Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas

Originated by SB218 of the 77 th Texas Legislature in Expands the public education accountability system in Texas to the Financial Services. Primary goal to improve management of school district’s financial resources. 2

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas Assess the quality of financial management in Texas public schools. Measure and report the extent to which financial resources are allocated for direct instructional purposes. Fairly evaluate the quality of financial management decisions. Openly report results to the general public. 3

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas Scores based on summation of points on 24 indicators: Maximum of 85 points:  Superior Achievement  Above Standard Achievement  Standard Achievement  Substandard Achievement <55  Suspended – Serious data quality problems  (No points awarded on questions 1-6) 4

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 1.Was the total fund balance less reserved fund balance greater than zero in the general fund?Yes Total Fund Balance$33,259,374 Less Reserves (564,368) $32,695,006 5

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 2.Was the total unrestricted net asset balance (net of accretion of interest on capital appreciation bonds) in the governmental activities column in the Statement of Net Assets greater than Zero? (If the District’s 5 year % change in students was more than 10%, then answer is “YES”.)Yes Total Unrestricted Net Assets$18,471,615 Plus: Accretion of Interest for CAB’s 5,651,983 $24,123,598 6

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 3. Were there NO disclosures in the annual financial report and/or other sources of information concerning default on bonded indebtedness obligations?Yes 4. Was the annual financial report filed within one month after the November 27 th or January 28 th deadline depending upon the district’s Fiscal Year end date (June 30 th or August 31 st )?Yes Due12/28/07 Filed11/09/07 7

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 5. Was there an unqualified opinion on annual financial report?Yes 6.Did the annual financial report not disclose any instances(s) of material weaknesses in Internal Controls?Yes 7. Did the District’s academic rating exceed Academically Unacceptable? Yes – 5 points 8

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 8. Was the three-year average percent of total tax collections (including delinquent) greater than 98% Yes - 5 points 3-Year Total Tax Collections$278,360,307 3-Year Total Tax Levy 279,839, Percent Collected Equals 99.47% 9

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 9.Did the comparisons of PEIMS data to like information in annual financial report result in an aggregate variance of less than 3 percent of expenditures per fund type (Data Quality Measure)? Yes – 5 points Sum of Differences 112 Total Entries158,234, % < 3.00% 10

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 10. Were debt related expenditures (net of IFA and/or EDA allotment) less than $250 per student? (If the District’s five-year percent change in students = or > 7%, or if property taxes collected per penny of tax effort > $200,000, then answer this indicator “YES”)? Yes – 5 points $1,445 is not < $250 however 31.17% change in students is > 7% and $554,746 > $200,000 of tax effort 11

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 11. Was there no disclosure in the annual audit report of material noncompliance? Yes – 5 points 12.Did the District have full accreditation status in relation to financial management practices? (e.g. No conservator or monitor assigned.) Yes – 5 points 12

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 13. Was the percent of operating expenditures expended for instruction more than 65% in functions 11,36,93, and 95?(Phased in over three years: 55% for 2006/2007; 60% for 2007/2008; and 65% for 2008/2009) Yes – 3 points (maximum value) General, Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds Functions 11, 36, 93, and 95$69,280, Functions 11-61, 93 and 95 $113,755,675 Equals 60.9% 13

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 14. Was the percent of operating expenditures expended for instruction more than 65% in functions 11,12,31,33, 36,93,and 95? Yes – 3 points (maximum value) General, Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds Functions 11,12,31,33,36,93,95$76,747, Functions 11-61, 93 and 95 $113,755,675 Equals 67.47% 14

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 15. Was the aggregate of budgeted expenditures and other uses less than the aggregate of total revenues, other resources and fund balance in general fund? Yes – 5 points Budgeted Revenues$106,755,924 + Budgeted Other Resources 775,000 + Beginning Fund Balance 22,211,253 - Budgeted Appropriations (106,371,222) - Budgeted Other Uses ( 0) $ 23,370,955 15

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 16.If the District’s aggregate fund balance in the General Fund and Capital Projects Fund was less than zero, were construction projects adequately financed? (to avoid creating or adding to a fund balance deficit situation) Yes – 5 points Fund Balance in General Fund$33,259,374 + Fund Balance in Capital Projects 37,490,101 $70,749,475 16

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 17.Was the ratio of cash and investments to deferred revenues (excluding amount equal to net delinquent taxes receivables) the General Fund = or > 1:1? (If deferred revenues < Net delinquent taxes receivable, then answer this indicator “Yes”.) Yes – 5 points Deferred Revenue in Gen. Fund$2,192,064 Less Property Tax Rec. Net of Uncollectible $3,174,229 ($ 982,165) 17

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 18.Was the administrative cost ratio less than the threshold ratio? Yes – 5 points District State Standard.0635<

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas Was the ratio of students to teachers within the ranges shown below according to District size? Yes – 5 points # of StudentsLowHigh < =>10, Was the ratio of students to total staff within the ranges shown below according to District size? Yes – 5 points 8.93 # of StudentsLowHigh < =>10,

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 21.Was the total fund balance in the General Fund more that 50% and less than 150% of optimum according to the fund balance and cash flow calculation worksheet in the annual financial report? Yes – 5 points Optimum Fund Balance$36,805,820 50% of Opt. Gen Fund Balance 150% of Opt. $18,402,910 < $33,259,374 < $55,208,730 20

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 22.Was the decrease in undesignated unreserved fund balance < 20% over two fiscal years? Yes – 5 points 23.Was the aggregate total of cash and investments in the General Fund more than $0? Yes – 5 points We had an increase in fund balance over two fiscal years. Cash + Investments = $37,311,776 21

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 24.Were investment earnings in all funds more than $20 per student? Yes – 4 points (maximum value) Investment Earnings1,938, Number of Students 16,407 = $ / student 22

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas Scored 85 out of 85 possible points! SUPERIOR ACHIEVEMENT 23

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas RATINGSCOUNT % TOTAL ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT Superior Achievement %4,189, % Above Standard Achievement %62, % Standard Achievement 60.58% % Substandard Achievement %180, % Suspended Due to Data Quality 10.10%1, % 24

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 25

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas 26