Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas. Originated by SB218 of the 77 th Texas Legislature in 2001. Amended in 2007, 2009 and 2011 Expands the public

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas


Originated by SB218 of the 77th Texas Legislature in 2001. Amended in 2007, 2009 and 2011

Expands the public education accountability system in Texas to the Financial Services.

Primary goal to improve management of school district’s financial resources.

2


Assess the quality of financial management in Texas public schools.

Fairly evaluate the quality of financial management decisions.

Openly report results to the general public.

3


Scores based on summation of points on 20 indicators: Maximum of 70 points:

Superior Achievement 64-70 Above Standard Achievement 58-63 Standard Achievement 52-57 Substandard Achievement <52 (No points awarded on questions 1-6)

4


1. Was the total fund balance less Nonspendable and Restricted fund balance greater than zero in the general fund?Yes

Total Fund Balance $37,210,045Less Reserves (243,962)

$36,966,083

5


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 $38,586,665Plus: Accretion of Interest for CAB’s 2,668,412

$41,255,077

6


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 27th or January 28th deadline depending upon the district’s Fiscal Year end date (June 30th or August 31st)?Yes

Due 12/28/11Filed 10/28/11

7


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

8


7. Was the three-year average percent of total tax collections (including delinquent) greater than 98%Yes - 5 points

3-Year Total Tax Collections $322,298,4083-Year Total Tax Levy 319,036,677

-----------------Percent Collected Equals 101.02% > 98%

9


8. 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 104Total Entries 259,278,353

0.000% < 3.00%

10


9. Were debt related expenditures (net of IFA and/or EDA allotment) less than $350 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

$1,938 is not < $350however

14.13% change in students is > 7%and

$729,038 > $200,000 of tax effort

11


10. Was there no disclosure in the annual audit report of material noncompliance?Yes – 5 points

11. Did the District have full accreditation status in relation to financial management practices? (e.g. No conservator or monitor assigned.)Yes – 5 points

12


12. 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 $132,972,984+ Budgeted Other Resources 1,774,000+ Beginning Fund Balance 34,486,188 - Budgeted Appropriations (136,695,262)

- Budgeted Other Uses 0 $ 32,537,210

15


13.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 $37,210,045

+ Fund Balance in Capital Projects 83,923,510 $121,133,555

16


14.Was the ratio of cash and investments to deferred revenues (excluding amount equal to net delinquent taxes receivables) in 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 $981,760

Less Property Tax Rec. Net of Uncollectible $1,206,910

($ 225,150)

Cash and Investments in Gen Fund $40,281,776

17


15.Was the administrative cost ratio less than the threshold ratio?Yes – 5 points

District State Standard

.0609 < .1105

18


15.33

16.Was the ratio of students to teachers within the ranges shown below according to District size?Yes – 5 points

# of Students Low High

<500 7.0 22

500 - 999 10.0 22

1000 - 4999 11.5 22

5000 - 9999 13.0 22

=>10,000 13.5 22

17.Was the ratio of students to total staff within the ranges shown below according to District size?Yes – 5 points

8.51

# of Students Low High

<500 5.0 14

500 - 999 5.8 14

1000 - 4999 6.3 14

5000 - 9999 6.8 14

=>10,000 7.0 14

19


18.Was the decrease in undesignated unreserved fund balance < 20% over two fiscal years?Yes – 5 points

19.Was the aggregate total of cash and investments in the General Fund more than $0?Yes – 5 points

Undesignated Fund Balance at year end $27,966,083Undesignated Fund Balance-2 yrs prior $26,996,437

Percentage Increase(Decrease) 3.6%

Cash + Investments = $40,281,776

21


20. Did investment earnings in all funds (excluding Debt Service Fund and Capital Projects Fund) meet or exceed the 3-month treasury bill rate?Yes – 5 points

Annual investment earnings rate .3552-------------

3-month T-Bill benchmark rate .0950

.3552 > .0950

22


Scored 70 out of 70 possible points!

SUPERIOR ACHIEVEMENT

23

http://www.barrysclipart.com/barrysclipart.com/showphoto.php?photo=22378&papass=&sort=1&thecat=177


RATINGS COUNT % TOTAL ENROLLMENT% TOTAL

ENROLLMENT

Superior Achievement 897 87.17% 4,571,400 95.66%

Above Standard Achievement 85 8.26% 138,227 2.89%

Standard Achievement 23 2.24% 10,574 0.22%

Substandard Achievement 24 2.33% 58,487 1.22%

Totals 1,029 100.00% 4,778,688 100.00%

24


Superior Achievement Above Standard Achievement

Standard Achievement Substandard Achievement

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2011 State Data 2012 State Data

25


26

Documents

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas. Originated by SB218 of the 77 th Texas Legislature in 2001. Amended in 2007, 2009 and 2011 Expands the public