.118)
The Commissioner shall designate an impartial organization with experience in evaluating school choice programs to conduct an annual evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools. An evaluation must include consideration of the following items before implementing the charter and after implementing the charter:
(i) students' scores on assessment instruments administered;
(ii) student attendance;
(iii) students' grades;
(iv) incidents involving student discipline;
(v) socioeconomic data on students' families;
(vi) parents' satisfaction with their children's schools; and
(vii) students' satisfaction with their schools.
The evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools must also include an evaluation of: the costs of instruction, administration, and transportation incurred by open-enrollment charter schools; the effect of open- enrollment charter schools on school districts and on teachers, students, and parents in those districts; and other issues, as determined by the Commissioner.
Performance Frameworks; Annual Evaluations (Texas Education Code § 12.1181)
The Commissioner shall develop and by rule adopt performance frameworks that establish standards by which to measure the performance of an open-enrollment charter school. The Commissioner shall develop and by rule adopt separate, specific performance frameworks by which to measure the performance of an open-enrollment charter school that is registered under the agency’s alternative education accountability procedures for evaluation under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code. The performance frameworks shall be based on national best practices that charter school authorizers use in developing and applying standards for charter school performance. In developing the performance frameworks, the Commissioner shall solicit advice from charter holders, the members of the governing bodies of open-enrollment charter schools, and other interested persons.
The performance frameworks may include a variety of standards. In evaluating an open-enrollment charter school, the Commissioner shall measure school performance against an established set of quality standards developed and adopted by the Commissioner. Each year, the Commissioner shall evaluate the performance of each open-enrollment charter school based on the applicable performance frameworks adopted under Section 12.1181(a) of the Texas Education Code. The performance of a school on a performance framework may not be considered for purposes of renewal of a charter under Section 12.1141(d) of the Texas Education Code or revocation of a charter under Section 12.115(c) of the Texas Education Code.
GOVERNANCE
Bylaws; Annual Report (Texas Education Code § 12.119)
A charter holder must file a copy of its articles of incorporation and bylaws, or comparable documents if the charter holder does not have articles of incorporation or bylaws, with the Commissioner within the period and in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner.
A-13 Each year, each open-enrollment charter school shall file with the Commissioner the name, address, and telephone number of each officer and member of the governing body of the open-enrollment charter school, and the amount of annual compensation the open-enrollment charter school pays to each officer and member of the governing body.
Responsibility for Open-Enrollment Charter School (Texas Education Code § 12.121)
The governing body of an open-enrollment charter school is responsible for the management, operation, and accountability of the school, regardless of whether the governing body delegates the governing body's powers and duties to another person.
Property Purchased or Leased With State Funds (Texas Education Code § 12.128)
Property purchased or leased with funds received by a charter holder under Section 12.106 after September 1, 2001:
(i) is considered to be public property for all purposes under state law;
(ii) is property of the state held in trust by the charter holder for the benefit of the students of the open- enrollment charter school; and
(iii) may be used only for a purpose for which a school district may use school district property.
If at least 50 percent of the funds used by a charter holder to purchase real property are funds received under Section 12.106 before September 1, 2001, the property is considered to be public property to the extent it was purchased with those funds.
The Commissioner shall:
(i) take possession and assume control of the property described herein of an open-enrollment charter school that ceases to operate; and
(ii) supervise the disposition of the property in accordance with law.
The Commissioner may adopt rules necessary to administer this section.
This section does not affect a security interest in or lien on property established by a creditor in compliance with law if the security interest or lien arose in connection with the sale or lease of the property to the charter holder.
PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS
Minimum Principal and Teacher Qualifications (Texas Education Code § 12.129)
A person employed as a principal or teacher by an open-enrollment charter school must hold a baccalaureate degree.
Notice of Teacher Qualifications (Texas Education Code § 12.130)
Each open-enrollment charter school must provide to the parent or guardian of each student enrolled in the school written notice of the qualifications of each teacher employed by the school.
A-14 STATE FUNDING
GENERAL
Entitlement (Texas Education Code § 12.106)
Until September 1, 2017, a charter holder is entitled to receive for the open-enrollment charter school funding under the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code (for additional information see the “Foundation School Program” sections below) equal to the greater of:
(i) the percentage specified by Section 42.2516(i) of the Texas Education Code multiplied by the amount of funding per student in weighted average daily attendance, excluding enrichment funding under Sections 42.302(a-1)(2) and (3) of the Texas Education Code, as they existed on January 1, 2009, that would have been received for the school during the 2009-10 school year under the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code as it existed on January 1, 2009, and an additional amount of the percentage specified by Section 42.2516(i) of the Texas Education Code multiplied by $120 for each student in weighted average daily attendance; or
(ii) the amount of funding per student in weighted average daily attendance, excluding enrichment funding under Section 42.302(a) of the Texas Education Code, to which the charter holder would be entitled for the school under the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code if the school were a school district without a tier one local share for purposes of Section 42.253 of the Texas Education Code and without any local revenue for purposes of Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code.
In determining funding for an open-enrollment charter school in the prior paragraphs, adjustments under Sections 42.102, 42.103, 42.104, and 42.105 of the Texas Education Code are based on the average adjustment for the state. In addition to the funding provided above, a charter holder is entitled to receive for the open-enrollment charter school enrichment funding under Section 42.302 of the Texas Education Code based on the state average tax effort. An open-enrollment charter school is entitled to funds that are available to school districts from the Texas Education Agency or the Commissioner in the form of grants or other discretionary funding unless the statute authorizing the funding explicitly provides that open-enrollment charter schools are not entitled to the funding. Until September 1, 2015, in determining funding for an open-enrollment charter school in the prior paragraphs, the Commissioner shall apply the regular program adjustment factor provided under Section 42.101 of the Texas Education Code to calculate the regular program allotment to which a charter school is entitled.
Effective September 1, 2017, a charter holder is entitled to receive for the open-enrollment charter school funding under Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code equal to the amount of funding per student in weighted average daily attendance, excluding enrichment funding under Section 42.302(a) of the Texas Education Code, to which the charter holder would be entitled for the school under Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code if the school were a school district without a tier one local share for purposes of Section 42.253 of the Texas Education Code.
The Commissioner may adopt rules to provide and account for state funding of open-enrollment charter schools. A rule adopted may be similar to a provision of the Texas Education Code that is not similar to Section 12.104(b) of the Texas Education Code if the Commissioner determines that the rule is related to financing of open-enrollment charter schools and is necessary or prudent to provide or account for state funds.
Recovery of Certain Funds (Texas Education Code § 12.1061)
The Commissioner may not garnish or otherwise recover funds paid to an open-enrollment charter school under Section 12.106 of the Texas Education Code if:
(i) the basis of the garnishment or recovery is that the number of students enrolled in the school during a school year exceeded the student enrollment described by the school's
A-15 charter during that period, and the school received funding under Section 12.106 of the Texas Education Code based on the school's actual student enrollment;
(ii) the school submits to the Commissioner a timely request to revise the maximum student enrollment described by the school's charter and the Commissioner does not notify the school in writing of an objection to the proposed revision before the 90th day after the date on which the Commissioner received the request, provided that the number of students enrolled at the school does not exceed the enrollment described by the school's request, or the school exceeds the maximum student enrollment described by the school's charter only because a court mandated that a specific child enroll in that school; and
(iii) the school used all funds received under Section 12.106 of the Texas Education Code to provide education services to students.
Status and Use of Funds (Texas Education Code § 12.107)
Funds received under Section 12.106 of the Texas Education Code after September 1, 2001, by a charter holder:
(i) are considered to be public funds for all purposes under state law;
(ii) are held in trust by the charter holder for the benefit of the students of the open- enrollment charter school;
(iii) may be used only for a purpose for which a school may use local funds under Section 45.105(c) of the Texas Education Code; and
(iv) pending their use, must be deposited into a bank with which the charter holder has entered into a depository contract.
A charter holder must deliver to the Texas Education Agency a copy of the depository contract between the charter holder and any bank into which state funds are deposited.
FOUNDATION SCHOOL PROGRAM
General
Average Daily Attendance (Texas Education Code § 42.005)
Subject to adjustments as provided in Texas Education Code Section 42.005, average daily attendance is:
(i) the quotient of the sum of attendance for each day of the minimum number of days of instruction as described under Section 25.081(a) of the Texas Education Code divided by the minimum number of days of instruction;
(ii) for a district that operates under a flexible year program under Section 29.0821 of the Texas Education Code, the quotient of the sum of attendance for each actual day of instruction as permitted by Section 29.0821(b)(1) of the Texas Education Code divided by the number of actual days of instruction as permitted by Section 29.0821(b)(1) of the Texas Education Code; or
(iii) for a district that operates under a flexible school day program under Section 29.0822 of the Texas Education Code, the average daily attendance as calculated by the Commissioner in accordance with Section 29.0822(d) of the Texas Education Code.
A-16 PEIMS System (Texas Education Code § 42.006)
Each school district must participate in the Public Education Information Management System (“PEIMS”) and shall provide through that system information required for the administration of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code and of other appropriate provisions of the Texas Education Code. Each school district must use a uniform accounting system adopted by the Commissioner for the data required to be reported for the PEIMS.
The Commissioner by rule shall require each open-enrollment charter school to report through the PEIMS information regarding the number of students enrolled in the district or school who are identified as having dyslexia.
Equalized Funding Elements (Texas Education Code § 42.007)
The Legislative Budget Board is required to adopt rules for the calculation for each year of a biennium of the qualified funding elements (as described below) necessary to achieve the state policy under Section 42.001 of the Texas Education Code.
Before each regular session of the legislature, the Legislative Budget Board shall report the equalized funding elements to the Commissioner and the legislature.
The funding elements must include:
(i) a basic allotment for the purposes of Section 42.101 of the Texas Education Code that, when combined with the guaranteed yield component provided by the Guaranteed Yield Program Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code, represents the cost per student of a regular education program that meets all mandates of law and regulation;
(ii) adjustments designed to reflect the variation in known resource costs and costs of education beyond the control of school districts;
(iii) appropriate program cost differentials and other funding elements for the programs authorized under the Special Allotments Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code, with the program funding level expressed as dollar amounts and as weights applied to the adjusted basic allotment for the appropriate year;
(iv) the maximum guaranteed level of qualified state and local funds per student for the purposes of the Guaranteed Yield Program Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code;
(v) the enrichment and facilities tax rate under the Guaranteed Yield Program Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code;
(vi) the computation of students in weighted average daily attendance under Section 42.302 of the Texas Education Code; and
(vii) the amount to be appropriated for the school facilities assistance program under the Assistance with Existing Facilities and Payment of Existing Debt Chapter of the Texas Education Code.
Determination of Funding Levels (Texas Education Code § 42.009)
Not later than July 1 of each year, the Commissioner shall determine for each school district whether the estimated amount of state and local funding per student in weighted average daily attendance to be provided to the district under the Foundation School Program for maintenance and operations for the following school year is less than the amount provided to the district for the 2010-2011 school year. If the amount estimated to be provided is less, the Commissioner shall certify the percentage decrease in funding to be provided to the district.
A-17 In making the determinations regarding funding levels required by the prior paragraph, the Commissioner shall:
(i) make adjustments as necessary to reflect changes in a school district's maintenance and operations tax rate;
(ii) for a district required to take action under Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code to reduce its wealth per student to the equalized wealth level, base the determinations on the district's net funding levels after deducting any amounts required to be expended by the district to comply with Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code; and
(iii) determine a district's weighted average daily attendance in accordance with this chapter as it existed on January 1, 2011.
BASIC AND REGULAR PROGRAM ALLOTMENTS
General (Texas Education Code § 42.101)
The basic allotment is an amount equal to the lesser of $4,765 or the amount that results from the following formula:
A=$4,765 x (DCR/MCR) where:
“A” is the resulting amount for a district;
“DCR” is the district's compressed tax rate, which is the product of the state compression percentage, as determined under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, multiplied by the maintenance and operations tax rate adopted by the district for the 2005 tax year; and
“MCR” is the state maximum compressed tax rate, which is the product of the state compression percentage, as determined under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, multiplied by $1.50.
A greater amount for any school year for the basic allotment described above may be provided by appropriation.
A school district is entitled to a regular program allotment equal to the amount that results from the following formula:
RPA = ADA X AA X RPAF where:
“RPA” is the regular program allotment to which the district is entitled;
“ADA” is the number of students in average daily attendance in a district, not including the time students spend each day in special education programs in an instructional arrangement other than mainstream or career and technology education programs, for which an additional allotment is made under Subchapter C of Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code;
“AA” is the district's adjusted basic allotment, as determined under Section 42.102 of the Texas Education Code and, if applicable, as further adjusted under Section 42.103 of the Texas Education Code; and
“RPAF” is the regular program adjustment factor.
Except as provided by the following paragraph, the RPAF is 0.9239 for the 2011-2012 school year and 0.98 for the 2012-2013 school year.
A-18 For a school district that does not receive funding under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, for the 2011-2012 school year, the Commissioner may set the RPAF at 0.95195 for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years if the district demonstrates that funding reductions as a result of adjustments to the regular program allotment made by S.B. No. 1, Acts of the 82nd Legislature, 1st Called Session, 2011, will result in a hardship to the district in the 2011-2012 school year. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the Commissioner shall adjust the RPAF for the 2012-2013 school year for a school district whose regular program adjustment factor is set in accordance with this subsection to ensure that the total amount of state and local revenue in the combined 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years does not differ from the amount the district would have received if the district's regular program adjustment factor had not been set in accordance with this paragraph. A determination by the Commissioner under this subsection is final and may not be appealed.
The RPAF is 0.98 for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years or a greater amount established by appropriation, not to exceed 1.0. This paragraph and preceding three paragraphs expire September 1, 2015.
Effective September 1, 2015, Section 42.101 of the Texas Education Code, is amended to read as follows:
For each student in average daily attendance, not including the time students spend each day in special education programs in an instructional arrangement other than mainstream or career and technology education programs, for which an additional allotment is made under Subchapter C of the Texas Education Code, a district is entitled to an allotment equal to the lesser of $4,765 or the amount that results from the following formula:
A = $4,765 X (DCR/MCR) where:
“A” is the allotment to which a district is entitled;
“DCR” is the district's compressed tax rate, which is the product of the state compression percentage, as determined under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, multiplied by the maintenance and operations tax rate adopted by the district for the 2005 tax year; and
“MCR” is the state maximum compressed tax rate, which is the product of the state compression percentage, as determined under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, multiplied by $1.50.
A greater amount for any school year may be provided by appropriation.
The basic allotment is subject to adjustments including a cost of education adjustment (Texas Education Code Section 42.102), a small and mid-sized district adjustment (Texas Education Code Section 42.103), and a sparsity adjustment (Texas Education Code Section 42.105).
SPECIAL ALLOTMENTS
Special Education (Texas Education Code § 42.151)
For each student in average daily attendance in a special education program under the Special Education Program Subchapter of the Educational Programs Chapter of the Texas Education Code, in a mainstream instructional arrangement, a school district is entitled to an annual allotment equal to the adjusted basic allotment multiplied by 1.1. For each full-time equivalent student in average daily attendance in a special education program under the Special Education Program Subchapter of the Educational Programs Chapter of the Texas Education Code, in an instructional arrangement other than a mainstream instructional arrangement, a district is entitled to an annual allotment equal to the adjusted basic allotment multiplied by a weight determined according to instructional arrangement as follows:
Homebound ...... 5.0 Hospital class...... 3.0 Speech therapy ...... 5.0 Resource room...... 3.0 Self-contained, mild and moderate, regular campus ...... 3.0 Self-contained, severe, regular campus ...... 3.0
A-19 Off home campus ...... 2.7 Nonpublic day school ...... 1.7 Vocational adjustment class ...... 2.3
A special instructional arrangement for students with disabilities residing in care and treatment facilities, other than state schools, whose parents or guardians do not reside in the district providing education services shall be established under the rules of the State Board of Education. The funding weight for this arrangement shall be 4.0 for those students who receive their education service on a local school district campus. A special instructional arrangement for students with disabilities residing in state schools shall be established under the rules of the State Board of Education with a funding weight of 2.8.
For funding purposes, the number of contact hours credited per day for each student in the off home campus instructional arrangement may not exceed the contact hours credited per day for the multidistrict class instructional arrangement in the 1992-1993 school year. For funding purposes the contact hours credited per day for each student in the resource room; self-contained, mild and moderate; and self-contained, severe, instructional arrangements may not exceed the average of the statewide total contact hours credited per day for those three instructional arrangements in the 1992-1993 school year.
The State Board of Education by rule shall prescribe the qualifications an instructional arrangement must meet in order to be funded as a particular instructional arrangement.
“Full-time equivalent student” means 30 hours of contact a week between a special education student and special education program personnel.
The State Board of Education shall adopt rules and procedures governing contracts for residential placement of special education students. The legislature shall provide by appropriation for the state's share of the costs of those placements. Funds allocated under Section 42.151 of the Texas Education Code, other than an indirect cost allotment established under State Board of Education rule, must be used in the special education program under the Special Education Program Subchapter of the Educational Programs Chapter of the Texas Education Code.
The Texas Education Agency shall encourage the placement of students in special education programs, including students in residential instructional arrangements, in the least restrictive environment appropriate for their educational needs.
A school district that provides an extended year program required by federal law for special education students who may regress is entitled to receive funds in an amount equal to 75 percent, or a lesser percentage determined by the Commissioner, of the adjusted basic allotment or adjusted allotment, as applicable, for each full- time equivalent student in average daily attendance, multiplied by the amount designated for the student's instructional arrangement, for each day the program is provided divided by the number of days in the minimum school year. The total amount of state funding for extended year services may not exceed $10 million per year. A school district may use such funds only in providing an extended year program.
From the total amount of funds appropriated for special education under Section 42.151 of the Texas Education Code, the Commissioner shall withhold an amount specified in the General Appropriations Act, and distribute that amount to school districts for programs under Section 29.014 of the Texas Education Code. The program established under that section is required only in school districts in which the program is financed by funds distributed under this paragraph and any other funds available for the program. After deducting the amount withheld pursuant to this paragraph from the total amount appropriated for special education, the Commissioner shall reduce each district's allotment proportionately and shall allocate funds to each district accordingly.
Other Special Allotments
Texas law provides for other special allotments, including a compensatory education allotment (Texas Education Code Section 42.152), bilingual education allotments (Texas Education Code Section 42.153), career and technology education allotments (Texas Education Code Section 42.154), indirect cost allotments (Texas Education Code Section 42.1541), transportation allotments (Texas Education Code Section 42.155), gifted and talented
A-20 student allotments (Texas Education Code Section 42.156), public education grant allotments (Texas Education Code Section 42.157), new instructional facility allotments (Texas Education Code Section 42.158), and high school allotments (Texas Education Code Section 42.160).
FINANCING THE PROGRAM
General (Texas Education Code § 42.251)
The sum of the regular program allotment under the Basic Allotment Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code and the Special Allotments Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code constitute the tier one allotments. The sum of the tier one allotments and the guaranteed yield allotments under the Guaranteed Yield Program Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code constitute the total cost of the Foundation School Program.
The program shall be financed by:
(i) ad valorem tax revenue generated by an equalized uniform school district effort;
(ii) ad valorem tax revenue generated by local school district effort in excess of the equalized uniform school district effort;
(iii) state available school funds distributed in accordance with law; and
(iv) state funds appropriated for the purposes of public school education and allocated to each district in an amount sufficient to finance the cost of each district's Foundation School Program not covered by other funds specified above.
Additional State Aid
Texas law provides for additional State aid in certain circumstances, including additional State aid for staff salary increases (Texas Education Code Section 42.2513), additional state aid for tax increment financing payments (Texas Education Code Section 42.2514), additional State aid for ad valorem tax credits under the Texas Economic Development Act (Texas Education Code Section 42.2515), additional State aid for tax reduction/state compression percentage (Texas Education Code Section 42.2516), and excess funds for cost of education adjustment (Texas Education Code Section 42.2517).
Local Share of Program Cost (Tier One) (Texas Education Code § 42.252)
Subject to various adjustments as provided under Texas law, each school district's share of the Foundation School Program is determined by the following formula:
LFA = TR X DPV
where:
“LFA” is the school district's local share;
“TR” is a tax rate which for each hundred dollars of valuation is an effective tax rate of the amount equal to the product of the state compression percentage, as determined under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, multiplied by the lesser of: (i) $1.50; or (ii) the maintenance and operations tax rate adopted by the district for the 2005 tax year; and
“DPV” is the taxable value of property in the school district for the preceding tax year determined under Subchapter M, Chapter 403 of the Texas Government Code.
The Commissioner shall adjust the values reported in the official report of the comptroller as required by Section 5.09(a) of the Texas Tax Code, to reflect reductions in taxable value of property resulting from natural or
A-21 economic disaster after January 1 in the year in which the valuations are determined. The decision of the Commissioner is final. An adjustment does not affect the local fund assignment of any other school district.
Appeals of district values shall be held pursuant to Section 403.303 of the Texas Government Code.
A school district must raise its total local share of the Foundation School Program to be eligible to receive foundation school fund payments.
The Commissioner is granted the authority to ensure that school districts receiving federal impact aid due to the presence of a military installation or significant concentrations of military students do not receive more than an eight percent reduction should the federal government reduce appropriations to those schools under Section 42.2525 of the Texas Education Code.
Distribution of Foundation School Fund (Texas Education Code § 42.253)
For each school year the Commissioner shall determine:
(i) the amount of money to which a school district is entitled under the Basic Entitlement Subchapter and the Special Allotments Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code;
(ii) the amount of money to which a school district is entitled under Guaranteed Yield Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code;
(iii) the amount of money allocated to the district from the available school fund;
(iv) the amount of each district's tier one local share under Section 42.252 of the Texas Education Code; and
(v) the amount of each district's tier two local share under Section 42.302 of the Texas Education Code.
The Commissioner shall base the above determinations on the estimates provided to the legislature under Section 42.254 of the Texas Education Code, or, if the General Appropriations Act provides estimates for that purpose, on the estimates provided under that Act, for each school district for each school year. The Commissioner shall reduce the entitlement of each district that has a final taxable value of property for the second year of a state fiscal biennium that is higher than the estimate under Section 42.254 of the Texas Education Code or the General Appropriations Act, as applicable. A reduction may not reduce the district's entitlement below the amount to which it is entitled at its actual taxable value of property.
Each school district is entitled to an amount equal to the difference for that district between the sum of (i) and (ii) and the sum of Subsections (iii), (iv) and (v) above.
Until September 1, 2017, the amounts to be paid under Section 42.2516(b)(3) of the Texas Education Code shall be paid at the same time as other state revenue is paid to the district. Payments shall be based on amounts paid under Section 42.2516(b)(3) of the Texas Education Code for the preceding year. Any deficiency shall be paid to the district at the same time the final amount to be paid to the district is determined, and any overpayment shall be deducted from the payments the district would otherwise receive in the following year.
The Commissioner shall approve warrants to each school district equaling the amount of its entitlement except as provided herein. Warrants for all money expended according to the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code shall be approved and transmitted to treasurers or depositories of school districts in the same manner that warrants for state payments are transmitted. The total amount of the warrants issued may not exceed the total amount appropriated for Foundation School Program purposes for that fiscal year.
If a school district demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the estimate of the district's tax rate, student enrollment, or taxable value of property used in determining the amount of state funds to which the
A-22 district is entitled is so inaccurate as to result in undue financial hardship to the district, the Commissioner may adjust funding to that district in that school year to the extent that funds are available for that year.
Until September 1, 2017, if the amount appropriated for the Foundation School Program for the second year of a state fiscal biennium is less than the amount to which school districts and open-enrollment charter schools are entitled for that year, the Commissioner is required to certify the amount of the difference to the Legislative Budget Board not later than January 1 of the second year of the state fiscal biennium. The Legislative Budget Board shall propose to the legislature that the certified amount be transferred to the foundation school fund from the economic stabilization fund and appropriated for the purpose of increases in allocations. If the legislature fails during the regular session to enact the proposed transfer and appropriation and there are not funds available for the legislature to appropriate from funds that the comptroller, at any time during the fiscal year, finds are available, the Commissioner shall adjust the total amounts due to each school district and open-enrollment charter school under Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code and the total amounts necessary for each school district to comply with the requirements of Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code by an amount determined by applying to each district and school, including a district receiving funds under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, the same percentage adjustment to the total amount of state and local revenue due to the district or school under Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code and Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code so that the total amount of the adjustment to all districts and schools results in an amount equal to the total adjustment necessary. The following fiscal year:
(i) a district's or school's entitlement under this section is increased by an amount equal to the adjustment made under this paragraph; and
(ii) the amount necessary for a district to comply with the requirements of Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code is reduced by an amount necessary to ensure the district's full recovery of the adjustment made under this paragraph.
On and after September 1, 2017, if the amount appropriated for the Foundation School Program for the second year of a state fiscal biennium is less than the amount to which school districts and open-enrollment charter schools are entitled for that year, the Commissioner shall certify the amount of the difference to the Legislative Budget Board not later than January 1 of the second year of the state fiscal biennium. The Legislative Budget Board shall propose to the legislature that the certified amount be transferred to the foundation school fund from the economic stabilization fund and appropriated for the purpose of increases in allocations under this paragraph. If the legislature fails during the regular session to enact the proposed transfer and appropriation and there are not funds available under Subsection (j) of Section 42.253 of the Texas Education Code, the Commissioner shall adjust the total amounts due to each school district and open-enrollment charter school under Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code and the total amounts necessary for each school district to comply with the requirements of Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code by an amount determined by applying to each district and school the same percentage adjustment to the total amount of state and local revenue due to the district or school under this chapter and Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code so that the total amount of the adjustment to all districts and schools results in an amount equal to the total adjustment necessary. The following fiscal year:
(i) a district's or school's entitlement under this section is increased by an amount equal to the adjustment made under this paragraph; and
(ii) the amount necessary for a district to comply with the requirements of Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code is reduced by an amount necessary to ensure a district's full recovery of the adjustment made under this paragraph.
Not later than March 1 each year, the Commissioner shall determine the actual amount of state funds to which each school district is entitled under the allocation formulas in the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code for the current school year and shall compare that amount with the amount of the warrants issued to each district for that year. If the amount of the warrants differs from the amount to which a district is entitled because of variations in the district's tax rate, student enrollment, or taxable value of property, the Commissioner shall adjust the district's entitlement for the next fiscal year accordingly.
The Commissioner shall compute for each school district the total amount by which the district's allocation of state funds is increased or reduced and shall certify that amount to the district.
A-23 Recovery of Overallocated Funds (Texas Education Code § 42.258)
(i) If a school district has received an overallocation of state funds, the Texas Education Agency shall, by withholding from subsequent allocations of state funds for the current or subsequent school year or by requesting and obtaining a refund, recover from the district an amount equal to the overallocation.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i) above, the Texas Education Agency may recover an overallocation of state funds over a period not to exceed the subsequent five school years if the Commissioner determines that the overallocation was the result of exceptional circumstances reasonably caused by statutory changes to Chapter 41 or 46 of the Texas Education Code or Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code and related reporting requirements.
(iii) If a district fails to comply with a request for a refund under (i) above, the Texas Education Agency shall certify to the comptroller that the amount constitutes a debt for purposes of Section 403.055 of the Texas Government Code. The Texas Education Agency shall provide to the comptroller the amount of the overallocation and any other information required by the comptroller. The comptroller may certify the amount of the debt to the attorney general for collection.
(iv) Any amounts recovered shall be deposited in the foundation school fund.
Foundation School Fund Transfers (Texas Education Code § 42.259)
As used below:
“Category 1 school district” means a school district having a wealth per student of less than one-half of the statewide average wealth per student.
“Category 2 school district” means a school district having a wealth per student of at least one-half of the statewide average wealth per student but not more than the statewide average wealth per student.
“Category 3 school district” means a school district having a wealth per student of more than the statewide average wealth per student.
“Wealth per student” means the taxable property values reported by the comptroller to the Commissioner under Section 42.252 of the Texas Education Code divided by the number of students in average daily attendance.
(i) Payments from the foundation school fund to each category 1 school district shall be made as follows:
(a) 15 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of September of a fiscal year;
(b) 80 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in eight equal installments to be made on or before the 25th day of October, November, December, January, March, May, June, and July; and
(c) five percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of February.
(ii) Payments from the foundation school fund to each category 2 school district shall be made as follows:
(a) 22 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of September of a fiscal year;
A-24 (b) 18 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of October;
(c) 9.5 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of November;
(d) 7.5 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of April;
(e) five percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of May;
(f) 10 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of June;
(g) 13 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of July; and
(h) 15 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of August.
Notwithstanding Subdivision (ii)(h) above, for the state fiscal year ending August 31, 2013, the installment described by that Subdivision shall be paid on or before the 30th day of August, 2013. Subdivision (ii)(h) expires August 31, 2013.
(iii) Payments from the foundation school fund to each category 3 school district shall be made as follows:
(a) 45 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of September of a fiscal year;
(b) 35 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of October; and
(c) 20 percent of the yearly entitlement of the district shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of August.
Notwithstanding Subdivision (iii)(c) above, for the state fiscal year ending August 31, 2013, the installment described by that Subdivision shall be paid on or before the 30th day of August, 2013. Subdivision (iii)(c) expires August 31, 2013.
The amount of any installment required above may be modified to provide a school district with the proper amount to which the district may be entitled by law and to correct errors in the allocation or distribution of funds. If an installment is required to be equal to other installments, the amount of other installments may be adjusted to provide for that equality. A payment is not invalid because it is not equal to other installments.
Previously unpaid additional funds from prior fiscal years owed to a district shall be paid to the district together with the September payment of the current fiscal year entitlement.
The Commissioner shall make all annual Foundation School Program payments under this section for purposes described by Sections 42.252(a)(1) and (2) of the Texas Education Code before the deadline established under Section 45.263(b) of the Texas Education Code for payment of debt service on bonds. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Commissioner may make Foundation School Program payments under this section after the deadline established under Section 45.263(b) of the Texas Education Code only if the Commissioner has not received notice under Section 45.258 of the Texas Education Code concerning a district's failure or inability to pay matured principal or interest on bonds.
A-25 Foundation School Fund Transfers to Certain Charter Schools (Texas Education Code § 42.2591)
On the request of an open-enrollment charter school, the Commissioner is required to compare the student enrollment of the open-enrollment charter school for the current school year to the student enrollment of the school during the preceding school year. If the number of students enrolled at the open-enrollment charter school for the current school year has increased by 10 percent or more from the number of students enrolled during the preceding school year, the open-enrollment charter school may request that payments from the foundation school fund to the school for the following school year and each subsequent school year, subject to the following paragraph, be made according to the schedule provided below.
An open-enrollment charter school that qualifies to receive funding as provided by this section is entitled to receive funding in that manner for three school years. On the expiration of that period, the Commissioner shall determine the eligibility of the open-enrollment charter school to continue receiving payments from the foundation school fund under this section for an additional three school years. Subsequently, the open-enrollment charter school must reestablish eligibility in the manner provided by this subsection every three school years.
Payments from the foundation school fund to an open-enrollment charter school under this section are required to be made as follows:
(i) 22 percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of September of a fiscal year;
(ii) 18 percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of October;
(iii) 9.5 percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of November;
(iv) four percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of December;
(v) four percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of January;
(vi) four percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of February;
(vii) four percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of March;
(viii) 7.5 percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of April;
(ix) five percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of May;
(x) seven percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of June;
(xi) seven percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of July; and
(xii) eight percent of the yearly entitlement of the school shall be paid in an installment to be made on or before the 25th day of August.
The amount of any installment required by this section may be modified to provide an open-enrollment charter school with the proper amount to which the school may be entitled by law and to correct errors in the allocation or distribution of funds.
A-26 Previously unpaid additional funds from prior fiscal years owed to an open-enrollment charter school shall be paid to the school together with the September payment of the current fiscal year entitlement.
Use of Certain Funds (Texas Education Code § 42.260)
As used below, “participating charter school” means an open-enrollment charter school that participates in the uniform group coverage program established under Chapter 1579 of the Texas Insurance Code.
For each year, the Commissioner shall certify to each school district or participating charter school the amount of additional funds to which the district or school is entitled due to the increase made by H.B. No. 3343, Acts of the 77th Legislature, Regular Session, 2001, to:
(i) the equalized wealth level under Section 41.002 of the Texas Education Code; or
(ii) the guaranteed level of state and local funds per weighted student per cent of tax effort under Section 42.302 of the Texas Education Code.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Texas Education Code, a school district or participating charter school may use the following amount of funds only to pay contributions under a group health coverage plan for district or school employees:
(i) an amount equal to 75 percent of the amount certified for the district or school under (i) and (ii) above, or
(ii) if the following amount is less than the amount specified by (i), the sum of:
(a) the amount determined by multiplying the amount of $900 or the amount specified in the General Appropriations Act for that year for purposes of the state contribution under Section 9, Article 3.50-7 of the Texas Insurance Code, by the number of district or school employees who participate in a group health coverage plan provided by or through the district or school; and
(b) the difference between the amount necessary for the district or school to comply with Section 3, Article 3.50-9 of the Texas Insurance Code, for the school year and the amount the district or school is required to use to provide health coverage under Section 2 of that article for that year.
GUARANTEED YIELD PROGRAM
Purpose (Texas Education Code § 42.301)
The purpose of the guaranteed yield component of the Foundation School Program is to provide each school district with the opportunity to provide the basic program and to supplement that program at a level of its own choice. An allotment under the Guaranteed Yield Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code may be used for any legal purpose other than capital outlay or debt service.
Allotment (Texas Education Code § 42.302)
(i) Each school district is guaranteed a specified amount per weighted student in state and local funds for each cent of tax effort over that required for the district's local fund assignment up to the maximum level specified in the Guaranteed Yield Subchapter of the Foundation School Program Chapter of the Texas Education Code. The amount of state support, subject only to the maximum amount under Section 42.303 of the Texas Education Code, is determined by the formula:
GYA = (GL x WADA x DTR x 100) - LR where:
“GYA” is the guaranteed yield amount of state funds to be allocated to the district;
A-27 “GL” is the dollar amount guaranteed level of state and local funds per weighted student per cent of tax effort, which is an amount described by Subsection (ii) below or a greater amount for any year provided by appropriation;
“WADA” is the number of students in weighted average daily attendance, which is calculated by dividing the sum of the school district's allotments under the Basic Entitlement and Special Allotments Subchapters of the Foundation School Chapter of the Texas Education Code, less any allotment to the district for transportation, any allotment under Section 42.158 or 42.160 of the Texas Education Code, and 50 percent of the adjustment under Section 42.102 of the Texas Education Code, by the basic allotment for the applicable year;
“DTR” is the district enrichment tax rate of the school district, which is determined by subtracting the amounts specified by (iii) below from the total amount of maintenance and operations taxes collected by the school district for the applicable school year and dividing the difference by the quotient of the district's taxable value of property as determined under Subchapter M, Chapter 403 of the Texas Government Code, or, if applicable, under Section 42.2521 of the Texas Education Code, divided by 100; and
“LR” is the local revenue, which is determined by multiplying “DTR” by the quotient of the district's taxable value of property as determined under Subchapter M, Chapter 403 of the Texas Government Code, or, if applicable, under Section 42.2521 of the Texas Education Code, divided by 100.
(ii) As used below, “wealth per student” means the taxable value of property, as determined under Subchapter M, Chapter 403 of the Texas Government Code, divided by the number of students in weighted average daily attendance. For purposes of (i) above, the dollar amount guaranteed level of state and local funds per weighted student per cent of tax effort (“GL”) for a school district is:
(a) the greater of the amount of district tax revenue per weighted student per cent of tax effort that would be available to the Austin Independent School District, as determined by the Commissioner in cooperation with the Legislative Budget Board, if the reduction of the limitation on tax increases as provided by Section 11.26(a-1), (a-2), or (a-3) of the Texas Tax Code, did not apply, or the amount of district tax revenue per weighted student per cent of tax effort used for purposes of this paragraph (ii) in the preceding school year, for the first six cents by which the district's maintenance and operations tax rate exceeds the rate equal to the product of the state compression percentage, as determined under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, multiplied by the maintenance and operations tax rate adopted by the district for the 2005 tax year; and
(b) $31.95, for the district's maintenance and operations tax0 effort that exceeds the amount of tax effort described by (a).
(iii) The limitation on district enrichment tax rate (“DTR”) under Section 42.303 of the Texas Education Code does not apply to the district's maintenance and operations tax effort described in (ii)(a) above.
Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii), for a school district that imposed a maintenance and operations tax for the 2010 tax year at the maximum rate permitted under Section 45.003 of the Texas Education Code, the dollar amount guaranteed level of state and local funds per weighted student per cent of tax effort (“GL”) for the district's maintenance and operations tax effort described by clause (ii)(b) is $33.95. This paragraph expires September 1, 2012.
(iv) In computing the district enrichment tax rate of a school district, the total amount of maintenance and operations taxes collected by the school district does not include the amount of:
(a) the district's local fund assignment under Section 42.252; or
(b) taxes paid into a tax increment fund under Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code.
A-28 (v) For purposes of Section 42.302 of the Texas Education Code, school district taxes for which credit is granted under Section 31.035, 31.036, or 31.037 of the Texas Tax Code, are considered taxes collected by the school district as if the taxes were paid when the credit for the taxes was granted. For purposes of Section 42.302 of the Texas Education Code, the total amount of maintenance and operations taxes collected for an applicable school year by a school district with alternate tax dates, as authorized by Section 26.135 of the Texas Tax Code, is the amount of taxes collected on or after January 1 of the year in which the school year begins and not later than December 31 of the same year.
(vi) For purposes of Section 42.302 of the Texas Education Code, school district taxes for which credit is granted under former Subchapter D, Chapter 313 of the Texas Tax Code, are considered taxes collected by the school district as if the taxes were paid when the credit for the taxes was granted. If a school district imposes a maintenance and operations tax at a rate greater than the rate equal to the product of the state compression percentage, as determined under Section 42.2516 of the Texas Education Code, multiplied by the maintenance and operations tax rate adopted by the district for the 2005 tax year, the district is entitled to receive an allotment as described above on the basis of that greater tax effort.
Limitation on Enrichment Tax Rate (Texas Education Code § 42.303)
The district enrichment tax rate (“DTR”) under Section 42.302 of the Texas Education Code may not exceed the amount per $100 of valuation by which the maximum rate permitted under Section 45.003 of the Texas Education Code exceeds the rate used to determine the district's local share under Section 42.252 of the Texas Education Code, or a greater amount for any year provided by appropriation.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
A-29 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] APPENDIX B
IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General ______B-1 History and Growth Strategy ______B-4 General ______B-4 Growth Strategy ______B-5 Prior and Future Financings ______B-6 Recent Accomplishments ______B-8 Educational Philosophy: Extended School Day and a Better IDEA ______B-10 Extended School Day ______B-10 A BetterIDEA ______B-10 Facilities ______B-11 The Project ______B-14 Project Construction ______B-15 Charter Contract ______B-16 General ______B-16 Revocation, Nonrenewal, Modification of Governance and Automatic Revocation ______B-16 Board of Directors ______B-18 Advisory Boards ______B-21 Senior Leadership ______B-21 Employees ______B-24 General ______B-24 Labor Relations ______B-24 Enrollment ______B-24 Wait List ______B-26 Student Retention ______B-29 Service Area and Competing Schools ______B-29 Accountability Ratings and Student Performance ______B-30 Federal Accountability ______B-35 Financial Statements ______B-38 Audited Year-End Financial Statements ______B-38 Debt Summary ______B-39 Financial Controls ______B-39 Conflicts Policy ______B-39 Certain Business Relationships ______B-40 Insurance Coverage ______B-40 Fundraising ______B-41 Projected Revenues and Expenditures ______B-42
(i)
IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS
General
IDEA Public Schools (“IDEA”) is a Texas non-profit corporation incorporated on January 27, 2000 and an organization described under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). As summarized in the table below, as of the start of the 2016-17 school year, IDEA will operate fifty-one charter schools at twenty-six campuses in the Rio Grande Valley, Austin and San Antonio and plans to begin operations at 10 schools at five additional campuses in August of 2017. See “History and Growth Strategy” below. The charter schools operate or will operate pursuant to a single open enrollment charter contract between IDEA and the Texas Education Agency (the “TEA”) under Chapter 12 of the Texas Education Code, Section 12.001 et seq. (the “Charter Schools Act”). IDEA is currently governed by a 15 member Board of Directors. Set forth below is a chart showing IDEA’s existing schools and schools in process that were previously financed or are being financed with proceeds of the Bonds. The chart excludes schools that are planned but have not yet been financed.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
B-1
TABLE 1: IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS — CHARTER SCHOOLS
CHARTER SCHOOL GRADES CAMPUS 3 1 2 YEAR OPENED; LOW INCOME % AND PRESENT ADDRESS OFFERED ENROLLMENT IDEA Academy Donna Pre-K-5 1,534 2000-01 IDEA College Preparatory Donna 6-12 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 94% 401 S. 1st Street, Donna, TX (“Donna Campus”) IDEA Frontier Academy K-5 1,394 2006-07 IDEA Frontier College Preparatory 6-12 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 92% 2800 S. Dakota Avenue, Brownsville, TX (“Frontier Campus”) IDEA Quest Academy Pre-K-5 1,506 2006-07 IDEA Quest College Preparatory 6-12 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 90% 14001 N. Rooth Road, Edinburg, TX (“Quest Campus”) IDEA Academy Mission Pre-K-5 1,534 2008-09 IDEA College Preparatory Mission 6-12 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 93% 1600 S. Schuerbach Road, Mission, TX (“Mission Campus”) IDEA Academy San Benito Pre-K-5 1,534 2008-09 IDEA College Preparatory San Benito 6-12 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 83% 2151 Russell Lane, San Benito, TX (“San Benito Campus”) IDEA Academy San Juan Pre-K-5 1,534 2009-10 IDEA College Preparatory San Juan 6-12 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 92% 200 N. Nebraska Street, San Juan, TX (“San Juan Campus”) IDEA Academy Alamo Pre-K-5 1,534 2010-11 IDEA College Preparatory Alamo 6-12 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 96% 327 E. FM 495, Alamo, TX (“Alamo Campus”) IDEA Academy Pharr Pre-K-5 1,534 2010-11 IDEA College Preparatory Pharr 6-12 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 98% 600 E. Las Milpas Road, Pharr, TX (“Pharr Campus”) IDEA Academy Edinburg Pre-K-5 1,452 2011-12 IDEA College Preparatory Edinburg 6-11 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 81% 2553 Roegiers Road, Edinburg, TX (expansion (“Edinburg Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Weslaco K-5 1,312 2011-12 IDEA College Preparatory Weslaco 6-11 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 88% 2931 E. Sugar Cane Drive, Weslaco, TX (expansion (“Weslaco Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy McAllen Pre-K-5 1,361 2012-13 IDEA College Preparatory McAllen 6-10 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 80% 201 N. Bentsen Road, McAllen, TX (expansion (“McAllen Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Brownsville K-5 1,221 2012-13 IDEA College Preparatory Brownsville 6-10 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 84% 4395 Paredes Line Road, Brownsville, TX (expansion (“Brownsville Campus”) is planned)
B-2
TABLE 1: IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS — CHARTER SCHOOLS
CHARTER SCHOOL GRADES CAMPUS 3 1 2 YEAR OPENED; LOW INCOME % AND PRESENT ADDRESS OFFERED ENROLLMENT IDEA Carver Academy K-5 952 2012-13
IDEA Carver College Preparatory 6-10 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 86% 217 Robinson Place, San Antonio, TX (expansion (“Carver Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy South Flores K-5 1,120 2013-14 IDEA College Preparatory South Flores 6-9 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 77% 6919 S. Flores Street, San Antonio, TX (expansion (“South Flores Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Allan K-5 1,221 2013-14 IDEA College Preparatory Allan 6-10 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 95% 220 Foremost Drive, Austin, TX (expansion (“Allan Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Monterrey Park K-4 896 2014-15 IDEA College Preparatory Monterrey Park 6-8 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 88% 222 SW 39th Street, San Antonio, TX (expansion (“Monterrey Park Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Walzem K-4 896 2014-15 IDEA College Preparatory Walzem 6-8 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 83% 6130 Walzem Road, San Antonio, TX (expansion (“Walzem Campus”) is planned)
IDEA Academy Weslaco Pike Pre-K-4 1,064 2014-15 IDEA College Preparatory Weslaco Pike 6-8 • Free & Reduced – Approximately 86% 1000 East Pike Boulevard, Weslaco, TX (expansion (“Weslaco Pike Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Eastside K-3 672 2015-16 IDEA College Preparatory Eastside 6-7 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 93% 2519 Martin Luther King Drive, (expansion San Antonio, TX is planned) (“Eastside Campus”) IDEA Academy Riverview Pre-K-2 700 2015-16 IDEA College Preparatory Riverview 6-7 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 93% 30 Palm Boulevard, Brownsville, TX (expansion (“Riverview Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Rundberg K-3 672 2015-16 IDEA College Preparatory Rundberg 6-7 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 92% 700 Showplace Lane, Austin, TX (expansion (“Rundberg Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy North Mission Pre-K-2 700 2015-16 IDEA College Preparatory North Mission 6-7 • Free & Reduced - Approximately 89% 2706 N. Holland Avenue, Mission, TX (expansion (“North Mission Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Judson K-2 448 2016-17 IDEA College Preparatory Judson 6 • Free & Reduced - N/A 13427 Judson Rd., San Antonio, TX (expansion (“Judson Campus”) is planned) IDEA Academy Mays K-2 448 2016-17 IDEA College Preparatory Mays 6 • Free & Reduced - N/A 1210 Horal Rd., San Antonio, TX (expansion (“Waters Edge Campus”) is planned)
B-3
TABLE 1: IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS — CHARTER SCHOOLS
CHARTER SCHOOL GRADES CAMPUS 3 1 2 YEAR OPENED; LOW INCOME % AND PRESENT ADDRESS OFFERED ENROLLMENT IDEA Academy Bluff Springs K-2 448 2016-17 IDEA College Preparatory Bluff Springs 6 • Free & Reduced - N/A 1700 E. Slaughter Lane, Austin, TX (expansion (“Bluff Springs Campus”) is planned) IDEA College Preparatory Edinburg Palm 9-12 44 2016-17 315 E. Palm Dr., Edinburg, TX (expansion • Free & Reduced - N/A (“Edinburg Palm Campus”) is planned)
IDEA Academy Rio Grande City K-2 2017-18 IDEA College Preparatory Rio Grande City 6 N/A • Free & Reduced – N/A 2803 W Monarch Lane (expansion Rio Grande City, TX is planned) (“Rio Grande City Campus”) IDEA Academy McAllen No. 2 K-2 N/A 2017-18 IDEA College Preparatory McAllen No. 2 6 • Free & Reduced – N/A 5200 Tres Lagos Blvd., McAllen, TX (expansion (“McAllen Campus No. 2”) is planned) IDEA Academy San Antonio No. 8 K-2 N/A 2017-18 IDEA College Preparatory San Antonio No. 8 6 • Free & Reduced – N/A 926 S. WW White Rd., San Antonio, TX (expansion (“San Antonio Campus No. 8”) is planned) IDEA Academy San Antonio No. 9 K-2 N/A 2017-18 IDEA College Preparatory San Antonio No. 9 6 • Free & Reduced – N/A 5555 Old Pearsall Rd., San Antonio, TX (expansion (“San Antonio Campus No. 9”) is planned) IDEA Academy San Antonio No. 10 K-2 N/A 2017-18 IDEA College Preparatory San Antonio No. 10 6 • Free & Reduced – N/A 2523 W. Ansley Blvd., San Antonio, TX (expansion (“San Antonio Campus No. 10”) is planned)
Total Enrollment 27,731 ______Source: IDEA. 1 IDEA’s historic approach has been to begin with a few grade levels and expand to Pre-K or K through 12 over a period of several years. 2 Budgeted for the 2016-17 school year. 3 This column shows the percentage of the respective student body qualifying for free or reduced cost lunches in fiscal year 2015-2016.
History and Growth Strategy
General
While serving as Teach for America corps members, Tom Torkelson and JoAnn Gama founded IDEA as an after-school program in 1998 in an effort to combat some of the major educational deficiencies they saw in their students. They then opened up their first campus in the 2000-01 school year in Donna, Texas.
IDEA places great emphasis on college readiness and requires that its students be accepted to a four-year college or university in order to receive a high school diploma. In keeping with this requirement, almost all of IDEA’s graduates have gone on to a four-year college or university, with a majority of those students representing first generation college students.
B-4
Growth Strategy
Historic Growth
Since the success of its flagship Donna Campus, IDEA has successfully launched 42 additional schools on 21 additional campuses. In August 2016, IDEA opened two new campuses (with two schools each) in San Antonio, one new campus (with two schools) in Austin and one new college preparatory campus (one school) in the Rio Grande Valley. In addition, IDEA finalized construction on four campuses, two in San Antonio, one in the Rio Grande Valley and one in Austin. In 2017-18, IDEA plans to open two new campuses (with two schools each) at its Rio Grande Valley campuses (McAllen and Rio Grande City), and three new campuses (with two schools each) in San Antonio for a total of 61 schools on 31 campuses. Thereafter, IDEA intends to open four to five additional campuses per year (two schools per campus) in high demand areas, including further expansion in the Austin, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley. IDEA’s current strategic plan targeted 60 schools by the beginning of the 2017-18 school year.
IDEA’s growth strategy is to serve a sufficient number of students to both create a core of IDEA college graduates who will serve as leaders within their communities and to reach a “tipping point” to spur change within the public school system. Historically, IDEA expanded into relatively rural school communities to help ensure that its presence was felt, although it has since expanded into Austin and San Antonio, Texas. IDEA’s goal is to reach at least 10% market share in the communities in which it locates, which it believes is the point at which it creates an external incentive for public school district improvement. IDEA makes its curriculum and approach of how best to prepare low-income students for success in college open and available to the school districts in the communities it serves. IDEA’s model requires initial philanthropic support (see “Fundraising” below), but after receiving funding for start-up costs, IDEA strives for each of its schools to be financially self-sufficient within two years from the date of opening.
San Antonio Expansion
IDEA entered the San Antonio, Texas market with the acquisition of its Carver Campus. The Carver Campus was previously a private school founded by David Robinson, formerly a professional basketball player with the San Antonio Spurs. David Robinson has served on IDEA’s advisory board for the San Antonio region since IDEA’s acquisition of the Carver Campus. So far, as part of its San Antonio expansion, IDEA has received approximately $30 million in philanthropic donations. IDEA continued its expansion in San Antonio by adding one additional campus in 2013-14, two additional campuses in 2014-15 and one additional campus in 2015-16. IDEA opened three additional campuses in 2016-17. IDEA intends to use proceeds of the Bonds to finance or refinance the construction of three additional campuses in the San Antonio region prior to the start of the 2017-18 school year. The new 2022-23 five year strategic plan calls for adding one additional campus per year in the San Antonio region.
Austin Expansion
IDEA was approached by Austin Independent School District (“AISD”) to operate a primary and secondary in-district charter school, commencing in the 2012-13 school year. The term of the agreement was from July 15, 2012 through June 30, 2019, although it provided for termination by either party with or without cause at the end of any school year. AISD elected to terminate the agreement effective with the 2013-14 school year. As a result, IDEA continued operating a charter school in temporary facilities. IDEA Allan College Preparatory opened in the 2014-15 school year in seven portable buildings on the future site of the planned permanent campus. In 2014-15 IDEA Allan Academy occupied temporary leased facilities. Both schools moved to their permanent building on August 10, 2015. IDEA continues to expand in Austin with the opening of the Rundberg Campus in 2015-16 and the Bluff Springs Campus in the 2016-17 school year. The new 2022-23 five year strategic plan calls for adding two campuses per year in Austin beginning in 2018-19 through 2022-23, for a total of 20 additional schools. This expansion is partially funded with the $16-$22 million grant received in June 2016 from the KLE Foundation, which covers the same expansion period.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-5
New Regional Expansion, 2022-23 Five Year Plan
IDEA plans to continue its expansion in the Rio Grande Valley (“RGV”), San Antonio and Austin, the existing Texas regions. Over the course of the new five year strategic plan, IDEA intends to add two campuses per year in the RGV and Austin and one campus per year in San Antonio. Given the academic and financial success of IDEA’s model, demand for IDEA to expand into new, educationally challenged regions of Texas is strong. Given the demand and accompanying philanthropic financial support, several new regions in the State of Texas are anticipated to open over the 2022-23 planning period. El Paso, Texas was recently named as the first new region for expansion, with planned openings in the 2018-19 school year.
Any new regional expansions are the result of community supported education reform groups soliciting and inviting IDEA to open in their region and concurrently offering substantial startup and operational grant funding, and potentially facility funding, over the course of the expansion period, usually a minimum of 4 new campuses (8 schools), allowing IDEA to achieve campus and regional scale with standalone sustainability over the same time frame as IDEA currently achieves. While IDEA can continue to grow organically in existing regions, its mission is to expand educational opportunities to more children and accelerate closing of the achievement gap in selected regions where IDEA believes its model has substantial potential for success, assuming community and financial support are at appropriate levels, which includes achieving at least historical and targeted financial metrics related to debt service coverage. See “Table 14, Historical and Projected Revenues and Expenses” for more detailed information.
Prior and Future Financings
Prior Parity Debt
The outstanding bonds set forth below were issued for the benefit of IDEA (or will be issued) and the related Master Notes are secured under the Master Indenture on a parity with the Series 2016B Note:
• Texas Public Finance Authority Charter School Finance Corporation’s Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools Project) Series 2007A (the “Series 2007 Bonds”) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $2,660,000. The Series 2007 Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under a promissory note (the “Series 2007 Note”) issued by IDEA.
• City of Pharr, Texas Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2009A (the “Series 2009 Bonds”) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $27,625,000 ($13,495,000 of which is expected to be defeased with proceeds of the Bonds). The Series 2009 Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under a promissory note (the “Series 2009 Note”) issued by IDEA.
• San Juan Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2010A and Taxable Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2010Q (the “Series 2010 Bonds”) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $39,220,000 ($23,175,000 of which is expected to be defeased with proceeds of the Bonds). The Series 2010 Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under two promissory notes (the “Series 2010 Notes”) issued by IDEA.
• Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2011 (the “Series 2011 Bonds”) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $25,555,000. The Series 2011 Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under a promissory note (the “Series 2011 Note”) issued by IDEA.
• Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2012 (the “Series 2012 Bonds”) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $57,505,000. The Series 2012 Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under a promissory note (the “Series 2012 Note”) issued by IDEA.
B-6
• Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2013 (the “Series 2013 Bonds”) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $62,130,000. The Series 2013 Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under a promissory note (the “Series 2013 Note”) issued by IDEA.
• Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue and Refunding Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2014 (the “Series 2014 Bonds”) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $90,600,000. The Series 2014 Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under a promissory note (the “Series 2014 Note”) issued by IDEA.
• Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2015 (the “Series 2015 Bonds”) outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $70,885,000. The Series 2015 Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under a promissory note (the “Series 2015 Note”) issued by IDEA.
• Clifton Higher Education Finance Corporation Education Revenue and Refunding Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2016A (the “Series 2016A Bonds”), which are anticipated to be outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $99,025,000, The Series 2016A Bonds are payable from payments to be made by IDEA under a promissory note (the “Series 2016A Note”) issued by IDEA.
Other Prior Parity Debt
IDEA has used, and will further use, the proceeds of a revolving line of credit from Regions Bank, dated December 19, 2014 (the “Regions Bank Loan”), to finance new campus construction, land purchases and certain other projects. The Regions Bank Loan is evidenced by a note (the “Regions Note”) entitled to the benefit of the Master Indenture. As of June 30, 2016, the Regions Bank Loan was outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $7,369,510. IDEA may draw up to a total of $20,000,000 under the Regions Bank Loan. IDEA will use a portion of the proceeds of the Series 2016A Bonds to pay the current balance of the Regions Bank Loan and any accrued interest thereon. The line of credit expires on December 19, 2017.
In addition to the foregoing, IDEA has a couple of smaller notes payable and capital leases. See “Debt Summary” and “APPENDIX C — FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.”
The Series 2016A Bonds and the Series 2016B Bonds
As described herein, proceeds of the Bonds and the Series 2016A Bonds (defined below) will be used to finance and/or refinance (i) the development of the Rio Grande City Campus, McAllen Campus No. 2, San Antonio Campus No. 8, San Antonio Campus No. 9 and San Antonio Campus No. 10, (ii) additional improvements at the Riverview Campus, Eastside Campus and Rundberg Campus (clauses (i) and (ii) herein are collectively referred to herein as the “Project”), (iii) refunding a portion of the City of Pharr, Texas Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2009A and the San Juan Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2010A, and (iv) paying costs of issuance. See TABLE 3 for a detailed description of these projects.
Contemporaneous Debt
It is anticipated that shortly before the issuance of the Bonds, the Issuer will issue its Education Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A (the “Series 2016A Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $99,025,000. The Series 2016A Bonds have priced and are scheduled to be issued on September 14, 2016.
The Series 2016A Bonds will be guaranteed under the Bond Guarantee Program of the Permanent School Fund of the State of Texas.
In order to complete the Projects, IDEA will need the proceeds of the Series 2016A Bonds. Failure to issue the Series 2016A Bonds will result in not having sufficient funds to complete the Projects.
B-7
Future Debt
In conjunction with its 2022-23 five year plan, IDEA anticipates issuing additional promissory notes over the next two years on parity with the then Outstanding Master Notes to finance up to $295 million of new construction for four new campuses in Austin, two new campuses in San Antonio, four new campuses in the Rio Grande Valley, three new campuses in El Paso and two new campuses in a new region in Texas, along with completion of existing facilities to full scale. Such plans are tentative, subject to appropriate levels of philanthropic support, subject to change, dependent upon IDEA’s ongoing ability to satisfy financial metrics, including the coverage requirements for the issuance of additional Debt, subject to locating appropriate sites, subject to meeting IDEA’s internal expansion guidelines and other factors. The anticipated debt service associated with such future financing in 2017-18 and 2018-19 is reflected in the Historical and Projected Revenues and Expenses table (Table 14). Additionally, IDEA may renew the Regions Bank Loan facility to be used for interim financing.
Recent Accomplishments
IDEA has regularly been recognized for its accomplishments and notes the following as highlights:
• IDEA won the Broad Prize in 2016. The Broad Prize honors the public charter management organization that has demonstrated the most outstanding overall student performance and improvement among the country’s largest charter management organizations in recent years while reducing achievement gaps for poor and minority students. IDEA was also one of the three finalists out of 20 qualifying charter management organizations in 2014 and 2015. Since the winner in each of the years chose to share the award with the other two nominated CMOs, IDEA received $83,000 in each of 2014 and 2015. As the winner in 2016, IDEA will receive $250,000 that will also be shared with the other two nominees.
• IDEA received a commitment of $16-$22 million from the KLE Foundation to help fund implementation of IDEA’s 2022 strategic plan, specifically targeting IDEA’s expansion in Austin.
• In 2016, IDEA Frontier College Preparatory, IDEA Quest College Preparatory, IDEA San Juan College Preparatory, IDEA Mission College Preparatory, IDEA San Benito College Preparatory, IDEA Alamo College Preparatory and IDEA College Preparatory Donna were identified by The Washington Post as being among the most challenging high schools in the country (IDEA Mission – 11th (4th in Texas), IDEA Frontier – 15th (5th in Texas), IDEA San Benito – 16th (6th in Texas), IDEA Quest – 17th (7th in Texas), IDEA San Juan – 28th (12th in Texas), IDEA Alamo – 43rd (16th in Texas) and IDEA Donna – 106th (33rd in Texas).
• In 2016, IDEA Frontier College Preparatory, IDEA Quest College Preparatory, IDEA San Juan College Preparatory, IDEA Mission College Preparatory, IDEA San Benito College Preparatory and IDEA College Preparatory Donna were identified by U.S. News & World Report as being among the best high schools in the nation (IDEA Frontier - 79th National Gold Medal (15th in Texas), IDEA Quest - 84th National Gold Medal (16th in Texas), IDEA San Juan – 112th National Gold Medal (20th in Texas), IDEA Mission – 187th National Gold Medal (31st in Texas), IDEA San Benito - 405th National Gold Medal (56th in Texas) and IDEA Donna - 560th National Silver Medal (67th in Texas). Other accomplishments in 2016 include the award of two major programmatic grants from government agencies:
• $5.2 million in funding through the 21st Century Community Learning Center program from the TEA to support extended day and year learning and enrichment programming. • $293,259 in funding through the Project AP Excellence program from the Department of Education to support and expand the Advanced Placement program.
• In 2015, IDEA College Preparatory Donna, IDEA Frontier College Preparatory, IDEA San Juan College Preparatory, IDEA Quest College Preparatory, IDEA Mission College Preparatory, and
B-8
IDEA San Benito College Preparatory were identified by U.S. News & World Report as being among the best high schools in the country (IDEA College Preparatory Donna was ranked 41st, IDEA Frontier College Preparatory was ranked 46th, IDEA San Juan College Preparatory was ranked 107th, IDEA Quest College Preparatory was ranked 112th, IDEA Mission College Preparatory was ranked 150th and IDEA San Benito College Preparatory was ranked 481st).
• Other accomplishments in 2015 include the award of three major programmatic grants from government agencies: • $4 million in funding through the U.S. Department of Education’s Charter School Program Replication and Expansion Grant to support growth of high performing charter programs; • $500,000 from an anonymous donor to support growth at the Riverview Campus; and • $124,000 from the KLE Foundation to support closing the achievement gap in Austin. • In 2014, IDEA secured $500,000 from the Brown Foundation and $1.6 million from Choose to Succeed specifically for operational expenses and start-up costs associated with expansion in San Antonio.
• IDEA exceeded state target scores for each of the four performance indicators for the 2013-14 school year under the new Texas rating system, 25 schools earned academic distinction in student achievement categories and two campuses earned distinction in all categories.
• Other accomplishments in 2014 include the award of three major programmatic grants from government agencies:
• $4 million in funding through the Educator Excellence Innovation program from the TEA to support the Teacher Career Pathway program; • $8.8 million in funding through the 21st Century Community Learning Center program from the TEA to support extended day and year learning and enrichment programming; and • $2.24 million through the Carol M. White Physical Education Programming from the Department of Education to support innovations in health and wellness programming.
• In 2014, IDEA College Preparatory Donna, IDEA Frontier College Preparatory and IDEA Quest College Preparatory were identified by U.S. News & World Report as being among the best high schools in the country (IDEA College Preparatory Donna was ranked 30th, IDEA Frontier College Preparatory was ranked 85th and IDEA Quest College Preparatory was ranked 117th).
• In 2013, IDEA College Preparatory Donna, IDEA Frontier College Preparatory and IDEA Quest College Preparatory were identified by U.S. News & World Report as being among the best high schools in the country (IDEA Frontier College Preparatory was ranked 60th, IDEA Quest College Preparatory was ranked 83rd and IDEA College Preparatory Donna was ranked 150th).
• In December 2012, IDEA was named a Race to the Top District by the Department of Education and was awarded a $32 million grant payable over a four year period.
• IDEA received a combined commitment of $12,500,000 from the Ewing-Halsell Foundation, the Brackenridge Foundation, the Najim Foundation and the Brown Family Foundation in 2012 to help fund implementation of IDEA’s 2017 strategic plan, specifically targeting IDEA’s expansion in San Antonio.
• In April 2012 IDEA was awarded an $11,500,000 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grant from the Department of Education to fund its Connect2College Program.
B-9
• In September 2011, JoAnn Gama was appointed to President Barack Obama’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics.
Educational Philosophy: Extended School Day and a Better IDEA
Extended School Day
IDEA’s approach to education is focused on college preparation for all children. IDEA strives to prepare students in underserved communities for success in college and citizenship, thereby helping to break the cycle of poverty by empowering students and families to help themselves. IDEA operates an extended school day in which students attend school until 3:45 p.m., with compulsory tutoring for struggling students. IDEA also offers summer school classes.
In keeping with its belief that all IDEA students are on the college track, IDEA students go on “college field lessons” beginning in the third grade. The trips last as short as a day or as long as a week, taking students to college and university campuses, museums and historical sites. Beginning in sixth grade, students participate in the “Road to College” curriculum, which includes extended discussions about what it takes to succeed at a four-year college or university and the barriers faced by students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes.
IDEA also emphasizes the development of skills necessary to live, learn and work in a rapidly globalizing world. A BetterIDEA
IDEA uses BetterIDEA as its academic program. BetterIDEA is made up of two components: the new core curriculum and the hybrid-learning component for individualized learning for all students.
IDEA’s new core curriculum is powered by Direct Instruction (“DI”). It emphasizes carefully-planned lessons focused on learning in small increments and focuses instruction around clearly-defined teaching tasks. DI is based on the theory that by using clear instruction and teaching to mastery, teachers can accelerate learning for all students – high performers as well as students with learning disabilities. Under DI, students are placed in flexible, homogeneous groups in reading, language and math. Students are expected to score 90% or higher on daily and weekly assessments. Skills are taught and scaffolded along the way so that 85% of each lesson reviews previously taught skills and 15% of instruction is introducing new skills. Students advance through the program only once they have demonstrated mastery of the concepts. Students who show exceptional progress can fast-cycle through lessons if they show continued mastery of concepts. Students are individually assessed every 5 to 10 lessons and their progress is tracked by the teacher.
The hybrid-learning component for individualized learning is made up of a computer-assisted math laboratory and an independent reading laboratory. The computer-assisted math laboratory consists of a student to computer ratio of one to one. Students work on adaptive math software in the laboratories. Kindergarten through 3rd grade students use the Dream Box math software and 4th and 5th grade students and 6th grade students at Edinburg and Weslaco use the Reasoning Minds software. The software is adaptive; the programs use algorithms to develop the learning path for each individual student. The learning laboratory manager monitors students and analyzes data to determine students’ success and areas of need. Data culled from the software helps drive intervention in the math classroom, as it provides teachers with information of students’ strengths and weaknesses. Generally, the more time a student spends actively reading a book at his or her level, the better reader he or she becomes. The purpose of the reading laboratory is to provide students with ample time to complete independent reading at their reading level. In the Accelerated Reading Zone, students choose from a selection of books. They read in the laboratory and take software-based Accelerated Reader exams. The reading laboratory manager will help students set goals around their reading level; teachers determine the percentage of questions students should be answering correctly on Accelerated Reader exams and the quantity of reading they should have completed by a specified time. The students compete around each of those metrics as individuals and as a class, with the ultimate goal of increasing reading levels.
B-10
The primary objective in implementing the BetterIDEA is to improve students’ results. Another significant benefit is that because each child spends 90 minutes per day in the rotations described above, fewer teachers are required at each grade level in grades K through 5. As a result, IDEA achieved budget efficiencies from implementing BetterIDEA. Facilities The following table provides information regarding the locations, description and ownership status of IDEA’s charter schools (including schools previously financed or to be financed with proceeds of the Bonds, but excluding schools that are planned but have not yet been financed).
TABLE 2: EXISTING/PROPOSED FACILITIES
EST. MAXIMUM BUILDINGS OWN OR LEASE 1 STUDENT CAPACITY HEADQUARTERS BUILDING IDEA Headquarters Own and Lease N/A 505 Angelita Drive, Suite 9 Portions Weslaco, Texas 2112 W. Pike Blvd. Own N/A Weslaco, Texas DONNA CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th Own 1,596 students Approximately 116,619 square feet Approximately 22.3 acre facility site FRONTIER CAMPUS Grades K–12th Own 1,456 students Approximately 81,862 square feet Approximately 21 acre site QUEST CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th Own 1,596 students Approximately 83,219 square feet Approximately 15 acre site MISSION CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th Own 1,596 students Approximately 84,880 square feet Approximately 21.3 acre site SAN BENITO CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th Own 1,596 students Approximately 84,880 square feet Approximately 24 acre site SAN JUAN CAMPUS Leased Property Lease 812 students Grades Pre-K–12th (expires 2023) Approximately 37,249 square feet Approximately 6 acre site Owned Property Own 784 students Grades 6–12th Approximately 62,614 square feet Approximately 30 acre facility ALAMO CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th Own 1,596 students Approximately 90,046 square feet Approximately 20.881 acre site
B-11
TABLE 2: EXISTING/PROPOSED FACILITIES
EST. MAXIMUM BUILDINGS OWN OR LEASE 1 STUDENT CAPACITY PHARR CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th 2 Own 1,596 students Approximately 89,985 square feet Approximately 20.2 acre site EDINBURG CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th 2 Own 1,596 students Approximately 73,778 square feet Approximately 11.55 acre site WESLACO CAMPUS Grades K–12th 2 Own 1,456 students Approximately 91,826 square feet Approximately 16.52 acre site MCALLEN CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th 2 Own 1,596 students Approximately 92,847 square feet Approximately 23.5 acre site BROWNSVILLE CAMPUS Grades K–12th 2 Own 1,456 students Approximately 93,036 square feet Approximately 20 acre site CARVER CAMPUS Grades K–12th 2 Own 1,456 students Approximately 92,328 square feet Approximately 5.1 acre site SOUTH FLORES CAMPUS Grades K–12th Own 1,456 students Approximately 93,763 square feet Approximately 8.77 acre site ALLAN CAMPUS Grades K-12th 2 Own 1,456 students Approximately 95,300 square feet Approximately 10.0 acre site
MONTERREY PARK CAMPUS Grades K-12th 2 Own 1,456 students Approximately 88,800 square feet Approximately 21.6 acre site
WALZEM CAMPUS Grades K-12th 2 Own 1,456 students Approximately 88,000 square feet Approximately 19.95 acre site
WESLACO PIKE CAMPUS Grades Pre-K–12th 2 Own 1,596 students Approximately 96,600 square feet Approximately 17.54 acre site
B-12
TABLE 2: EXISTING/PROPOSED FACILITIES
EST. MAXIMUM BUILDINGS OWN OR LEASE 1 STUDENT CAPACITY EASTSIDE CAMPUS Grades K-12th 2 Own 1,456 students Approximately 96,091 square feet Approximately 12.02 acre site RIVERVIEW CAMPUS Grades Pre-K-12th 2 Own 1,596 students Approximately 96,640 square feet Approximately 20.3 acre site RUNDBERG CAMPUS Grades K-12th 2 Own 1,456 students Approximately 53,000 square feet of renovation Approximately 44,788 new square feet Approximately 16.4 acres of greenfield site Approximately 5.7 acres on existing building site NORTH MISSION CAMPUS Grades Pre-K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 69,405 square feet Approximately 16.71 acre site JUDSON CAMPUS Grades K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 64,100 square feet Approximately 13.6 acre site MAYS CAMPUS Grades K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 63,200 square feet Approximately 10 acre site BLUFF SPRINGS CAMPUS Grades K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 64,600 square feet Approximately 16 acre site 3 EDINBURG PALM CAMPUS Grades 9-12th Lease 48 students Square feet (unknown) Acreage (unknown) RIO GRANDE CITY CAMPUS Grades Pre-K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 78,522 square feet Approximately 20 acre site TRES LAGOS CAMPUS Grades Pre-K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 78,522 square feet Approximately 20 acre site
B-13
TABLE 2: EXISTING/PROPOSED FACILITIES
EST. MAXIMUM BUILDINGS OWN OR LEASE 1 STUDENT CAPACITY SAN ANTONIO CAMPUS NO. 8 Grades K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 71,000 square feet Approximately 26.4 acre site SAN ANTONIO CAMPUS NO. 9 Grades K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 70,893 square feet Approximately 18 acre site
SAN ANTONIO CAMPUS NO. 10 Grades K-12th 2 Own 784 students Approximately 72,720 square feet Approximately 14.8 acre site Total Capacity 39,216
______Source: IDEA. 1 Estimated Maximum Student Capacity assumes that the construction to be completed with proceeds of the Bonds has been completed. See “History and Growth Strategy — Prior and Future Financings” above. 2 “Grades” reflects the grades expected to be offered over time. See Table 1 for grades currently being offered. 3 The lease for the Edinburg Palm Campus has not been finalized. It is expected to be a one-year temporary lease and it is anticipated that the campus will be moved to a different location at the end of the lease.
The Project
IDEA will issue the Bonds and the Series 2016A Bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing all or a portion of (i) the development of the Rio Grande City Campus, McAllen Campus No. 2, San Antonio Campus No. 8, San Antonio Campus No. 9 and San Antonio Campus No. 10, (ii) additional improvements at the Riverview Campus, Eastside Campus and Rundberg Campus (collectively clauses (i) and (ii) are referred to herein as the “Project”), (iii) refunding a portion of the City of Pharr, Texas Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2009A and the San Juan Higher Education Finance Authority Education Revenue Bonds (IDEA Public Schools) Series 2010A, and (iv) paying costs of issuance. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-14
TABLE 3: ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT PROJECTS TO BE FINANCED AND/OR AMOUNT (THE SERIES 1 REFINANCED (THE BONDS) 2016A BONDS ) TOTAL Rio Grande City Campus Phase 11 – $ 13,706,339 $ 13,706,339 McAllen Campus No. 2 Phase 1 – 14,351,377 14,351,377 San Antonio Campus No. 81 $ 4,763,083 9,687,572 14,450,655 San Antonio Campus No. 91 – 14,818,858 14,818,858 San Antonio Campus No. 10 – 16,163,692 16,163,692 Riverview Campus Phase 2 – 5,770,075 5,770,075 Eastside Campus Phase 2 7,832,596 – 7,832,596 Rundberg Campus Phase 2 6,750,484 – 6,750,484 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 19,346,163 $ 74,497,913 $ 93,844,076 ______1 Includes refinancing approximately $7,369,510 as of June 30, 2016, which was originally financed using the Regions Bank Loan. The Series 2016A Bonds are expected to be issued in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $99,025,000 shortly before the Issuance of the Bonds. As reflected above, it is anticipated that the Series 2016A Bonds will need to be issued to provide sufficient funds for the completion of the Projects.
Project Construction
IDEA has engaged Project Management Services, Inc., Austin, Texas (“PMSI”) to assist it with management of the construction process regarding the new construction portions of its projects. In that connection, PMSI is overseeing a competitive sealed proposal (“CSP”) process and/or a Construction Manager (“CM”) At-Risk to select a contractor for each campus site where construction will occur. The CSP process entails, first, after the design phase is complete, the publication of a request for proposals (“RFP”) that includes relevant construction documents, details and selection criteria. Once RFP responses are received, a contractor for each campus site is selected (the same contractor may be selected for more than one campus site) based on which contractor is judged by IDEA, with assistance from PMSI, as providing the best value. After selection has been made, construction contracts and project elements are negotiated with the selected contractor(s). The CM At-Risk process provides IDEA with the capability of contracting with the contractor at an earlier stage of the design and the contractor providing a Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”) as a cost plus a fee contract arrangement.
IDEA engaged two architects to work on select projects, specifically GMS Architects, Brownsville, Texas, and HKS Architects, Dallas, Texas, to prepare drawings, plans and specifications for the projects to be constructed. Those drawings, plans and specifications have been completed and bid documents with respect to those projects have been issued.
IDEA will select contractors with respect to the projects at each campus site and, under either the CSP or CM At-Risk process. IDEA has successfully used the CSP and CM At-Risk process with respect to its prior construction projects. Potential investors should note, however, that there are risks with respect to such new construction. See “RISK FACTORS — Construction Costs and Completion of Construction.”
Environmental Assessments
IDEA has had environmental assessments performed on most of its properties, although no assessment has been performed with respect to its headquarters site and certain other properties that IDEA does not intend to develop. For a summary of environmental assessments on properties subject to the Deed of Trust, see “APPENDIX C – Environmental Assessments.”
B-15
Charter Contract
General
The Charter Schools Act provides for the creation of charter schools in order to improve student learning, to increase the choice of learning opportunities within the public school system, to create professional opportunities that will attract new teachers to the public school system, to establish a new form of accountability for public schools and to encourage different and innovative learning methods. The Charter Schools Act provides for three kinds of charter contracts: home-rule school district charters, campus or campus programs charters and open- enrollment charters. See “APPENDIX A — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TEXAS CHARTER SCHOOL LAW — GENERAL.” IDEA operates pursuant to an open-enrollment charter. A charter contract governs such matters as the recipient’s authority to operate, student admissions and performance, financial management, and governance and operations. The current practice of the TEA is to grant open-enrollment charters for an initial five-year period. Texas law provides that a charter that is renewed by the TEA is for a ten-year term. At the end of each charter contract, the charter holder is invited to submit a charter renewal petition/application to the TEA and is subject to renewal, denial of renewal or expiration as provided in law and rule. During the term, a charter holder may also be subject to TEA intervention or adverse action, up to and including revocation of charter, for material violations of the charter contract and Texas law, as further described below.
IDEA initially entered into its charter contract with the Texas State Board of Education on June 21, 2000, for a period through June 20, 2005. In June of 2006, IDEA’s charter contract was renewed for a period through July 31, 2010. Since that time, IDEA has had a number of amendments allowing for the addition of schools, adding grades and increasing total enrollment. IDEA’s charter contract has been extended through July 31, 2025, and the maximum enrollment is currently for 45,000 students. The most recent increase in maximum enrollment is sufficient to accommodate IDEA’s expansion plans with respect to its existing facilities and facilities to be built with proceeds of the Bonds. However, additional approval may be required for further expansion. Not more than once a year an open enrollment charter school may request approval from the TEA to revise its maximum allowable student enrollment. Such approval is at the discretion of the Commissioner. A complete copy of IDEA’s charter contract is available upon request as described under “MISCELLANEOUS — Additional Information” in the forepart to this Official Statement.
Revocation, Nonrenewal, Modification of Governance and Automatic Revocation
Under the Charter Schools Act and the terms of the IDEA’s charter contract, the Commissioner of Education (the “Commissioner”) is required to revoke the charter of, or modify the governance of the holder of a charter of an open-enrollment charter school, or reconstitute the governing body of the charter holder, if the Commissioner determines that the charter holder:
(i) committed a material violation of the charter, including failure to satisfy accountability provisions prescribed by the charter;
(ii) failed to satisfy generally accepted accounting standards of fiscal management;
(iii) failed to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the students enrolled at the school;
(iv) failed to comply with any applicable law or rule;
(v) failed to satisfy the performance framework standards adopted under Section 12.1181 of the Texas Education Code; or
(vi) is imminently insolvent as determined by the Commissioner in accordance with Commissioner rule.
Any action the Commissioner takes in this respect must be based on the best interest of the school’s students, the severity of the violation, any previous violation the school has committed and the accreditation status of the school.
B-16
The Commissioner is required to revoke the charter of an open-enrollment charter school if for the three preceding school years:
(i) the charter holder has been assigned an unacceptable performance rating under Subchapter C, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (the “Accountability Rating”);
(ii) the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating under Subchapter D, Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (the “FIRST Rating”) indicating performance lower than satisfactory; or
(iii) the charter holder has been assigned any combination of the ratings described in (i) or (ii).
The Commissioner is required to deny renewal of the charter of an open-enrollment charter school if:
(i) the charter holder has been assigned the lowest performance rating as its Accountability Rating for any three of the five preceding school years;
(ii) the charter holder has been assigned a financial accountability performance rating as its FIRST Rating indicating financial performance that is lower than satisfactory for any three of the five preceding school years;
(iii) the charter holder has been assigned any combination of the ratings described in (i) or (ii) for any three of the five preceding school years; or
(iv) any campus operating under the charter has been assigned the lowest performance rating as its Accountability Rating for the three preceding school years and such campus has not been closed.
The Commissioner may temporarily withhold funding, suspend the authority of an open-enrollment charter to operate or take any other reasonable action the Commissioner determines necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of students enrolled at the school based on evidence that conditions at the school present a danger to the health, safety or welfare of the students. If the Commissioner takes such action, the school may not receive funding and may not resume operating until a determination is made that:
(i) despite initial evidence, the conditions at the school do not present a danger of material harm to the health, safety, or welfare of students, or
(ii) the conditions at the school that presented a danger of material harm to the health, safety, or welfare of students have been corrected.
Not later than the third business day after the date the Commissioner takes action, the Commissioner must provide the school an opportunity for a hearing, after which the Commissioner must take action or cease any temporary sanctions. Texas law provides that relevant provisions of the Texas Government Code do not apply to a hearing related to a modification, placement on probation, revocation, or denial of renewal of a charter. Hence, the determination of the Commissioner is final and may not be appealed, including through legal challenges in the court system. For additional information, see “APPENDIX A — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TEXAS CHARTER SCHOOL LAW — GENERAL — CHARTER REVISION, REVOCATION, NON-RENEWAL AND MODIFICATION OF GOVERNANCE,” “RISK FACTORS — Nonrenewal or Revocation of Charter” and “TABLE 10: Accountability Ratings.”
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-17
The following table reflects, for each year shown, the FIRST Rating (which ratings for 2014-15 and 2015-16 may be either “Pass” or “Substandard” and prior to 2014-15 may be either “Above Standard,” “Standard” or “Sub-Standard”) and the Accountability Rating (which ratings presently may be either “Met Standard” or “Did Not Meet Standard;” and prior to the 2012-13 school year were either “Exemplary,” “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”). According to the TEA, the purpose of the FIRST Rating is to encourage schools to better manage their financial resources to provide the maximum allocation possible for direct instructional purposes. For more information about the Accountability Rating, see “— Accountability Ratings and Student Performance” below.
TABLE 4: ACCOUNTABILITY RATING AND FIRST RATING - LAST FIVE YEARS 2011-12 Accountability Rating Exemplary FIRST Rating Standard 2012-13 Accountability Rating Met Standard FIRST Rating Standard 2013-14 Accountability Rating Met Standard FIRST Rating Above Standard 2014-15 Accountability Rating Met Standard FIRST Rating Pass 2015-16 Accountability Rating Met Standard FIRST Rating Pass ______Source: IDEA, from information made available by the TEA.
See “Charter Contract — Revocation, Nonrenewal, Modification of Governance and Automatic Revocation” above; see also “RISK FACTORS — Nonrenewal or Revocation of Charter.”
Board of Directors
As permitted under the Charter Schools Act, IDEA operates as a Texas nonprofit corporation under the Business Organizations Code. IDEA is governed by applicable law and its articles of incorporation and bylaws. IDEA’s bylaws provide that IDEA is managed by a Board of Directors of not less than five directors and not more than nineteen directors. The Board has organized standing committees, including an Executive Committee, Nominating Committee and a Finance Committee.
IDEA’s bylaws provide that Directors serve three-year terms and vacancies are filled by the vote of the remaining Directors. The bylaws provide that IDEA’s officers shall include a Chairman, a Chairman-Elect, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and other officers and assistant officers deemed necessary by the Board. Officers are elected by the Board, serve until a successor is elected, and may be removed by the Board whenever in its judgment the best interest of IDEA is served thereby. Vacancies among the officers are filled by the Board. Set forth below are brief biographies for IDEA’s current Board members.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-18
Bill Martin – Chair
Bill Martin has served on the Board since November 2007 and currently serves as the Chairman of the Board. Mr. Martin is currently employed as a financial advisor with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. Prior to joining Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, Mr. Martin served more than a decade with AG Edwards & Sons, Inc. Mr. Martin serves as the Administrative Board Chair for First United Methodist Church in McAllen and is a Past-President of McAllen North Rotary Club. Mr. Martin received his Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.
Sergio Sanchez – Chairman-elect
Sergio Sanchez has served on the Board since 2007 and currently serves as the Chairman-elect of the Board. Mr. Sanchez is currently employed as Assistant Program Director and Executive Show Producer for the 710 KURV Valley Morning News, the Daily Report and Saturday Open Phones. Mr. Sanchez is also the show host for the KURV Valley Morning News and Saturday Open Phones. He has received numerous awards from the Texas Associated Press Broadcasters for his news radio work. Mr. Sanchez serves as a local coordinator for efforts that collect care packages for soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq through Operation Interdependence. He and his wife Delia are faithful contributors to the Rio Grande Valley Children’s Home in Rio Bravo.
David Guerra – Treasurer
David Guerra has served on the Board since 2008 and currently serves as the Treasurer of the Board. Mr. Guerra currently serves as President and CEO of International Bank of Commerce – McAllen, where he oversees numerous branches in McAllen, Mission, Hidalgo, Edinburg, Pharr, San Juan, Alamo and Weslaco, Texas. Mr. Guerra also serves as a director of International Bank of Commerce – Laredo and IBC’s multi-bank financial holding company, International Bancshares Corporation, the largest banking institution headquartered on the United States and Mexican border. Mr. Guerra serves as Chairman of the South Texas Higher Education Authority, Chairman of The University of Texas Pan American Foundation Board, Vice Chairman of the McAllen Medical Hospital, Director of the local chapter of Teach for America, Director of the McAllen Hidalgo International Toll Bridge, and is an advocate for the South Texas Symphony Association. Mr. Guerra also works closely with VAMOS (Valley Alliance of Mentors for Opportunities and Scholarships) and is a strong advocate of the Children’s Defense Fund. Mr. Guerra is an honors graduate from Texas A & I University, now Texas A & M University- Kingsville, Texas. He completed advanced studies by attending the Stonier Graduate School of Banking at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
Reba Cardenas-McNair – Secretary
Reba Cardenas-McNair has served on the Board since 2011 and currently serves as the Secretary of the Board. Ms. Cardenas currently serves as President of Cardenas Development Co. Inc., Brownsville, Texas a land development company with projects in Brownsville, Harlingen, San Benito and Rancho Viejo, Texas. Ms. Cardenas currently, and for many years, has served in numerous leadership capacities with state and local community boards and non-profit organizations associated with the Rio Grande Valley. She has a Degree in Journalism from The University of Texas at Austin.
Eric Ziehe – Member
Eric Ziehe has served on the Board since 2008. Mr. Ziehe has been employed as a commercial real estate broker with an international commercial real estate company for over ten years. Mr. Ziehe serves as a director of Loaves and Fishes (homeless shelter) of Harlingen, a director of the Rotary Club of Harlingen and the chairman of Harlingen’s Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone. Mr. Ziehe received his Bachelor’s Degree from Texas State University.
Gabriel Puente – Member
Gabriel Puente has served on the Board since 2011. Mr. Puente is currently the owner and publisher of RGVision Publications, which publishes a bi-monthly medical and business journal magazine for and about the Rio Grande Valley. Prior to that he was the advertising director for NSIDE Publications in San Antonio, Texas. Mr.
B-19
Puente has also been involved with various non-profit and social organizations throughout his career. He has a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Marketing from The University of Texas at San Antonio.
Edna X. De Saro – Member
Edna X. De Saro has served on the Board since 2014. Ms. De Saro currently serves as Senior Vice President and Marketing Director of Lone Star National Bank, one of the fastest growing community banks in Texas, where she oversees all corporate marketing across the Rio Grande Valley and San Antonio market. Ms. De Saro received her Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Marketing from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas and her Master’s in Business Administration from the University of Texas Pan American in Edinburg, Texas.
Bert Garcia – Member
Bert Garcia has served on the Board since 2014. He is in his second year as the President of the Rio Grande Valley Vipers, a 2007-08 expansion team in the NBA Development League, after being promoted from Vice President of Operations during the summer of 2010. In May 2011, Garcia was the recipient of the 2011 NBA Development League Team Executive of the Year Award, which is determined by peer voting. Under Garcia’s leadership, the Vipers led the league in tickets sold, group ticket sales, and overall attendance. In addition to being the first team to have both an English and Spanish version of their website, the Vipers' marquee partnership with Lone Star National Bank was the first of three such deals in the league. The team advanced to the 2011 NBA D- League Finals for the second year in a row. Garcia is in his fifth season with the Vipers after joining the team during the 2007-08 season, initially as a basketball operations volunteer for head coach Bob Hoffman, for whom he had worked previously at the University of Texas-Pan American. Garcia joined the Vipers’ front office full-time in February of that season as a corporate sales manager. He was then promoted to Assistant General Manager of Corporate Sales before assuming his last title. Garcia was born and raised in Edinburg and currently resides in McAllen.
Al Lopez – Member
Al Lopez has served on the Board since 2015 and currently serves as the Chairman of the Austin Regional Board. Mr. Lopez is the Executive Director of Economic Growth Business Incubator (“EGBI”). EGBI’s mission is to enable economic development and job creation in underserved communities in the Greater Austin area by utilizing innovative, high-tech and bilingual approaches in a business training and incubation setting. Prior to joining EGBI, Mr. Lopez was a finance executive at Dell, Inc. for 11 years, most recently reporting to the company’s Chief Financial Officer and serving as Vice President of Finance for Global Services and Information Technology organizations. Previously, he spent 21 years at IBM in a host of financial management and executive positions, including two years overseas in France. In addition, Mr. Lopez serves as Vice President of the St. John Neighborhood Association, has chaired the board of the Austin Achievement Zone and is very involved with John H. Reagan Early College high school. He has also previously been a member of the Austin Community Housing Development Organization Roundtable.
David Handley – Member
David Handley has served on the Board since 2015 and currently serves as the Chairman of the San Antonio Regional Board. Methodist Healthcare in San Antonio named David Handley as the Chief Executive Officer of Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital in San Antonio. Mr. Handley most recently served as the Chief Executive Officer of Valley Regional Medical Center in Brownsville, Texas, since 2005. Prior to that, he served as Chief Operating Officer of Spring Branch Medical Center in Houston from 2001 to 2005. He was also the interim Chief Operating Officer of Tulane Medical Center in New Orleans from 2000 to 2001.
David Earl – Member
David Earl has served on the Board since 2015. He also serves as a member of the San Antonio Regional Board. He serves as President and the Chief Executive Officer of Earl & Associates, a professional corporation dedicated to creating and enhancing clients’ revenue from land development and economic development opportunities.
B-20
Alonzo Cantu – Member
Alonzo Cantu has served on the Board since 2015. He serves as President and the Chief Executive Officer of Cantu Construction, Chairman of Lone Star National Bank, member of the Board of Managers for Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, and majority owner of the Rio Grande Valley Vipers and NBA Development League Team. Mr. Cantu also serves as Chairman Emeritus of Valley Alliance of Mentors for Opportunities and Scholarships, which he co-founded in 1996 to provide scholarships for Hispanic students in the Rio Grande Valley. He also serves as an officer or board member for multiple community organizations.
Ryan Vaughan – Member
Ryan Vaughan has served on the Board since 2015. He is currently the General Manager of Rios of Mercedes Boot Company, Anderson Bean Boot Company and Olathe Boot Company and has served the industry for over a decade. He is also on the board of directors of the Knapp Medical Center Foundation and is a past president of Weslaco Lions Club. Mr. Vaughan received his Bachelor’s Degree from Sam Houston State University.
Xenia Garza – Member
Xenia Garza has served on the Board since 2015. She has served as a long-time supporter of IDEA and currently serves as a managing member of Aneka Yoga Shala.
Advisory Boards
In addition to the regular Board of Directors, IDEA has formed a San Antonio Regional Board, an Austin Regional Board and a Rio Grande Valley Regional Board. Such boards are expected to advise the Board of Directors with respect to operations in San Antonio, Austin and the Rio Grande Valley, respectively.
Senior Leadership
Listed below are members of IDEA’s senior leadership, along with a brief description of their respective positions and biographical information pertaining to each.
Tom Torkelson – Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer
Tom Torkelson is a co-founder of IDEA and has served as its Chief Executive Officer since its inception. As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Torkelson is the chief administrator of IDEA and is responsible for developing and implementing IDEA’s policies, programs, curriculum, activities and budgets in a manner that promotes the educational development of IDEA’s students and the professional development of its educators and staff. Upon graduating from college, Mr. Torkelson joined Teach for America (where he met IDEA’s other co-founder, JoAnn Gama) and then taught fourth grade in Donna, Texas for three years before launching IDEA Academy. Mr. Torkelson co-founded IDEA with the mission of ensuring that students in underserved communities are prepared to succeed in college and citizenship. He is a recipient of the Freddy Fender Humanitarian Award. He also served as Chairman of the 2007 National Charter Schools Conference. Mr. Torkelson is a member of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee for The University of Texas - Pan American Foundation, a board member for the McAllen Chamber of Commerce, and a board member for Encore, a community-based organization working to shift attitudes on college readiness throughout the Rio Grande Valley. Mr. Torkelson received his Bachelor’s Degree in Economics from Georgetown University.
JoAnn Gama – Co-Founder, President and Superintendent
JoAnn Gama is a co-founder of IDEA and has served as its President and Superintendent since 2013. As President and Superintendent, Ms. Gama is responsible for overseeing the development of all aspects of IDEA’s curriculum, the implementation of its educational philosophy and the management of principals and school leaders across the organization. After graduating from college, Ms. Gama joined Teach for America and then taught fourth and fifth grade English as a Second Language in Donna (where she was nominated as campus teacher of the year) before launching IDEA Academy with Mr. Torkelson. Ms. Gama received her Bachelor’s Degree from Boston University and her Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership from The University of Texas - Pan American. Prior
B-21
to serving as the President and Superintendent she served as Chief Schools Officer from 2010-2013 and as IDEA’s Chief Operations Officer from the inception of IDEA until 2010.
Wyatt Truscheit – Chief Financial Officer
Wyatt Truscheit is the Chief Financial Officer of IDEA and has served in that capacity since 2009. As Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Truscheit is responsible for all aspects of IDEA’s financial operations, including capital markets, financial planning and annual budget process, commercial and investment banking, treasury management, accounting, external financial reporting and compliance, procurement, risk management, legal and construction administration. Mr. Truscheit began his financial career with the national public accounting firm Deloitte & Touche in St. Louis, Missouri and has served in various senior level financial positions over the past 25 years specializing in entrepreneurial, multi-location, accelerated growth organizations (notably as Vice President Finance with Enterprise Rent-A-Car in Dallas, Texas and as Chief Financial Officer in the private equity sector). Mr. Truscheit received a Bachelor’s of Arts in Government from Valparaiso University, a Bachelor’s of Science in Business Administration/Accounting from the University of Missouri (cum laude), and a Master’s of Business Administration from Baylor University.
Irma Muñoz – Chief Operating Officer
Irma Muñoz is the Chief Operating Officer of IDEA and has served in that capacity since June of 2011. Prior to that she served as Chief People and Systems Officer since 2009. As Chief Operating Officer, Ms. Muñoz is responsible for overseeing IDEA’s Transportation, Food Service, Maintenance, Information Technology and Data Management, Marketing, Student recruitment, attendance and persistence and campus operations. Previously, Ms. Muñoz was IDEA’s Vice President for Strategy and Growth, having joined the organization in December of 2008. Prior to joining IDEA, Ms. Muñoz was the Senior Director of New Markets and Spokesperson for GMAC Financial, a subsidiary of General Motors, where she was responsible for all marketing initiatives within the domestic Latino, African American and Asian communities. Before that, Ms. Muñoz worked with Fannie Mae in the area of process re-engineering, research and development and business strategy implementation. Mrs. Muñoz was born and raised in Guadalajara, Mexico. She received her Bachelor’s Degree from the University of California at Davis and is a graduate of Harvard University’s School of Government.
Sam Goessling – Chief Advancement Officer
Sam Goessling currently serves as the Chief Advancement Officer. In his role as the Chief Advancement Officer, Mr. Goessling leads the growth team in its entirety, including all private and public fundraising and donor relations. Mr. Goessling is a member of the executive leadership team and matches IDEA’s strategic programming vision with grant opportunities that align with the work of various IDEA teams including the academic services and human assets teams. Utilizing his experience as a teacher and principal, Mr. Goessling leads the team’s creation and execution of its vision and goals.
Mr. Goessling is a graduate of the University of Richmond. After teaching 5th grade in Donna, Texas through Teach For America, he joined the founding team at IDEA Quest College Preparatory where he taught 6th grade math and science. He then returned to the Boston area to receive his master’s degree and principal certification at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Mr. Goessling returned to IDEA as the founding principal of IDEA College Preparatory San Juan. Mr. Goessling led IDEA College Preparatory San Juan as principal for three years, growing the campus from two grades to a full scale campus.
Jamey Roberts – Chief Human Assets Officer
Jamey Roberts is the Chief Human Assets Officer and has served in that capacity since 2014. In his current role, Mr. Roberts leads IDEA’s human capital strategy and work. This includes hiring the highest quality staff members, supporting employee professional growth, and retaining talented staff, including overseeing IDEA’s innovative Teacher Career Pathway which recognizes and rewards IDEA’s most effective teachers.
Prior to joining IDEA, Mr. Roberts served as the Vice President of Talent & Engagement at the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (“NACSA”) where he led the organization’s human capital strategy to recruit, train and develop new and current high-potential charter school leaders. He also oversaw NACSA’s
B-22
membership program, annual conference and engagement strategy to improve authorizing practices across the country. He started in education reform at The New Teacher Project, where he worked in a variety of roles, including five years as a Partner overseeing multiple engagements focused on improving teacher effectiveness in some of the nation’s largest urban school districts, including Chicago, Denver, Miami and Indianapolis.
He completed his undergraduate studies at Northwestern University and received his MBA from the University of Oxford.
Dolores Gonzalez – Chief Program Officer
Dolores Gonzalez attended college at Texas A&M University-Kingsville and received her Masters’ Degree in Special Education in 2003. She taught Special Education in San Diego, Texas for three years. She was then recruited to be a Special Education Teacher at IDEA in 2005. Soon after, she led the district’s Special Education Program, and was subsequently promoted to Vice President of Student Support Services, where she led all student support programs for IDEA. In May of 2011, she was promoted to Chief Program Officer, and now leads the Academic Services Team at IDEA, which encompasses all of Curriculum and Instruction.
Phillip Garza - Chief College & Diversity Officer
Phillip Garza is a graduate of The University of Texas at Austin where he studied music and art history. The first in his family to graduate from college, Mr. Garza knows the value proposition of an undergraduate degree. He deeply believes in the potential of all students and is committed to expanding educational opportunities for low- income, first-generation, minority students.
Currently, Mr. Garza serves as the Chief College & Diversity Officer at IDEA. This includes setting the vision and strategy for all IDEA does to send students to and through college, as well as achieving its long-term vision of becoming the number one producer of low-income college graduates in Texas.
Previous to IDEA, Mr. Garza served as a teacher, instructional coach and talent recruiter. Most recently he worked as the managing director of alumni affairs at Teach For America. He was responsible for setting the vision and direction for alumni strategy, therefore planning and executing the support systems necessary to ensure that the 900 Teach For America alumni living in Houston were collectively driving significant advances in pursuit of educational equity.
Misty Martin
Misty Martin joined IDEA in April 2011 after nine years experience in private sector business operations and human resources management. Ms. Martin serves as IDEA’s Chief Administrative Officer and in this capacity oversees IDEA’s Human Resources, Legal, Regulatory Compliance, Staff Relations, Substitute Teacher Program, Benefits, Compensation and Payroll and Organizational Development functions.
Ms. Martin began her professional career in accounting and business management while working towards her bachelor’s degree at Texas State University. After graduating, Ms. Martin continued her career working as the President of Marketing and Business Development for an acquisition and business management firm.
Ms. Martin is a member of the McAllen South Rotary Club, Society of Human Resources Management (national and local chapter) and Junior League of McAllen.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-23
Employees
General
The following table provides information regarding the number of professional staff and faculty positions for IDEA as of the beginning of the school year for the years set forth below.
TABLE 5: PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND FACULTY
FACULTY & STAFF 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Teachers 575 670 878 1,052 1,257 Campus, Administration (Leadership) 139 156 187 219 268 Central Administration 7 7 7 7 9 Total 721 833 1,072 1,278 1,534
FACULTY 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Beginning Teachers 190 144 205 367 322 1-5 Years Experience 256 383 502 500 696 6-10 Years Experience 75 87 104 119 155 Over 10 Years Experience 54 56 67 66 84
STUDENT - TEACHER RATIO 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Number of Students Per Teacher 21.6 22.7 21.3 21.0 22.01 ______Source: IDEA. 1 Based on the budgeted number of students for the 2016-17 school year.
Labor Relations
Except for an employment contract with Tom Torkelson, the Chief Executive Officer of IDEA, Wyatt Truscheit, the Chief Financial Officer and IDEA’s teachers who are employed under non-Chapter 21 one year term employment contracts, IDEA’s staff are at-will employees. Mr. Torkelson has a five year employment contract with IDEA that terminates on July 31, 2018. Mr. Truscheit has an employment contract with IDEA that terminates on December 31, 2017. IDEA believes that the faculty, administration and the Board have a strong and collaborative working relationship. IDEA’s teacher retention rate between the 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years was approximately 84% (as of June 10, 2016). IDEA considers its relationship with its teachers to be very good.
Enrollment
Enrollment in IDEA’s charter schools is open to all residents of Texas subject to compliance with Texas law, which prohibits discrimination in admission policy on the basis of sex, national origin, ethnicity, religion, disability, academic, artistic, or athletic ability or the district the applicant would otherwise attend. Texas law requires that open-enrollment charter schools such as IDEA must (i) require applicants to complete and submit an application not later than a reasonable deadline established by the school, and (ii) upon receipt of more acceptable applications for admission than available positions in the school, fill the available positions either by lottery, or if the school has published a notice of the opportunity to apply the school may fill available positions in the order in which applications were received before the application deadline. See “APPENDIX A — SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TEXAS CHARTER SCHOOL LAW — GENERAL — ADMISSION AND EVALUATION — Admission.”
B-24
Under its general admissions policies, IDEA accepts applications between September 1 and the first Friday of April each year, on a school-by-school basis. Returning students and their siblings are given priority. Returning students are automatically re-enrolled provided that they give notice of their intent to return each school year. Siblings and children of employees are added to student rosters for the next year provided there is space available. If there are more siblings or children of employees than there are spots available, a lottery is conducted among siblings. If there are enough slots for all remaining students, then all remaining students are admitted. If there are more applicants than slots available, a lottery is conducted among all remaining students. These lotteries are conducted in April and are open to the public.
The following table sets forth data provided by IDEA regarding the school’s historical and projected enrollment. For the years 2012-13 through 2014-15, data presented is based on actual student counts as of approximately June 1 of each year. For the year 2015-16, enrollment is as of the last day of the 2015-16 school year. For 2016-17, data presented is budgeted data as of August 1, 2016. At the start of the 2016-17 school year, IDEA is projected to have total enrollment of 29,111, as compared to a budgeted amount of 27,731. There is currently a wait list in excess of 34,000 students as of June 30, 2016. For 2017-18 and thereafter, data presented represents projected enrollment as estimated by IDEA, and is subject to the general qualifications and limitations described under “INTRODUCTION — Forward-Looking Statements,” above. The table includes projected information for IDEA’s currently existing campuses and planned campuses.
IDEA’s charter contract currently limits the number of students that may enroll in the charter school to 45,000, and the maximum capacities of IDEA’s existing facilities (as described in TABLE 2, above) also limit IDEA’s maximum enrollment.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-25
TABLE 6: HISTORICAL AND FUTURE PROJECTED ENROLLMENT 1 2 HISTORICAL BUDGETED PROJECTED CAMPUS 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Donna Campus 1,488 1,461 1,443 1,476 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,534 Frontier Campus 1,482 1,440 1,455 1,499 1,394 1,534 1,534 1,534 Quest Campus 1,438 1,397 1,394 1,438 1,506 1,506 1,506 1,506 Mission Campus 1,262 1,420 1,473 1,493 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,534 San Benito Campus 1,242 1,363 1,382 1,425 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,534 San Juan Campus 1,227 1,300 1,420 1,464 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,534 Alamo Campus 893 1,077 1,215 1,489 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,534 Pharr Campus 708 904 1,236 1,502 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,534 Edinburg Campus 714 968 1,139 1,333 1,452 1,534 1,534 1,534 Weslaco Campus 705 933 1,162 1,300 1,312 1,534 1,534 1,534 McAllen Campus 472 708 952 1,199 1,361 1,452 1,534 1,534 Brownsville Campus 468 703 936 1,166 1,221 1,452 1,534 1,534 Carver Campus 344 464 591 806 952 1,058 1,299 1,355 South Flores Campus – 441 693 958 1,120 1,221 1,452 1,534 Allan Campus – 608 905 1,190 1,221 1,312 1,534 1,534 Monterrey Park Campus – – 428 693 896 1,120 1,361 1,452 Walzem Campus – – 387 685 896 1,120 1,361 1,452 Weslaco Pike Campus – – 465 723 1,064 1,288 1,389 1,480 Eastside Campus – – – 429 672 896 1,260 1,361 Riverview Campus – – – 534 700 924 1,148 1,361 Rundberg Campus – – – 483 672 896 1,260 1,361 North Mission Campus 241 700 924 1,148 1,361 Judson Campus – – – – 448 672 1,036 1,260 Mays Campus – – – – 448 672 1,036 1,260 Bluff Springs Campus – – – – 448 672 1,036 1,260 Edinburg Palm Campus – – – – 44 92 185 193 Rio Grande City Campus3 – – – – – 448 812 1,036 San Antonio Campus No. 83 – – – – – 448 812 1,036 San Antonio Campus No. 93 – – – – – 448 812 1,036 San Antonio Campus No. 103 – – – – – 448 812 1,036 McAllen Campus No. 23 – – – – – 448 812 1,036 Total 12,443 15,187 18,676 23,526 27,731 33,323 38,945 41,784 ______Source: IDEA. 1 The budgeted figures reflect students that have applied and been accepted. 29,111 students are projected to be enrolled as of the end of the first week of the 2016-17 school year. 2 Certain projected enrollment figures included above require (i) new construction or classroom expansion to be financed with proceeds of the Bonds, or (ii) new construction or classroom expansion, which IDEA presently contemplates will be financed by the issuance of additional bonds. See “History and Growth Strategy” and “The Project” above. See also “RISK FACTORS — Operating History; Reliance on Projections,” “– Project Approvals and Construction Process” and “– Project Costs and Completion of Construction” above. 3 Campus is in the construction stage. Such projects will be financed or refinanced with proceeds of the Bonds.
Wait List
In each year, IDEA has had more applications than spots available at each of its schools. As of August 1, 2016, IDEA received more than 45,500 applications for 7,256 spots available for the 2016-17 school year. For this reason, IDEA must randomly select students to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to attend its schools.
A student wishing to attend an IDEA school must apply each year to be considered in the IDEA lottery. Applications are accepted September 1 through the first Friday of April every year. Public lotteries are held every year on the first Saturday in April to determine which students will fill spots available at each IDEA school.
B-26
Students accepted at the lottery must attend a “Welcome to IDEA” event and register their student(s) in May or June to officially enroll at IDEA.
Students not selected during the lottery will be placed on a wait list. Current applications on the wait list will remain on file until August 31, 2016.
The order of the wait list will be randomly determined. Students are then chosen from the wait list if space becomes available at an IDEA school. Students who apply after April 1, 2017, will be placed on the wait list in the order their application was received.
The wait list currently has more than 34,000 student applicants. Students who are not selected by August 31, 2016 will need to re-apply September 1, 2016 through April 1, 2017 for the 2017-18 school year.
Although there were 45,584 applications submitted as of August 1, 2016, certain applicants submitted applications for more than one school. The total number of applicants (as opposed to applications) as of August 1, 2016 was 41,781.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
B-27
TABLE 7: WAIT LIST DATA
DONNA FRONTIER QUEST MISSION SAN BENITO SAN JUAN ALAMO PHARR EDINBURG WESLACO MCALLEN BROWNSVILLE CARVER GRADE CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS Pre-K 78 – 145 174 98 91 100 144 245 – 287 – – K 155 184 138 195 133 78 203 99 227 158 295 258 173 1 114 90 104 178 115 94 130 110 197 118 224 170 101 2 169 82 117 173 139 78 137 129 210 97 272 163 141 3 137 102 86 246 96 87 158 121 181 128 248 236 150 4 170 116 132 209 104 93 163 164 194 158 284 229 228 5 160 84 112 228 88 79 146 119 177 197 252 181 265 6 170 115 98 187 107 140 161 86 196 181 261 182 182 7 128 82 79 112 88 90 92 71 113 79 147 118 84 8 85 85 74 126 71 58 70 55 97 77 117 125 123 9 86 65 72 101 43 40 36 74 67 55 109 115 134 10 52 63 46 72 24 46 49 64 58 58 70 86 88 11 35 36 42 54 35 49 31 47 41 27 – – – 12 16 16 27 29 18 34 16 30 – – – – – Total 1,555 1,120 1,272 2,084 1,159 1,057 1,492 1,313 2,003 1,333 2,566 1,863 1,669
MONTERREY WESLACO NORTH BLUFF SOUTH ALLAN PARK WALZEM PIKE EASTSIDE RIVERVIEW RUNDBERG MISSION JUDSON MAYS SPRINGS TOROS GRADE FLORES CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS CAMPUS Pre-K – – – – 234 – 213 – 211 – – – – K 233 132 148 224 159 134 135 119 315 218 268 227 – 1 179 164 97 160 152 122 83 117 208 208 187 281 – 2 218 149 168 138 144 135 82 96 145 237 250 294 – 3 247 201 240 195 148 190 – 116 – – – – – 4 194 266 244 195 161 – – – – – – – – 5 245 278 – – – – – – – – – – – 6 147 195 143 116 178 265 192 191 168 294 319 291 – 7 141 108 162 76 79 144 83 82 106 – – – – 8 102 128 100 56 60 – – – – – – – – 9 73 62 – – – – – – – – – – 1 10 – 70 – – – – – – – – – – 2 11 – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 12 – – – – – – – – – – – – – Total 1,779 1,753 1,302 1,160 1,315 990 788 721 1,153 957 1,024 1,093 4
GRAND 34,525 TOTAL
______Source: IDEA. Data presented is as of June 30, 2016.
B-28
Student Retention
The following table shows the number of IDEA students (aggregate, for all campuses) at the beginning of the 2015-16 school year which IDEA retained as of the end of the 2015-16 school year. The student retention number at the end of 2015-16 and corresponding retention percentage includes students that have moved out of the IDEA geographical region and those that left enrollment and returned.
TABLE 8: STUDENT RETENTION DATA1 2 3 BEGINNING OF 2015-16 END OF 2015-16 PERCENTAGE STUDENTS 23,818 23,037 96.72% ______Source: IDEA. 1 Includes graduating students. 2 Enrollment as of August 24, 2015, two-weeks after the start of the 2015-16 school year. 3 Enrollment as of the last day of the 2015-16 school year.
Service Area and Competing Schools
IDEA serves students in the Rio Grande Valley, the tri-county stretch of land just north of the Texas- Mexico border extending from Roma to Brownsville, San Antonio, and Austin, Texas.
In the Rio Grande Valley, IDEA’s students generally reside within the “Region One Education Service Center” (“Region One ESC”), within close proximity (generally walking distance) to the schools they attend. Region One ESC is located in south Texas and serves the seven county area of Cameron County, Hidalgo County, Jim Hogg County, Starr County, Webb County, Willacy County, and Zapata County. There are currently approximately 10 charter districts and approximately 37 traditional public school districts in the Region One ESC.
In San Antonio, IDEA’s students generally reside in Bexar County. The county is served by approximately 19 independent school districts and approximately 30 additional charter districts.
In Austin, IDEA’s students generally reside in Travis County which is served by approximately 17 independent school districts and approximately 18 additional charter districts.
As of June 23, 2016, IDEA’s student body resided in various school districts as set forth in the following table (districts comprising less than 2% of the IDEA student body were excluded):
TABLE 9: STUDENTS’ RESIDENT DISTRICTS
NAME OF DISTRICT % OF ENROLLMENT NAME OF DISTRICT % OF ENROLLMENT Brownsville ISD 13.2% Austin ISD 5.7% Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD 13.0% San Antonio ISD 5.1% Donna ISD 9.1% La Joya ISD 4.5% Edinburg CISD 8.5% Mission CISD 4.2% McAllen ISD 6.5% San Benito CISD 2.8% Weslaco ISD 6.1% Harlingen CISD 2.7% ______Source: Based on IDEA student address reporting at enrollment and any updates thereafter.
IDEA’s facilities are (or, in the 2017-18 school year will be) located in the cities of Alamo, Donna, McAllen, Edinburg, Weslaco, Mission, Pharr and San Juan, in Hidalgo County, the cities of Brownsville and San Benito in Cameron County, the city of San Antonio, in Bexar County and the city of Austin in Travis County.
B-29
• According to 2015 U.S. Census data, Hidalgo County’s estimated population was 842,304. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010-2014 5-Year American Community Survey, approximately 0.7% of Hidalgo County’s population was African-American and 90.9% was Latino or Hispanic. The median household income was approximately $34,952 (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars), which falls below the comparable Texas State median of $52,576.
• According to 2015 U.S. Census data, Cameron County’s estimated population was 422,156. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010-2014 5-Year American Community Survey, approximately 0.7% of Cameron County’s population was African-American and 88.4% was Latino or Hispanic. Cameron County’s median household income was approximately $33,390 (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars), which falls below the comparable Texas State median of $52,576.
• According to 2015 U.S. Census data, Bexar County’s estimated population was 1,897,753. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010-2014 5-Year American Community Survey, approximately 8.5% of Bexar County’s population was African-American and 59.0% was Latino or Hispanic. Bexar County’s median household income was approximately $50,867 (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars), which falls below the comparable Texas State median of $52,576.
• According to 2015 U.S. Census data, Travis County’s estimated population was 1,176,558. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010-2014 5-Year American Community Survey, approximately 9.4% of Travis County’s population was African-American and 33.7% was Latino or Hispanic. Travis County’s median household income was approximately $59,620 (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars), which is above the comparable Texas State median of $52,576.
Charter schools face constant competition for students and there can be no assurance that they will continue to attract and retain the number of students that are needed to generate sufficient revenues for IDEA to make payments representing debt service on the Bonds. See “RISK FACTORS — Competition for Students.”
Accountability Ratings and Student Performance
The State’s accountability system assigns ratings to every campus and district in the public education system each year. The current accountability ratings are as follows:
• Met Standard: Assigned to districts and campuses that meet performance index targets on all indexes for which they have performance data. • Met Alternative Standard: Assigned to charter operators and alternative education campuses evaluated under alternative education accountability provisions that meet modified performance index targets on all indexes for which they have performance data. • Improvement Required: Assigned to a district or campus that did not meet one or more performance index targets. • Not Rated.
The overall design of the accountability rating system is a performance index framework. Performance indicators are grouped into four indices that align with the goals of the accountability system. The structure for evaluation of performance across the four indices affords multiple views of campus and district performance. Performances across the four indices are used to assign accountability rating labels based on performance targets that are set for each index.
• Index 1: Student Achievement ‐ Provides a snapshot of performance across subjects, on both general and alternative assessments, at the satisfactory performance standard. • Index 2: Student Progress ‐ Provides a measure of student progress by subject and student group independent of overall student achievement levels. • Index 3: Closing Performance Gaps ‐ Emphasizes advanced academic achievement of the economically disadvantaged student group and the lowest performing racial/ethnic student groups at each campus or district.
B-30
• Index 4: Postsecondary Readiness ‐ Emphasizes the importance for students to receive a high school diploma that provides them with the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs, or the military.
The Student Assessment Division of the TEA manages and oversees the development, administration, scoring, and analysis of the State’s assessment program. In the past, the State-wide assessment program has centered around the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (“TAKS”) assessments, which are designed to measure the extent to which a student has learned and is able to apply the defined knowledge and skills at each tested grade level. There is also a Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills-Modified (“TAKS-M”), which is an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards designed for students who meet participation requirements and who are receiving special education services.
Beginning in the Spring of 2012, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (“STAAR”) assessments replaced TAKS. The STAAR program at grades 3-8 assesses the same subjects and grades that were previously assessed on TAKS. At high school, however, grade-specific assessments were replaced with 12 end-of- course assessments. Similarly, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Modified (“STAAR Modified”) replaced the TAKS-M beginning in the 2011-12 school year, for 3-9 grade students who meet the STAAR Modified participation requirements. The Student Assessment Division also administers the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Alternate (“STAAR Alternate”) to meet the federal requirements. STAAR Alternate is designed for the purpose of assessing students in grades 3-8 and high school who have significant cognitive disabilities and are receiving special education services.
The Student Assessment Division also administers Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (“TELPAS”) assessments, which are designed to assess the progress that limited English proficient students make in learning the English language.
In 2011-12, no state accountability ratings were issued (although districts retained their ratings from the previous year) while the TEA worked with advisory committees to develop a new rating system based on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness and a new distinction designations system. This new accountability system allows for a large number of measures without the rating being dependent on a single measure. The 2012‐13 school year marks the first year of ratings using STAAR results and distinction designations. The table below sets forth IDEA’s accountability results for the 2015-16 school year.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-31
TABLE 10: ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS1
Index 1: Index 2: Index 3: Index 4: 2015-16 Accountability Index Student Student Closing Postsecondary Accountability Achievement Progress Performance Readiness Results Gaps Target Score Target Score in Target Score in Target Score 60 in Parentheses Parentheses Parentheses IDEA (as a district) 83 48(22) 52(28) 87(60) Met Standard IDEA Academy 82 53(32) 50(28) 42(12) Met Standard Donna IDEA Frontier 77 49(32) 46(28) 45(12) Met Standard Academy IDEA Quest 83 54(32) 49(28) 45(12) Met Standard Academy IDEA Academy 85 59(32) 54(28) 42(12) Met Standard Mission IDEA Academy San 82 63(32) 47(28) 41(12) Met Standard Benito IDEA Academy San 80 47(32) 47(28) 38(12) Met Standard Juan IDEA Academy 81 49(32) 49(28) 48(12) Met Standard Alamo IDEA Academy 79 49(32) 46(28) 40(12) Met Standard Pharr IDEA Academy 89 48(32) 53(28) 54(12) Met Standard Edinburg IDEA Academy 87 41(32) 53(28) 52(12) Met Standard Weslaco IDEA Academy 88 52(32) 56(28) 57(12) Met Standard McAllen IDEA Academy 91 49(32) 61(28) 65(12) Met Standard Brownsville IDEA Carver 77 59(32) 42(28) 30(12) Met Standard Academy IDEA Academy South 78 53(32) 47(28) 42(12) Met Standard Flores IDEA Academy 75 48(32) 42(28) 30(12) Met Standard Allan IDEA Academy 75 54(32) 48(28) 33(12) Met Standard Monterrey Park IDEA Academy 77 53(32) 45(28) 24(12) Met Standard Walzem IDEA Academy 79 55(32) 53(28) 41(12) Met Standard Weslaco Pike IDEA Academy NA NA NA NA NA Eastside IDEA Academy NA NA NA NA NA Riverview IDEA Academy NA NA NA NA NA Rundberg IDEA Academy NA NA NA NA NA North Mission IDEA College 83 43(17) 52(30) 86(60) Met Standard Preparatory Donna
B-32
TABLE 10: ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS1
Index 1: Index 2: Index 3: Index 4: 2015-16 Accountability Index Student Student Closing Postsecondary Accountability Achievement Progress Performance Readiness Results Gaps Target Score Target Score in Target Score in Target Score 60 in Parentheses Parentheses Parentheses IDEA Frontier College 90 43(17) 59(30) 91(60) Met Standard Preparatory IDEA Quest College 91 50(17) 60(30) 90(60) Met Standard Preparatory
IDEA College Preparatory 77 34(17) 45(30) 87(60) Met Standard Mission IDEA College Preparatory 83 32(17) 51(30) 87(60) Met Standard San Benito IDEA College Preparatory 84 40(17) 51(30) 85(60) Met Standard San Juan IDEA College Preparatory 85 46(17) 53(30) 86(60) Met Standard Alamo IDEA College Preparatory 78 42(17) 50(30) 54(21) Met Standard Pharr IDEA College Preparatory 88 47(17) 56(30) 62(21) Met Standard Edinburg IDEA College Preparatory 81 37(17) 48(30) 49(21) Met Standard Weslaco IDEA College 94 53(30) 64(26) 68(13) Met Standard Preparatory McAllen
IDEA College Preparatory 88 44(30) 56(26) 60(13) Met Standard Brownsville IDEA Carver College 88 48(30) 57(26) 55(13) Met Standard Preparatory
IDEA College Preparatory South 84 44(30) 52(26) 51(13) Met Standard Flores IDEA College 80 41(30) 49(26) 43(13) Met Standard Preparatory Allan
B-33
TABLE 10: ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS1
Index 1: Index 2: Index 3: Index 4: 2015-16 Accountability Index Student Student Closing Postsecondary Accountability Achievement Progress Performance Readiness Results Gaps Target Score Target Score in Target Score in Target Score 60 in Parentheses Parentheses Parentheses IDEA College Preparatory 82 44(30) 51(26) 40(13) Met Standard Monterrey Park IDEA College Preparatory 66 37(30) 36(26) 24(13) Met Standard Walzem IDEA College Preparatory 85 51(30) 55(26) 48(13) Met Standard Weslaco Pike IDEA College Preparatory 69 42(30) 39(26) 19(13) Met Standard Eastside IDEA College Preparatory 84 41(30) 53(26) 31(13) Met Standard Riverview IDEA College Preparatory 78 36(30) 46(26) 29(13) Met Standard Rundberg IDEA College Preparatory 85 44(30) 55(26) 39(13) Met Standard North Mission
______1 “Distinctions” have not yet been released by the TEA.
For 2015-16, IDEA received ratings of “Met Standard” at the district level and at all rated schools.
IDEA has not had an unsatisfactory Accountability Rating or First Rating at the district level in the last five years.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
B-34
The table below compares IDEA (as a district) with other traditional school districts from which IDEA obtains a substantial number of students.
TABLE 11: 2015-16 TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS
POST- 2015-16 CLOSING STUDENT STUDENT SECONDARY ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE DISTRICT NAME ACHIEVEMENT PROGRESS READINESS ACCOUNTABILITY GAPS RESULTS
IDEA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 83 48 52 87 Met Standard
AUSTIN ISD 76 41 38 77 Met Standard BROWNSVILLE ISD 75 44 49 79 Met Standard DONNA ISD 64 37 37 67 Met Standard EDINBURG CISD 75 45 46 76 Met Standard HARLINGEN CISD 73 41 41 77 Met Standard LA JOYA ISD 66 34 39 72 Met Standard MCALLEN ISD 76 42 45 74 Met Standard MISSION CISD 70 38 41 82 Met Standard PHARR-SAN JUAN- ALAMO ISD 68 42 40 82 Met Standard SAN ANTONIO ISD 59 37 32 62 Met Standard SAN BENITO CISD 67 32 38 73 Met Standard SHARYLAND ISD 87 47 60 83 Met Standard VALLEY VIEW ISD 83 44 51 85 Met Standard WESLACO ISD 70 39 38 77 Met Standard
Federal Accountability
On December 10, 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (“ESSA”) into law, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (the “1965 Act”) and replaces, in whole, the No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLB”) of 2001. TEA is in the process of working through the specific details and requirements of ESSA as applicable to Texas schools. In general, many changes made to the 1965 Act by ESSA will not be implemented until the 2016-17 school year.
In Texas, under the now defunct NCLB, all public school campuses, school districts, and the State were formerly evaluated for Adequate Yearly Progress (“AYP”). Districts, campuses and the State were required to meet AYP criteria on three measures: Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, and either Graduation Rate (for high schools and districts) or Attendance Rate (for elementary and middle/junior high schools). A Title I, Part A-funded local education agency (“LEA”) or school district (including charter schools), that had not met AYP for two or more consecutive years in the same indicator (reading, mathematics, attendance rate, or graduation rate) was subject to LEA-level Title I School Improvement Requirements.
The TEA requested a waiver from certain aspects of NCLB to the United States Department of Education (“USDE”) in 2013, which included a request to use the State’s new accountability system to evaluate campuses and districts in place of AYP. The request was approved. In 2014, the TEA submitted an amended request that met the requirements of ESEA flexibility, which was approved. This waiver of the federal Accountability Performance Targets/Standard Setting Procedures allowed TEA to replace then current AYP calculations and performance targets with the State’s accountability rating system.
B-35
In 2014, the TEA submitted to the USDE a formal request for an extension of USDE's approval to implement ESEA flexibility through the end of the 2014-15 school year. The request was granted pending approval of the TEA’s submission of final guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems which were piloted during the 2014-15 school year.
In January, 2015, the USDE sent a letter to the TEA stating that Texas was not meeting all requirements of ESEA flexibility. Texas was required to submit to USDE an amended request incorporating its final guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems consistent with all requirements for ESEA flexibility and consistent with the renewal requirements. The TEA submitted a waiver renewal application on June 2, 2015 and was approved to waive specific provisions of the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, giving additional flexibility to local education agencies.
Under NCLB, the State was required to provide interventions to improve identified low performing schools.
Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, the TEA identified “Priority” or “Focus” schools as follows:
• “Priority” designates 5% of Title I campuses in Texas, consisting of School Improvement Grant – Texas Title I Priority Schools (“SIG-TTIPs”), high schools with graduation rates less than 60% and lowest -performing schools based on statewide reading and math assessments.
• “Focus” designates 10% of Title I campuses, based on the widest gaps between student performance and the federal targets of 75% (known as “system safeguards”).
After being identified as a Priority or Focus school, in order to exit such status, a school must have made significant progress for two consecutive years following interventions and no longer fit the criteria to be identified as a Priority or Focus school.
Priority and Focus schools were required to align the Texas Accountability and Intervention System (“TAIS”) improvement process around the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“ESEA”) turnaround principles and critical success factors. The LEA was responsible for assisting identified campuses in all aspects of the school improvement process, which include data analysis, needs assessment, and developing, implementing, and monitoring a plan for improvement.
During the 2014-15 school year, the following interventions were required for identified schools:
• SIG-TTIPS Priority schools continued to implement current Texas Title I Priority Schools requirements and engage in the TAIS improvement process of data analysis, needs assessment, improvement planning and implementation and monitoring of activities at the LEA level and the campus level. These campuses were required to ensure they continued to address the ESEA turnaround principles in all plans and activities required through the SIG-TTIPS grant.
• Non-SIG-TTIPS priority schools were required, through engaging in the TAIS improvement process referenced above, to evaluate current campus staff and create a plan that addressed the ESEA turnaround principles. The plan, based on the turnaround principles, was required to be fully implemented by the campus in the 2014-15 school year.
• Focus schools will review ESEA turnaround principles and must identify and implement no less than one instructional intervention specifically targeted to meet the deficiencies of the campus and assist in closing existing achievement gaps. Reasons for identification and chosen instructional intervention(s) must be included in the campus’ 2013-14 campus improvement plan.
Priority and Focus schools already identified as Improvement Required under the State accountability system were required to continue to meet the requirements currently in place.
Additional information regarding Priority and Focus schools can be found on the TEA’s website at www.tea.texas.gov.
B-36
In 2013-14, IDEA Academy Mission was named a Priority school. IDEA Academy Mission was classified as a Priority (Progress) school due to improved performance and was no longer identified as improvement required for the August 2015-16 ratings. IDEA Academy Donna and IDEA Academy San Benito were listed as Focus schools in 2014-15. Both academies were classified as Focus (Progress) in 2015-16 due to improved performance, and they were no longer identified as improvement required for the August 2015-16 ratings. Due to new transition requirements from the USDE, the TEA has indicated that they will maintain the current list of Priority and Focus campuses during the transition school year 2016-17. Assuming continued significant progress, IDEA believes that IDEA Academy Mission, IDEA Academy Donna and IDEA Academy San Benito will be removed as Priority and Focus schools in the 2017-18 school year.
In accordance with requirements, IDEA designated a district contact; reviewed ESEA turnaround principles and identified and implemented a 2013-14 campus improvement plan; implemented instructional intervention specifically targeted to address closing existing achievement gaps; and included reasons for identification and targeted instructional interventions in the 2014-15 campus improvement plan all of which were fully implemented and continued during the 2015-16 school year. In 2016-17 IDEA Academy Mission will document sustaining improvement strategies in their campus improvement plan, continue with the designated contact for Focus school support and interventions and notify the TEA regarding state-supported PSP hours. IDEA Academy Donna and IDEA Academy San Benito will participate in a Focus school support event with Region One and include instructional interventions in their campus improvement plans.
ESSA replaces NCLB and provides relief from its more onerous provisions. Its goal is to help ensure educational opportunity for all students by:
• Holding all students to high academic standards to prepare them for success in college and careers. • Ensuring accountability so that when students fall behind, states redirect resources to help students and their schools improve, with a focus on the very lowest-performing schools, high schools with high dropout rates, and schools with achievement gaps. • Empowering state and local decision-makers to develop their own strong systems for school improvement based upon evidence, rather than imposing cookie-cutter federal solutions like NCLB. • Reducing the onerous burden of testing on students and teachers, ensuring that tests don’t crowd out teaching and learning, without sacrificing information parents and educators need to make sure children are learning. • Providing more children access to high-quality preschool. • Establishing new resources for proven strategies to spur reform and drive opportunity and better outcomes for students.
With respect to school accountability under ESSA, the USDE is in the rulemaking process with comment periods ending in August 2016. Under ESSA:
• States would still have to test students in reading and math in grades 3–8 and once in high school, and break out the data for whole schools, plus different subgroups of students. • States get wide discretion in setting goals, determining how to hold schools and districts accountable and deciding how to intervene in low-performing schools. While tests still have to be a part of state accountability systems, states must incorporate other factors that take into account students' opportunity to learn. • The authority of the U.S. Secretary of Education is also limited, especially when it comes to interfering with state decision-making on testing, standards and school turnarounds. • Maintenance of effort is kept in place, with some new flexibility for states. • ESSA is only "authorized" for four more years, to give lawmakers a chance to revisit the policy under the next president.
States still have to submit accountability plans to the USDE. These new ESSA plans would start in the 2017–18 school year. States can pick their own long- and short- term goals, which must address proficiency on tests, English-language proficiency, graduation rates and closing gaps in achievement.
B-37
For the bottom 5% of schools and for high schools with graduation rates of 67% or less:
• Districts work with teachers and school staff to develop evidence-based plans. • States monitor turnaround efforts. • If schools continue to struggle for up to four years, states decide on corrective action, which may include taking over a school, replacing principal and staff or converting the school into a charter. • Districts could also allow students to transfer out of seriously low-performing schools, giving priority to the students who need it most
For schools where student subgroups are struggling:
• Schools must develop evidence-based plans to help the specific groups of struggling students. • If the school continues to fall short, the district must step in with a "comprehensive improvement plan. "States and districts have to take more-aggressive action in schools where subgroups are chronically underperforming.
Financial Statements
Audited Year-End Financial Statements
See “APPENDIX C — FINANCIAL STATEMENTS” for information regarding IDEA’s financial position in and for the twelve month period ending June 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014 including IDEA’s Statements of Financial Position, Statement of Activities and Statements of Cash Flows. It should be noted that IDEA’s use of the temporarily restricted classification, as described in the Statement of Activities shown in APPENDIX C, is in conformity with the Financial Accountability System Resource Guide published by the TEA, which prescribes financial accounting rules for charter schools in the State of Texas. The temporarily restricted description requires IDEA to use state funding for the benefit of educating students enrolled in IDEA schools. Compliance with this requirement allows IDEA to use these funds as unrestricted and in its discretion to further educate its students.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
B-38
Debt Summary
Below is a list of the outstanding debt obligations of IDEA as of June 30, 2016.
TABLE 12: DEBT SUMMARY
ORIGINAL OUTSTANDING TYPE OF DEBT AMOUNT AMOUNT Note Payable to Regions Bank $20,000,0001 $7,369,510 Series 2007 Note 36,930,000 2,660,000 Series 2009 Note 29,105,000 27,625,0002 Series 2010 Notes 41,335,000 39,220,0003 Series 2011 Note 26,480,000 25,555,000 Series 2012 Note 59,730,000 57,505,000 Series 2013 Note 63,025,000 62,130,000 Series 2014 Note 90,600,000 90,600,000 Series 2015 Note 70,885,000 70,885,000 Term Note Payable to Charter Fund, Inc. 400,000 400,000 Term Note Payable to Charter Fund, Inc. 500,000 500,000 Term Note Payable to Charter Fund, Inc. 100,000 100,000 Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. 1,372,600 966,852 Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. 337,600 246,995 Total $440,800,200 $385,763,357
______Source: IDEA. See also “APPENDIX C — FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.” 1 IDEA is permitted to draw up to $20,000,000 under the terms of the Regions Note. IDEA will use a portion of the proceeds of the Series 2016A Bonds to pay the current balance of the Regions Note and any accrued interest thereon. The line of credit expires on December 19, 2017. 2 $13,495,000 of such amount is expected to be defeased with proceeds of the Series 2016A Bonds. 3 $23,175,000 of such amount is expected to be defeased with proceeds of the Series 2016A Bonds.
Financial Controls
IDEA’s bylaws require that all checks, drafts, or orders for payment of money, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness issued in the name of IDEA must be signed by such officer or officers, agent or agents of IDEA and in such manner as shall from time to time be determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. In the absence of such determination by the Board of Directors, such instruments shall be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by either the President or Vice President of the Corporation.
Conflicts Policy
IDEA adopted an Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Nepotism Policy (the “Policy”). The Policy provides that Directors and Officers are responsible for exercising their duties honestly, in good faith and with a high standard of diligence and care. The Policy sets forth certain expectations for Directors and Officers, including expectations relating to personal and professional integrity, financial stewardship, public accountability, records retention, political activity limitations, endorsements and other matters. The Policy also establishes procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest and provisions relating to nepotism.
IDEA’s bylaws require the Board to adopt (and periodically review) an Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Policy satisfying the requirements of federal and state law governing conflicts of interest and interested transactions among charter school and charter holder board members and officers, as described in the Texas Education Code and as required by the Local Government Code.
B-39
In addition, pursuant to Texas law, Board members (and any officer, employee or agent of the charter holder who exercises any discretion in the procurement process) also must file conflicts disclosure statements with respect to persons who seek to or who enter into a contract with IDEA or with whom IDEA is considering entering into a contract if the person: (A) has an employment or other business relationship with the Board member/officer/employee/agent or a family member of the Board member/officer/employee/agent that results in the Board member or family member receiving taxable income, other than investment income, that exceeds $2,500 during the 12-month period preceding the date that the Board member becomes aware that (i) such contract has been executed, or (ii) IDEA is considering entering into a contract with the person; or (B) has given to the Board member or a family member of the Board member one or more gifts that have an aggregate value of more than $100 in the 12-month period preceding the date the Board member becomes aware that: (i) such contract has been executed; or (ii) IDEA is considering entering into a contract with the person.
Certain Business Relationships
Firms in which members of the Board, the advisory board or officers have an interest, economic or otherwise, may engage from time to time in business transactions with IDEA. In addition, IDEA has hired personnel related to members of the Board, the advisory board or officers of IDEA. Any such relationships must, and do, satisfy the Conflicts Policy described above. In the past, IDEA has purchased shirts from RGV Pro Direct, LLC and obtained printing services from AIM Direct Print. One of the general partners/members of RGV Pro Direct, LLC is married to Irma Muñoz, Chief Operations Officer of IDEA. Ms. Muñoz also has a beneficial interest in AIM Direct Print. Also, IDEA has used, on a non-exclusive basis, a real estate broker in San Antonio that is the son of David Guerra, a director of IDEA. Directors Bert Garcia and Alonzo Cantu have interests in Lone Star FC, LLC (Mr. Garcia is the President and Mr. Cantu is the owner). Lone Star FC, LLC operates the RGV FC Toros, a major league soccer developmental affiliate. The Vipers Foundation, an affiliate of Lone Star FC, LLC, is currently subleasing McAllen Campus No. 2 to IDEA. Director David Earl serves as legal counsel to Rhodes Enterprises, Inc., and IDEA purchased land for the Tres Lagos Campus from Rhodes Enterprise, Inc. Finally, the father-in-law of JoAnn Gama, the President and Superintendent of IDEA, serves as a custodian at IDEA and spouses and other related parties to members of the Board, the advisory board or officers of IDEA have served or currently serve as staff members at IDEA. However, employing personnel related to a director or officer within the third degree by consanguinity (blood) or the second degree by affinity (marriage) who have not maintained the minimum required continuous employment prior to the appointment of the director or officer is permitted.
Insurance Coverage
In the Master Indenture, IDEA has covenanted at all times following completion of any Related Project (as defined therein) to keep and maintain such Related Project insured against such risks and in such amounts with such deductible provisions as are customary in connection with the operation of facilities of the type and size comparable to the Related Project and consistent with the requirements of Texas law, all as further described in the Master Indenture. Additionally, IDEA has covenanted to review each year the insurance carried by IDEA with respect to IDEA and the Related Project and, to the extent feasible, to carry insurance insuring against the risks and hazards described in the Master Indenture to the same extent that other entities comparable to IDEA and owning or operating facilities of the size and type comparable to the Related Project carry such insurance. IDEA has a covenant to retain an Independent Insurance Consultant (as defined in the Master Indenture) at least once every two years for the purpose of reviewing the insurance coverage of, and the insurance required for, IDEA and the Related Project and making recommendations respecting the types, amounts and provisions of insurance that should be carried with respect to IDEA and the Related Project. The insurance requirements of the Master Indenture will be deemed modified or superseded as necessary to conform with the recommendations contained in said report to the extent the report recommends additional or increased coverage.
IDEA last engaged an Independent Insurance Consultant to conduct a review of the IDEA’s insurance coverage as of July 31, 2015. IDEA currently maintains property and equipment breakdown insurance, NFIP Flood insurance, Excess Flood, general liability (including Educator’s Legal Liability and Sexual Molestation & Abuse), automobile liability including physical damage, worker’s compensation, management liability and student accident coverage.
B-40
The commercial property insurance is written with Zurich American Insurance Company (A.M. Best A+ XV). The total amount of such coverage is $349,359,901 and Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company (A.M. Best A XV) (including business income insurance of $6,000,000). Excess flood is written through Landmark American Insurance Company (A.M. Best A+ XIV) Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company (A.M. Best A XV) with a per occurrence limit of $10,000,000. General liability insurance is written through Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (A.M. Best A++ XV) with a per occurrence limit of $1,000,000. Automobile coverage is written through Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and has a liability limit of $1,000,000. Worker’s compensation coverage is through Midwest Employers Casualty Company (A.M. Best A+ XV) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (A.M. Best A XV) and provides Texas workers compensation statutory benefits and $1,000,000 in employer’s liability limits. The directors and officers liability insurance is written through Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and includes $5,000,000 in directors and officers liability coverage. The Student Accident Insurance is written by National Union Fire Insurance Company and provides individual benefit of $25,000 per injury and excess catastrophic coverage of $6,000,000. Finally IDEA has a $16,000,000 umbrella policy written through Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (A.M. Best A++ XV).
Fundraising
IDEA receives grants, awards and donations in support of its mission from a variety of individuals and organizations. While many donors give one time gifts, others have committed multiyear funds for ongoing support. The table below shows the amount of committed awards from donors over the most recent five year period.
TABLE 13: FUNDRAISING DATA1
AMOUNT AND YEAR OF AWARDS 2011-12 24,411,072 2012-13 37,604,973 2013-14 17,852,575 2014-15 22,316,835 2015-16 41,745,013 Total $143,930,468
______Source: IDEA. 1 The above amounts include private and federal grants. Private grants are either recorded as revenue in the year the commitment is made by the donor or, for multiyear commitments, based on the amount available under the grant notice over the period of the grant. In the case of the federal grants, the full amount of the federal grant is available to match timing of IDEA expenditures associated with the grant.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-41
IDEA’s supporters have included: • United States Department of Education • Najim Family Foundation • The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation • Brown Family Foundation • The Michael and Susan Dell Foundation • Karen and Tim Hixon • Charter School Growth Fund • Give Me Five • The Texas High School Project of the • The KLE Foundation Communities Foundation of Texas • Rollins M. “Rollie” Koppel • The Walton Family Foundation • Texas 21st Century Community Learning • The Broad Foundation Centers • Carnegie Corporation • Carol M. White Physical Education • The Meadows Foundation Program Grant • The Brown Foundation • City Education Partners • Greater Texas Foundation • TEA Educator Excellence Innovation • Laura and John Arnold Foundation Program • Ewing-Halsell Foundation • Knapp Community Care Foundation • Brackenridge Foundation • Project AP Excellence
IDEA expects these gifts, donations and grants to continue at some rate. However, there can be no assurance that projections of these revenues will be realized or will not decrease, which would adversely affect IDEA’s capital improvements and expansion plans.
Projected Revenues and Expenditures
This Official Statement contains certain “forward-looking” statements of the type described in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See “INTRODUCTION — Forward-Looking Statements” above. Although IDEA believes that the assumptions upon which the forward- looking statements contained in this Official Statement are based are reasonable, any of the assumptions could prove to be inaccurate and, as a result, the forward-looking statements based on those assumptions could also be incorrect. All phases of the operations of the Charter Schools by IDEA involve risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside of IDEA’s control and any one of which, or a combination of which, could materially affect IDEA’s results with respect to the charter schools’ operations. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those expected include, but are not limited to, general economic conditions; the willingness of the State of Texas to fund public schools including charter schools at present or increased levels; competitive conditions within the charter schools’ service area; lower-than-projected enrollment; unanticipated expenses; changes in government regulation including changes in the law governing charter schools in Texas; future claims for accidents against IDEA and the extent of insurance coverage for such claims; and other risks discussed in this Official Statement. See “RISK FACTORS” above.
IDEA is providing the following Historical and Projected Revenues and Expenses table for illustrative purposes only. These projections have been prepared by IDEA with assistance from its Independent Management Consultant, based on IDEA’s operating history with respect to charter schools and its assumptions about future State funding levels and future operations of the charter schools, including student enrollment and expenses. IDEA’s projections have not been independently verified by any party. IDEA’s projections have not been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). No feasibility studies have been conducted with respect to operations of IDEA pertinent to the Bonds. The Underwriter has not independently verified IDEA’s projections, and make no representations nor gives any assurances that such projections, or the assumptions underlying them, are complete or correct.
NO REPRESENTATION OR ASSURANCE CAN BE GIVEN THAT IDEA WILL REALIZE REVENUES IN AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE ALL REQUIRED DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE BONDS. THE REALIZATION OF FUTURE REVENUES DEPENDS ON, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MATTERS DESCRIBED IN “RISK FACTORS,” AND FUTURE CHANGES IN ECONOMIC AND OTHER CONDITIONS THAT ARE UNPREDICTABLE AND CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME. THE UNDERWRITER MAKES NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE PROJECTIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, NOR AS TO THE ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH THE PROJECTIONS ARE BASED.
B-42
TABLE 14: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED REVENUES AND EXPENSES* IDEA Public Schools Historical and Projected Operating Results – Existing Regions
Actuals Budget Projected Projected Projected Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Avg. Daily Attendance 22,555 26,214 32,593 38,266 44,302 Enrollment1 23,115 27,731 33,429 39,247 45,438 % Enrollment Increase 22% 20% 21% 17% 16% Increase in Number of Students Enrolled 4,116 4,616 5,698 5,818 6,191
Student to teacher ratio 21.97 22.06 22.39 22.57 22.49 Core Teaching Staff 1,052 1,257 1,493 1,739 2,020 Number of Campuses 22 25 30 35 40 Number of Schools 44 50 60 70 80 School Administrators 219 268 326 379 437 Headquarters' Employees 242 275 297 345 385 Assumed Per Pupil Revenue Inflation 2.00% 1.50% 1.50% Assumed Expense Inflation 1.50% 1.50% 1.50%
Actuals Budget Projected Projected Projected Fiscal Year Ended June 30: 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total State Revenues $ 207,827,793 $ 239,535,930 $ 303,784,453 $ 362,005,081 $ 425,396,047
State Revenue Per Student2,3 $ 9,214 $ 9,138 $ 9,320 $ 9,460 $ 9,602 2 % Increase in State Revenue per Student 4.42% -0.83% 2.00% 1.50% 1.50%
Federal Revenues Title I - Improving Basic Education 5,617,156 7,708,935 9,478,779 11,295,398 13,273,343 IDEA Part B Special Education 2,707,259 3,266,602 4,016,560 4,786,338 5,624,477 Title II - Teacher and Principal Training 1,346,661 1,618,055 1,989,534 2,370,830 2,785,988 Child Nutrition Revenues3 16,668,604 21,383,627 26,292,955 31,332,029 36,818,603 Other - Title III-Engl. Lang. Enhancement, Title V-AP Incentives, SHARS 1,472,807 1,869,017 2,298,112 2,738,548 3,218,097 QSCB Subsidy 385,528 385,528 385,528 385,528 385,528 Total Federal Revenues $ 28,198,015 $ 36,231,764 $ 44,461,468 $ 52,908,671 $ 62,106,036
Other Revenues State Grants 1,309,401 999,900 1,268,094 1,511,126 1,775,740 Federal Grants4 17,948,377 19,714,292 8,479,756 668,688 - Private Scheduled Grants4 5,209,807 12,400,316 7,956,125 9,370,000 6,810,000 Erate (Technology) Revenues 772,410 1,961,391 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Non-Federal Cafeteria Revenues3 949,641 1,350,884 1,713,219 2,041,560 2,399,059 Local Revenues (Student Activity Accts) 6,971,658 3,645,267 4,623,003 5,509,007 6,473,693 Total Other Revenues $ 33,161,295 $ 40,072,050 $ 26,040,198 $ 21,100,380 $ 19,458,492
Total Revenue $ 269,187,102 $ 315,839,744 $ 374,286,119 $ 436,014,133 $ 506,960,575 % Change Year-to-Year 26% 17% 19% 16% 16%
Actuals Budget Projected Projected Projected Expenses 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Campus Expenses School Staffing 109,708,447 127,673,043 154,571,033 182,678,487 215,096,156 Supplies, Curriculum, Other 24,672,594 27,017,663 34,096,399 40,631,012 47,745,938 Total Campus Expenses 134,381,041 154,690,706 188,667,432 223,309,500 262,842,094
% Change Year-to-Year 34% 15% 22% 18% 18% Campus Expense per Enrolled Student $ 5,814 $ 5,578 $ 5,644 $ 5,690 $ 5,785
Federal Grant Program Expenses 10,031,868 9,848,257 4,476,013 352,965 - Federal Title Expenses 2,963,267 3,669,065 4,489,307 5,349,688 6,286,476 Transportation 8,400,232 10,293,389 12,537,348 14,846,309 17,221,719 Maintenance, Warehouse, Construction 11,989,221 11,148,204 14,069,079 16,765,434 19,701,241 Insurance 1,884,573 2,306,078 2,808,803 3,326,091 3,858,265 Child Nutrition and Health 14,470,897 22,194,680 28,009,776 33,377,880 39,222,704 Technology, Data Mgmt, Software & Information Systems 6,550,938 7,121,638 8,674,155 10,271,645 11,915,108 Other Non-Campus Expenses 1,691,235 1,083,239 1,099,488 1,115,980 1,132,720 Total Non-Campus, Non-Administrative Expenses 57,982,231 67,664,550 76,163,968 85,405,992 99,338,233 Central Administration - - - - Salaries 16,159,621 23,063,234 25,281,917 29,808,402 33,763,415 Discretionary 10,649,808 12,626,238 13,840,882 15,318,960 17,351,497 Total Central Administration 26,809,429 35,689,472 39,122,800 45,127,361 51,114,912 Central Administration Exp. % Revenue 9.96% 11.30% 10.45% 10.35% 10.08% 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Regional Administration (RGV,SA,A, EP) Salaries 1,556,367 2,264,281 3,318,078 3,384,440 3,452,129 Discretionary 72,713 105,786 202,519 206,569 210,700 New Region Expansion-related Expenses5 300,000 1,440,523 Total Regional Administration 1,929,080 3,810,590 3,520,597 3,591,009 3,662,829 Total Operating Expenses 221,101,782 261,855,318 307,474,797 357,433,862 416,958,068 % Increase in Op. Exp. 18.43% 17.42% 16.25% 16.65% Net Available Revenues 48,085,320 53,984,426 66,811,322 78,580,271 90,002,507
* Preliminary, subject to change.
B-43
Actuals Budget Projected Projected Projected 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Outstanding Debt Service (Net of Refunding) 22,147,115 24,877,816 25,789,005 25,804,381 25,780,998 Non-Bond Debt Service Actual Series 2016A Debt Service6 $4,322,833 $3,891,750 3,891,750 3,891,750 Estimated Series 2016B Debt Service6 733,500 1,590,200 2,231,000 2,245,050 Capital Interest (Year 1)7 ($5,056,333) Charter School Reserve Fund Payments (estimated) 196,860 195,700 192,895 189,995 Series 2017 Net Debt Service(estimated)8 4,956,850 6,609,133 Series 2018 Net Debt Service (estimated)9 5,642,533 Total Debt Service $ 22,147,115 $ 25,074,676 $ 31,466,655 $ 37,076,876 $ 44,359,459
Estimated Excess Net Revenues $ 25,938,205 $ 28,909,750 $ 35,344,667 $ 41,503,395 $ 45,643,048
Debt Service % of Operating Expense 10% 10% 10% 10% 11% Annual Debt Service Coverage 2.17 2.15 2.12 2.12 2.03
Estimated MADS as of each fiscal year10 26,553,285 31,213,060 37,822,193 45,345,570 45,345,570 Budgeted/Projected Coverage of Estimated MADS 1.81 1.73 1.77 1.73 1.98 Debt Service % of Revenue 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% Debt Service Per ADA $ 982 $ 957 $ 965 $ 969 $ 1,001 Beginning Net Asset Balance 76,223,250 96,941,212 117,316,081 142,113,615 170,284,577 Depreciation/Amortization11 (12,338,214) (14,394,881) (19,397,133) (22,522,433) (26,061,067) Bond Principal 4,625,000 5,860,000 8,850,000 9,190,000 9,570,000 Other 2,815,251 - - - - Change in Estimated Net Assets 20,717,962 20,374,869 24,797,534 28,170,962 28,854,504 Ending Net Asset Balance 96,941,212 117,316,081 142,113,615 170,284,577 199,139,080
Estimated Unrestricted Cash Balance12 80,454,186 94,909,061 112,581,395 133,333,092 156,154,616
Estimated Unrestricted Days Cash on Hand12 133 132 134 136 137
Footnotes 1. IDEA has been approved for an enrollment cap of 45,000. The enrollment in the table above differs from the enrollment set forth in Table 6, which has more conservative enrollment projectio For example, IDEA expects to serve Pre-K in all of its schools commencing in 2018-19. Those additional students are included in the table above, but not in Table 6. 2. State Revenue per student calculated by Total State Revenues divided by ADA. 3. Fiscal 2017 is the currently adopted budget. 4. Federal and Private grants/philanthropy include only those received or awarded. 5. New Region Expansion Expenses have been budgeted for 2017, but will not be appropriated unless associated philanthropy is received. Expansion philanthropy has not been budgeted. 6. Actual Debt Service for the Series 2016A bonds, and estimated debt service for approx. $19MM non-PSF Series 2016B bonds rated BBB. 7. Capitalized Interest based upon interest expense in year of issuance and assumes payment from the 50% of Estimated Excess Net Revenues not included in Estimated Unrestricted Cash. 8. Assumes $99 MM of Projects in 2016 @ 4.5% NIC, issued 3 months into fiscal year, interest only for first two years, assumes no PSF, 1st year interest paid by Capitalized Interest 9. Assumes $105 MM of Projects in 2017 @ 5% NIC, issued 3 months into fiscal year, interest only for first two years, assumes no PSF, 1st year interest paid by Capitalized Interest 10. MADS is calculated as of the most recent issuance in any fiscal year. 11. Future amounts taken from development model 12. 2016 actual balance. Future balances include cash only, no A/R. Post-2016 Cash balances increase by 50% of Excess Net Revenues for that fiscal year. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
B-44 APPENDIX C
IDEA AND THE CHARTER SCHOOLS — Environmental Assessments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DONNA CAMPUS ...... C-1 FRONTIER CAMPUS ...... C-1 QUEST CAMPUS ...... C-2 MISSION CAMPUS ...... C-2 SAN BENITO CAMPUS ...... C-2 SAN JUAN CAMPUS (OWNED FACILITIES ONLY) ...... C-3 ALAMO CAMPUS ...... C-3 PHARR CAMPUS ...... C-3 EDINBURG CAMPUS ...... C-4 WESLACO CAMPUS ...... C-4 MCALLEN CAMPUS ...... C-5 BROWNSVILLE CAMPUS ...... C-5 CARVER CAMPUS ...... C-5 SOUTH FLORES CAMPUS ...... C-6 MONTERREY PARK CAMPUS ...... C-7 WESLACO PIKE CAMPUS ...... C-8 ALLAN CAMPUS ...... C-8 EASTSIDE CAMPUS ...... C-8 RUNDBERG CAMPUS ...... C-9 SAN ANTONIO CAMPUS NO. 8 ...... C-10
(i)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
The subsections that follow provide summary information relating to environmental site assessments performed at each of the IDEA campus sites and the headquarters site. Each report speaks only as of its date, and, except as provided, IDEA has not requested that any additional environmental assessment be made. Further, the reports are subject to the limitations specified in each report, including that no environmental inspection can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions ("RECs") in connection with a property. Potential investors must refer to the complete reports for a full understanding of such limitations, and for additional information pertinent to the assessments. Copies of the reports are available as described under "MISCELLANEOUS — Additional Information" in the forepart to this Official Statement. See also "RISK FACTORS — Environmental Regulation."
Donna Campus
Ambiotec Environmental Consultants, Inc., Harlingen, Texas ("Ambiotec Environmental Consultants") performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Donna Campus property. In that connection, Ambiotec Environmental Consultants prepared a report dated June 30, 2003 (the "Donna Phase I Report"). The Donna Phase I Report states that Ambiotec Environmental Consultants performed the assessment in accordance with applicable professional standards, including the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, E 1527-00. The Donna Phase I Report states that the goal of the assessment was to identify, to the extent feasible, RECs relating to the site. The Donna Phase I Report states that the scope of the assessment included performing a visual site inspection of the site and surrounding properties, conducting personnel interviews and a search of public records to determine site history and environmental and regulatory status of the site and area properties.
In its executive summary section, among other things, the Donna Phase I Report states that the site consists of approximately 20 acres of relatively flat uncultivated land with native grasses and was used for agricultural purposes in the past; that no listings of environmental conditions were identified in the federal and State environmental records relating to the site; and that no evidence of stressed vegetation, hazardous or potentially hazardous materials were observed at the site. The Donna Phase I Report further states that according to public environmental records, one leaking petroleum storage tank site was identified within one half mile of the site, but that based on a physical reconnaissance of the area and a review of the available information, none of the listed sites are likely to have a negative impact on the property. The Donna Phase I Report concludes with the observation that, although no evidence of agricultural chemical spills was identified, agricultural chemicals were likely to have been applied to the property in the past. Hence, if the property is to be used for purposes that would involve frequent or prolonged contact with the soil and/or groundwater (e.g., school, playground, residence with water well, etc.), Ambiotec Environmental Consultants recommends collecting and analyzing soil and/or groundwater samples for relevant agricultural chemicals. IDEA has not requested that any additional environmental assessment be made at the Donna Campus site.
Frontier Campus
Drash Consulting Engineers, Inc., Pharr, Texas ("Drash Consulting") performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Frontier Campus property. In that connection, Drash Consulting prepared a report dated November 9, 2005 (the "Frontier Phase I Report"). The Frontier Phase I Report states that the assessment was undertaken using the ASTM 1527-00 Environmental Site Assessment, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process as a guide, to identify RECs. The Frontier Phase I Report cites the ASTM definition of RECs as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a site under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater or surface water of the property.
In its findings, the Frontier Phase I Report states that, among other things, the site had been agricultural land since at least 1950, the site is designated Zone AH according to the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Brownsville, effective September 15, 1983 (100-year shallow flooding where depths are between one and three feet), a review of selected federal and State environmental regulatory lists revealed no other facilities with environmental concerns that would likely adversely impact the site, and, ultimately,
C-1
that no RECs were noted. In its findings, the Frontier Phase I Report concludes with the statement that no further assessment is recommended.
Quest Campus
Drash Consulting performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Quest Campus property. In that connection, Drash Consulting prepared a report dated January 6, 2006 (the "Quest Phase I Report"). The Quest Phase I Report states that the assessment was undertaken using the ASTM 1527-00 Environmental Site Assessment, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process as a guide, to identify RECs. The Quest Phase I Report cites the ASTM definition of RECs as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a site under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater or surface water of the property.
In its executive summary, the Quest Phase I Report states that, among other things, the site had been agricultural land since at least 1939, the site is designated Zone X according to the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Hidalgo County (unincorporated), dated June 6, 2000 (areas of 500- year flooding and 100-year flooding with average depths of less than one foot or drainage areas less than one square mile and areas protected by levees from 100 year floods), a review of selected federal and State environmental regulatory lists revealed no other facilities with environmental concerns that would likely adversely impact the site, and, ultimately, that no RECs were noted based on site reconnaissance. In its findings, the Quest Phase I Report concludes with the statement that no further assessment is recommended.
IDEA recently acquired certain additional real property near the Quest Campus. There is no current intention of developing such property. No environmental assessment was performed with respect to such real property.
Mission Campus
Terracon Consultants, Inc., Pharr, Texas ("Terracon") performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Mission Campus property. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated October 14, 2009 (the "Mission Phase I Report"). The Mission Phase I Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Mission Phase I Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site, and that such purpose was undertaken through user-provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual non-invasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In its executive summary, the Mission Phase I Report states that, among other things, the site is an approximately 21-acre tract of land that has been improved with two school buildings; based on a review of the historical information, historical aerial photographs, and interviews, Terracon did not identify RECs in connection with the site; and the regulatory database identified no facilities within the specified search radii that could adversely affect the site. The executive summary concludes with the statement that, based on the scope of services, limitations, and findings of the assessment, Terracon did not identify RECs which, in its opinion, warrant additional investigation.
San Benito Campus
Ambiotec Environmental Consultants performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the San Benito Campus property. In that connection, Ambiotec Environmental Consultants prepared a report dated May 25, 2007 (the "San Benito Phase I Report"). The San Benito Phase I Report states that Ambiotec Environmental Consultants performed the assessment in accordance with Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 312 (Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries under CERCLA) and ASTM Publication E 1527-05 (Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process). The San Benito Phase I Report further states that the goal of the assessment was to identify, to the extent feasible and pursuant to professional standards, RECs relating to the site. The San Benito Phase I Report states that the scope of
C-2
the assessment included performing a visual site inspection of the site and surrounding properties, conducting personnel interviews and a search of public records to determine site history and environmental and regulatory status of the site and area properties.
In its executive summary, the San Benito Phase I Report states that, among other things, the site consists of approximately 20 acres of agricultural land which had been used for agricultural purposes since at least 1950; the site is located within 100-year flood zone; the assessment revealed no evidence of petroleum storage tanks, floor drains, transformer fluid spills or other regulated substances during the site inspection, and a review of public environmental records indicated no listings of reported environmental conditions for the site or for properties in the vicinity of the site. In its findings, the San Benito Phase I Report concludes with the statement that Ambiotec Environmental Consultants identified no environmental conditions relating to the property and considers the property to be a low environmental risk.
San Juan Campus (owned facilities only)
Melden & Hunt, Incorporated performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the San Juan Campus property owned by IDEA. In that connection, Melden & Hunt, Incorporated prepared a report dated August 6, 2010 (the "San Juan Phase I Report"). The San Juan Phase I Report states that the findings and opinions in such report were based upon the scope of work performed per ASTM E 1527-00, Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The San Juan Phase I Report states that Melden & Hunt, Incorporated followed accepted practices and used methods, techniques, and care normally used to reasonably locate pertinent data on which to base their opinions. The San Juan Phase I Report states that it was not directed at locating single incident dumping or spills, but rather, was concerned with detecting RECs or historical RECs pertaining to hazardous materials and petroleum based products.
The San Juan Phase I Report states that the site is approximately 30 acres of farm land with harvested grain on the property and is generally located inside the 500-year flood plain. In the findings and opinions contained in the San Juan Phase I Report, no RECs were found to be associated with the site during the site reconnaissance, no historical RECs were found to be associated with the property, and the conclusion to the San Juan Phase I Report noted that no RECs were found with respect to the property.
Alamo Campus
Terracon performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Alamo Campus property. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated April 30, 2009 (the "Alamo Phase I Report"). The Alamo Phase I Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Alamo Phase I Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site, and that such purpose was undertaken through user-provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual non-invasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In its executive summary, the Alamo Phase I Report states that, among other things, the site is an approximately 17-acre vacant tract of land with sparse trees and coastal grasses; based on a review of the historical information, historical aerial photographs, and interviews, Terracon did not identify RECs in connection with the site; and the regulatory database identified no facilities within the specified search radii that could adversely affect the site. The executive summary concludes with the statement that based on the scope of services, limitations, and findings of the assessment, Terracon did not identify RECs which, in its opinion, warrant additional investigation.
Pharr Campus
Terracon performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Pharr Campus property. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated May 22, 2009 (the "Pharr Phase I Report"). The Pharr Phase I Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Pharr Phase I Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site, and that such purpose was undertaken through user-provided information, a
C-3
regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual non-invasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In its executive summary, the Pharr Phase I Report states that, among other things, the site is an approximately 37-acre vacant tract of undeveloped land with a drainage ditch observed along its southern and eastern boundaries; based on a review of the historical information, historical aerial photographs, and interviews, Terracon did not identify RECs in connection with the site; the regulatory database identified no facilities within the specified search radii that could adversely affect the site; and based upon the information gathered from the site reconnaissance, general site information, and site operations, Terracon did not identify RECs in connection with the site. The executive summary concludes with the statement that based on the scope of services, limitations, and findings of the assessment, Terracon did not identify RECs which, in its opinion, warrant additional investigation.
Edinburg Campus
Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Edinburg Campus property. In that connection, Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. prepared a report dated May 18, 2010 (the "Edinburg Campus Phase I Report"). The Edinburg Campus Phase I Report states that the ASTM Practice E 1527- 05, Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process was used as a guidance document for the performance of the Edinburg Campus Phase I Report. The scope of work included, at a minimum, interviews with past and present owners, interviews with local government officials, review of historical sources of information, review of federal, state, tribal and local government records, site reconnaissance by an environmental professional, and report preparation.
The Edinburg Campus Phase I Report states that Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. observed no evidence of bulk storage of hazardous materials or petroleum products, oil, gas or groundwater wells, PCB – containing equipment or solid waste disposal, storage or generation. Additionally, field observations indicated no readily observable RECs in connection with the site's adjacent properties. The Edinburg Campus Phase I Report did not identify any potential adverse environmental conditions for the site and the adjacent properties from a review of historical aerial photographs and, although regulatory databases identified one municipal solid waste landfill facility located within the standard search radius of the site, it was determined that the referenced facility was not located adjacent to or in the immediate site vicinity, and potential adverse environmental impacts to the site were considered unlikely. The reconnaissance, regulatory database review, and historical records review revealed no evidence of historical RECs involving the site or adjacent properties. The Edinburg Campus Phase I Report concluded that the assessment revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the site.
Weslaco Campus
Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Weslaco Campus property. In that connection, Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. prepared a report dated May 19, 2010 (the "Weslaco Campus Phase I Report"). The Weslaco Campus Phase I Report states that the ASTM Practice E 1527-06, Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process was used as a guidance document for the performance of the Weslaco Campus Phase I Report. The scope of the work included, at a minimum, interviews with past and present owners, interviews with local government officials, review of historical sources of information, review of federal, state, tribal, and local government records, site reconnaissance by an environmental professional, and report preparation.
The Weslaco Campus Phase I Report states that Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. observed no evidence of bulk storage of hazardous materials or petroleum products, oil, gas or groundwater wells, PCB – containing equipment or solid waste disposal, storage or generation. Additionally field observations indicated no readily observable RECs in connection with the site's adjacent properties. The Weslaco Campus Phase I Report did not identify any potential adverse environmental conditions for the site and the adjacent properties from a review of historical aerial photographs and, although regulatory databases identified three non-geocoded regulated facilities within the standard search radius of the site, it was determined that the reported non-geocoded findings were not located on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, and potential adverse environmental impacts to the site were considered unlikely. The reconnaissance, regulatory databases review and historical records review revealed no evidence of historical RECs involving the site or adjacent properties. The Weslaco Campus Phase I Report concluded that the assessment revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the site.
C-4
McAllen Campus
Melden & Hunt, Incorporated performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the McAllen Campus property. In that connection, Melden & Hunt, Incorporated prepared a report dated November 24, 2010 (the "McAllen Phase I Report"). The McAllen Phase I Report states that the findings and opinions in such report were based upon the scope of work performed per ASTM E 1527-00, Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The McAllen Phase I Report states that Melden & Hunt, Incorporated followed accepted practices and used methods, techniques, and care normally used to reasonably locate pertinent data on which to base their opinions. The McAllen Phase I Report states that it was not directed at locating single incident dumping or spills, but rather, was concerned with detecting RECs or historical RECs pertaining to hazardous materials and petroleum based products.
The McAllen Phase I Report states that the site is approximately 23.5 acres of agricultural land and is generally located outside the 500-year flood plain. In the findings and opinions contained in the McAllen Phase I Report, the following RECs were noted: (i) a high pressure gas line crosses the property with no records of leaks or spills and (ii) there is an adjacent railroad track along the south side of the property and there is no evidence of spills or impact on the site from the railroad.
Brownsville Campus
Terracon performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Brownsville Campus property. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated May 27, 2011 (the "Brownsville Campus No. 2 Phase I Report"). The Brownsville Phase I Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Brownsville Phase I Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site, and that such purpose was undertaken through user- provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual non-invasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In its executive summary, the Brownsville Phase I Report states that, among other things, the site is an approximately 20-acre tract of land; based on a review of the historical information, the site was agricultural/undeveloped land from 1930 through the present day; and the regulatory database identified no facilities within the specified search radii that could adversely affect the site. The executive summary concludes with the statement that, based on the scope of services, limitations, and findings of the assessment, Terracon did not identify RECs which, in its opinion, warrant additional investigation.
Carver Campus
Terracon performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Carver Campus property. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated April 6, 2012 (the "Carver Phase 1 Report"). The Carver Phase I Report states that Terracon performed the assessment in accordance with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527- 05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.. The Carver Phase I Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site. The Carver Phase I Report states that the scope of the assessment included user provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual non-invasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In the executive summary, among other things, the Carver Phase I Report states that the site consists of an approximately 6.5-acre tract (IDEA believes the correct acreage is 4.41 acres) located at 226 North Hackberry Street in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. The site is described as currently developed with five buildings, a playground, a detached athletic field and associated paved parking and drive areas. Terracon identified documented and potential undocumented RECs at the former Friedrich Air Conditioning and Refrigeration facility (the "Friedrich Facility") which is located approximately 50 feet, up to cross-gradient and to the adjacent east/southeast to the Carver Campus. The Friedrich Facility is listed in selected federal and state environmental regulatory databases as an underground storage tank facility, industrial hazardous waste facility, biennial reporting facility,
C-5
facility registry facility and a toxic release inventory ("TRI") facility. The TRI listed 1,1,1-trichloroethane, acetone, copper and dichloromethane as chemicals which were released from the facility. In addition, the petroleum storage tank ("PST") database indicates that a PST was installed at the facility in 1959 and was abandoned in place. No information was provided regarding the content of the PST. The proximity of the Friedrich Facility to the Carver Campus, duration of operation of the Friedrich Facility as an air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment manufacturing facility, documented releases and potential undocumented releases from the Friedrich Facility constitute RECs to Carver Campus. IDEA contracted with Weston Solutions to perform 'subslab' tests to detect migration of contaminates under the existing Carver Campus buildings. A report issued by Weston Solutions stated that, after appropriate sample factors were considered, only one location would warrant further testing. Weston Solutions is being commissioned by IDEA to conduct further indoor air testing, as well as site borings at the athletic field to determine if any RECs require further action. Although Weston Solutions has not yet completed its testing, initial results indicate no significant environmental concerns. The school at the Carver Campus has been in operation for over 10 years without any claims related to environmental conditions.
South Flores Campus
Terracon (of San Antonio, Texas) performed two Phase I Environmental Site Assessments of separate parts of the South Flores Campus property (the properties were purchased in two separate transactions). In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated August 2, 2012 (the "First San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report") and a report dated February 25, 2013 (the "Second San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report" and, together with the First San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report, the “San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase I Report”). The San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase I Reports state that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase I Reports each state that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the applicable site as reflected by the scope of the applicable San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase I Report. The purpose was undertaken through user provided information, regulatory database reviews, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In the First San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report, it was noted that the site evaluated consisted of five parcels of an approximately 8.25-acre tract of land located near the southwest corner of S. Flores Street and W. Harding Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas. During site reconnaissance, trash, piles of concrete and asphalt and other debris were observed on the site. According to the First San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase I Report, the debris materials did not appear to be hazardous in nature. No indications of RECs were identified during field reconnaissance of the site conducted on July 26, 2012. Based on a review of the historical information, the site was undeveloped ranch land from at least 1903 until about 1927. Sometime between 1927 and 1938, residential development appeared on the northern portion of the site along W. Harding Blvd., and southern portion of the site along W. Ware Blvd. In the late 1990s to early 2000s, the residential structures were razed. The site has been undeveloped since at least 2004.
In the Second San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report, it was noted that the site evaluated consisted of an approximately 0.35-acre tract of land located at 6911 S. Flores Street in San Antonio, Texas, and that the site evaluated was developed with an approximately 5,866-square foot building which formerly operated as a grocery store, hair salon, and meat market. During site reconnaissance, trash and debris were observed on the site. According to the Second San Antonio Campus No. 2 Phase I Report, the trash and debris did not appear to be hazardous in nature. No indications of RECs were identified during field reconnaissance of the site conducted on February 19, 2013. Based on a review of the historical information, the site was undeveloped ranch land from at least 1903 until sometime before 1938 when a residence was present on the site. In approximately 1959, the residence was razed and the current onsite building was developed.
Several service/gasoline stations and/or automotive repair facilities have operated on adjacent properties and topographic up-gradient on the South Flores Campus site for approximately 40 years. Another site located approximately 100 feet northeast and up gradient of the South Flores Campus site is recorded as being occupied by successive gas stations. Comal Chemical Company formerly operated on a property approximately 220 feet north and up-gradient to the South Flores Campus site in 1955. Based on the duration of operation, close proximity, and topographic up-gradient location, the forgoing facilities represent a REC to the South Flores Campus site. A Valero
C-6
Corner Store is adjacent and up-gradient from the South Flores Campus site. The Valero facility is listed in the petroleum storage tank and leaking petroleum storage tank regulatory database. The tanks were reportedly removed from the ground. A release was reported from one of the tanks with groundwater impacts. No apparent threats or impact to receptors were reported and final concurrence was issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) for “case closure.” Based on the duration of operation as a gasoline/service station, a documented release that affected groundwater, proximity to the South Flores Campus site, and up-gradient location, the Valero Corner Store represents a REC to the South Flores Campus site.
Terracon recommended that the trash and debris be removed from the South Flores Campus site and disposed of in accordance with local and state regulations. Also, based on the historical use of adjacent properties, Terracon recommended a limited site investigation to investigate soil and groundwater from chemicals of concern (“COCs”) that may have been released during the operation of the adjacent facilities. IDEA engaged Terracon to perform the limited site investigation. Terracon performed the limited site investigation (“LSI”) in September 2012 to investigate if soil and/or groundwater had been affected by COCs. Analytical results indicated that five volatile organic compounds (acetone, benzene, toluene, MTBE and tetrachloroethene) were detected above the applicable analytical method detection limit. However, the concentrations were below the TCEQ action levels. The LSI concluded that no additional assessment of soil or groundwater was warranted; however, it was recommended that if soils at the site were to be excavated or otherwise removed from the ground as part of the renovation or construction activities, the generated soils should be properly managed or reused in accordance with applicable regulations. In addition, Terracon performed a limited asbestos survey and limited lead based paint survey on the building that was located on the South Flores Campus site. Some asbestos was located at the site and was removed by Terracon. Additionally, limited amounts of lead were located at the site. IDEA has since had the building demolished and removed.
Monterrey Park Campus
Terracon (of San Antonio, Texas) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Monterrey Park Campus property. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated January 21, 2013 (the "San Antonio Campus No. 3 Phase 1 Report"). The San Antonio Campus No. 3 Phase I Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The San Antonio Campus No. 3 Phase I Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of the San Antonio Campus No. 3 Phase I Report. The purpose was undertaken through user provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In the executive summary, among other things, the San Antonio Campus No. 3 Phase I Report states that the site consists of an approximately 21.56-acre tract of land located to the southeast of the intersection of W. Commerce Street and Southwest 39th Street in San Antonio, Texas. Based on a review of the historical information, the site was undeveloped land from at least 1903 to the issuance of the San Antonio Campus No. 3 Phase I Report. During site reconnaissance several areas of trash and debris were observed on the site. According to the San Antonio Campus No. 3 Phase I Report, there did not appear to be any hazardous materials within the trash and debris that would constitute a REC. However, several large mounds of what appeared to be fill material from an unknown source were present across the site. It was Terracon’s opinion that the presence of fill material from an unknown source in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the site constituted a REC to the site.
Terracon recommended the performance of a subsurface investigation to identify if the ill material has been affected by potential COCs from the unknown source. Additionally, Terracon recommended that the fill material be evaluated for geotechnical properties and to further assess if the fill material is suitable for reuse onsite.
Terracon performed a LSI to investigate soil and groundwater at specific areas of concern at the site. In such investigation, among other things, Terracon took and evaluated soil borings, made exploratory excavations and screened soil cores for organic vapors. It was noted that petroleum odors were detected in the test excavation on a portion of the site. The analytical results indicated that in certain borings and excavations, arsenic, lead and selenium levels exceeded the Texas-specific median background concentrations for those metals occurring naturally in Texas, although the results of additional analysis of the samples indicated that the COC leachate concentrations
C-7
would not be expected to leach form the soil and affect groundwater. The results of the investigation further indicated that the arsenic and lead concentrations were less than the respective direct human exposure action levels.
Based on the findings in the LSI, Terracon made the following recommendations:
• If soils at the site will be excavated or otherwise removed from the ground as part of the renovation of construction activities, the generated soils should be properly managed or reused in accordance with applicable regulations. • Implement a soil management plan to help ensure that the impacted soils at the site are properly managed. If non-inert buried debris is encountered during future construction activities, the debris should be properly managed and disposed of at a landfill. • If obtaining written concurrence from the TCEQ is desired that no further environmental investigation work would be necessary; forward a copy of the LSI report along with a Tier 1 Ecological Exclusion Checklist to the TCEQ Corrective Action Division for review.
Weslaco Pike Campus
Terracon (of Pharr, Texas) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Weslaco Pike Campus property. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated April 2, 2013 (the "Weslaco Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report"). The Weslaco Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Weslaco Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of the Weslaco Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report. The purpose was undertaken through user provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In the executive summary, among other things, the Weslaco Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report states that the site consists of an approximately 17.50-acre tract of vacant land with no improvements and consists of coastal grasses and sparse trees. The site is located at 1000 East Pike Boulevard in Weslaco, Texas. Based on a review of the historical information, the site was developed with a residential structure from 1939 to the late 1980s and undeveloped land from the late 1980s to present-day. According to the Weslaco Campus No. 2 Phase 1 Report, no RECs were identified in connection with the property.
Allan Campus
Terracon (of Austin, Texas) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Allan Campus. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated May 2, 2013 (the "Allan Campus Report"). The Allan Campus Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Allan Campus Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of the Replacement Campus Report. The purpose was undertaken through user provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In the executive summary, among other things, the Allan Campus Report states that the site consists of an approximately 10.0-acre tract of vacant undeveloped land. The site is located on the east side of Vargas Road, north of East Riverside Drive in Austin, Texas. Based on a review of the historical information, the site appears to have been vacant, undeveloped land from at least 1896 through the present-day. According to the Allan Campus Report, no RECs were identified in connection with the property.
Eastside Campus
Terracon (of San Antonio, Texas) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Eastside Campus. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated January 21, 2013 (the "Eastside Campus Report").
C-8
The Eastside Campus Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Eastside Campus Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of the Eastside Campus Report.
In the executive summary, among other things, the Eastside Campus Report states that the site consists of an approximately 13-acre tract of predominantly vacant land. Based on a review of the historical information, the site was developed with predominantly residential and public sector support services buildings from at least 1903 until sometime between 1996 and 2000 when the buildings were razed. Since then, the site had been vacant land. Based on the previous development of the site as a residential area during a period of time when lead-based paints were commonly used and because the buildings were razed, the Eastside Campus Report recognized the possible presence of lead as a potential REC. No other RECs were identified. Terracon recommended an investigation of shallow soil for the presence of lead.
Terracon (of Austin, Texas) performed a Limited Subsurface Investigation at the site. The scope of work included taking a continuous sampling of four soil borings to a depth of 5 feet and one boring to a depth of 35 feet below ground surface, collecting soil samples, converting the 35 foot deep soil boring to a groundwater monitoring well, developing and collecting a groundwater sample from the monitoring well and analyzing the soil and groundwater samples in accordance with the project sampling plan. The lead impacts to soils were limited to the depths of 5 feet or less and were below TCEQ action levels of 15 mg/Kg.
Based on the findings of the LSI, Terracon recommended that if soils at the site were to be excavated or otherwise removed from the ground as part of renovation or construction activities, the generated soils should be properly managed or reused in accordance with applicable regulations.
Rundberg Campus
Terracon (of Austin, Texas) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Rundberg Campus. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated July 25, 2014 (the "Rundberg Campus Report"). The Rundberg Campus Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The Rundberg Campus Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of the Rundberg Campus Report. The purpose was undertaken through user provided information, a regulatory database review, historical and physical records review, interviews, including local government inquiries, as applicable, and a visual noninvasive reconnaissance of the site and adjoining properties.
In the executive summary, among other things, the Rundberg Campus Report states that the site consists of an approximately 5.688-acre tract land developed for use as a bowling center since approximately 1988. Based on a review of the historical information, the site appears to have been vacant, undeveloped land from at least 1896 through the 1950s. The city directory review identified multiple facilities associated with automotive sale and repair businesses located on the site from the 1970 s through the 1980s and on the adjoining property to the north from the 1970s through the present day. The Rundberg Campus Report stated that based on the nature of those operations, it is Terracon’s experience that there is a high frequency of releases from those types of facilities. The former automotive sales/repair businesses appear to represent a REC in connection with the site. Terracon recommended a subservice investigation to evaluate the conditions of the soils, groundwater and soil vapors for impacts from potential undocumented releases from the current and former automotive repair businesses which were identified on the site and adjacent property.
Terracon (of Austin, Texas) performed a Limited Subsurface Investigation at the site. As part of the approved scope of services, a total of three borings/monitor wells were installed at the site, a total of six soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis and groundwater samples were collected. In addition, two sub-slab gas monitoring points were installed and used to collect two indoor air samples. Field evidence of volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) was observed in shallow soils at two boring sites. Laboratory analysis indicated that certain soil samples exhibited detectable total petroleum hydrocarbons (“TPHs”) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (“PAHs”) constituents, but no VOCs were detected. Laboratory analysis indicated that soil samples from all three
C-9
borings exhibited minor concentrations of several metals such as arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium and lead. The detected metals concentrations were representative of normal background levels. Detected petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations were compared to the TCEQ Petroleum Storage Tank Program Action Levels (“Action Levels”) and were below the established Action Levels. The groundwater samples did not exhibit detectable TPH concentrations, although they did exhibit detectable concentrations of several VOCs and PAH constituents. Additionally, the samples contained detectable concentrations of several dissolved metals, including arsenic, barium and lead. The detected level were representative of normal background levels. The detected petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations were below the established Action Levels. Laboratory analysis indicated that the outdoor air samples exhibited slight detections for Benzene, Toluene, Trichlorofluoromethane and Dichlorofluoromethane. Terracon compared the detected concentrations to United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) OSWER Draft Guidance. The detected concentrations in all of the samples did not exceed the EPA screening levels.
In conclusion, based on the results of the Limited Subsurface Investigation, Terracon recommended no further action.
In addition, Terracon (of Austin, Texas) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the 22.6 acre greenfields portion of the Rundberg Campus. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated October 4, 2013 (the "Greenfields Report"). The Greenfields Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. RECs were not identified in connection with the greenfields portion of the Rundberg Campus.
San Antonio Campus No. 8
Terracon (of San Antonio, Texas) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of San Antonio Campus No. 8. In that connection, Terracon prepared a report dated June 15, 2015 (the "San Antonio Campus No. 8 Report"). The San Antonio Campus No. 8 Report states that Terracon performed the assessment consistent with the procedures included in ASTM E 1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The San Antonio Campus No. 8 Report states that the purpose of the assessment was to assist IDEA in developing information to identify RECs in connection with the site as reflected by the scope of the San Antonio Campus No. 8 Report.
In the executive summary, among other things, the San Antonio Campus No. 8 Report states that the site consists of an approximately 30-acre tract of undeveloped land. Based on a review of the historical information, the site appears to have predominantly been vacant undeveloped and/or cultivated agricultural land from at least 1903 through the present. From at least 1927 to 1985, a rural residence and associated improvements were developed on the southwest portion of the site. In 1985, an area on the northwestern portion of the site was cleared and a small structure was developed, which has since been removed. According to the San Antonio Campus No. 8 Report, no RECs were identified in connection with the property.
C-10 APPENDIX D
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] IDEA Public Schools, Inc. Financial and Compliance Report June 30, 2016 and 2015 IDEA Public Schools, Inc. Table of Contents Page Exhibit Board of Directors 3 Certificate of Board 4 Independent Auditor’s Report 5 Financial Statements Statements of Financial Position 8 A 1 Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Assets 10 A 2 Statements of Cash Flows 14 A 3 Notes to the Financial Statements 15 Other Supplemental Information Statements of Activities for Individual Charter School 38 B 1 Schedules of Expenses for Individual Charter School 39 C 1 Schedule of Capital Assets for Individual Charter School 40 D 1 Budgetary Comparison Schedule for Individual Charter School 41 E 1 Compliance Section Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 45 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program and Report on Internal Control Over Compliance as Required by the Uniform Guidance 47 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 50 F 1 Corrective Action Plan 55 G 1 Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings 56 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 57 H 1 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 58
Page 1 (This page intentionally left blank.)
Page 2 IDEA Public Schools, Inc. Board of Directors Board of Directors Thomas E. Torkelson, Executive Chairman Bill Martin, Chairman Sergio Sanchez, Chairman Elect Reba Cardenas McNair, Secretary David Guerra, Treasurer Eric Ziehe, Member Gabe Puente, Member Bert Garcia, Member Ryan Vaughn, Member Xenia Garza, Member David Earl, Member Alonso Cantu, Member Edna de Saro, Member David Handly, San Antonio Regional Board Chair Al Lopez, Austin Regional Board Chair Chief Executive Officer Thomas E. Torkelson President and Superintendent JoAnn Gama Chief Financial Officer Wyatt J. Truscheit
Page 3
IDEA Public Schools, Inc. Federal Employer Identification Number: 74 2948339 Certificate of Board We, the undersigned, certify that the attached financial and compliance report of the above named charter
holder was reviewed and (check one) _____ approved _____ disapproved for the year ended June 30, 2016, at a meeting of the governing body of the charter holder on the 9th day of September, 2016.