ISD PUBLIC HEARING October 16, 2014 WHAT IS SCHOOLS FIRST? - - PDF document

SCHERTZ-CIBOLO-UNIVERSAL CITY ISD PUBLIC HEARING October 16, 2014

WHAT IS SCHOOLS FIRST?

• Schools FIRST is the Financial Integrity

Rating System of Texas.

• This is the tenth year the financial health
• f every school district in Texas has been

evaluated.

• The primary goal of Schools FIRST is to

achieve quality performance in the management of the school district’s financial resources, a goal made more significant due to the complexity of accounting associated with Texas School Finance Systems.

• School districts are required to hold a

public meeting to publicize the district’s financial report and rating.

2012-2013 Texas Ratings

RATINGS COUNT % TOTAL Superior Achievement 912 88.98% Above Standard Achievement 83 8.10% Standard Achievement 16 1.56% Substandard Achievement 12 1.17% Suspended Due to Data Quality 2 0.19% Totals 1,025 100.00%

Source: TEA’s Web site

SCHOOLS FIRST RATING FOR SCUC ISD

• Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD

received a Superior Achievement Rating from TEA.

• Rating based upon an analysis of staff,

student, budgetary, and actual financial data based on the 2012-2013 School Fiscal Year.

• Twenty Indicators were used by TEA to

determine the district’s Schools FIRST Rating.

20 RATING INDICATORS

• 1. Was the total fund balance less

nonspendable and restricted fund balance greater than zero in the General Fund?

YES - Audited fund balance less nonspendable and restricted fund balance - $42,700,768

• 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 10% more)

YES- Unrestricted net asset balance is greater than zero.

• 4. Was the annual financial report filed

within one month after the November 27th

• r January 28th deadline depending upon

the district’s fiscal year-end date (June 30th

• r August 31st)?

YES – Financial report was filed with TEA as of 01/07/2014.

• 5. Was there an Unqualified Opinion in

Annual Financial Report?

YES- The District received an unqualified opinion or “clean audit”.

• 3. Were there NO disclosures in the annual

financial report and/or other sources of information concerning default on bonded indebtedness obligations?

YES – Bond payments were made in a timely manner.

• 7. Was the 3 year average percent of total tax

collections (including delinquent) greater that 98%?

YES- The District’s Tax Collection Rate – 99.99%

• 8. Did the comparison 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?

YES – PEIMS data passed the data quality measures set by TEA.

• 6. Did the annual financial report NOT

disclose any instance (s) of material weakness in internal controls?

YES – There were no material weaknesses in internal

• controls. Checks and balances were in place.

• 9. Were debt related expenditures (net of

IFA and / or EDA allotment) <$350.00 per student? (If the district’s five year percent change in students = or > 7%,

• r if property taxes collected per penny
• f tax effort > $200,000 per student)

NO- SCUC debt related expenditures per student

was $1,111, but the district is a rapidly growing

• district. Percent change in students was 21.7% and

per penny of tax effort is $372,755, which results in a yes answer for the district.

• 11. Did the district have full accreditation

status in relation to financial management practices? (e.g. no conservator or monitor assigned)

YES – The district has full accreditation.

• 10. Was there NO disclosure in the annual

audit report of material noncompliance?

YES – The District followed the rules set out by TEA.

• 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 – The district’s total expenditures did not exceed revenue and fund balance amounts.

• 13. If the district’s aggregate fund balance in

General Fund and Capital Projects Fund was less than zero, were construction projects adequately financed?

YES – Construction projects were adequately funded with the bond issues.

• 14. Was the ratio of cash and investments to

deferred revenues in the General Fund greater than or equal to 1:1?

YES – The district did not spend the overpayment from TEA.

• 15. Was the administrative cost ratio less than

the Threshold ratio?

YES – Administrative Cost Ratio for SCUC - .059 TEA- District Standard - .1105

• 16. Was the ratio of students to teachers

within the ranges shown below according to district size?

YES- SCUC student to teacher ratio is 17.637 students to one teacher. State ratio range is 13.5 to 22 students to one teacher.

• 17. Was the ratio of students to total staff

within the ranges shown below according to district size?

YES – SCUC student to staff ratio is 9.202 students to

• ne staff member.

State ratio range is 7.0 to 14 students to one staff member.

• 18. Was the decrease in undesignated

unreserved fund balance less than 20%

• ver two fiscal years?

YES – There was no decrease in the fund balance.

• 20. Did investment earnings in all funds

(excluding debt service and capital project funds) meet or exceed the 3- month Treasury Bill rate? Yes- SCUC earnings rate was 0.1414%, which is

greater than 0.0717%.

• 19. Was the aggregate total of cash and

investments in the general fund more than $0? Yes- The district had $43,077,955 in the bank and

investments at the end of the fiscal year.

RESULTS? 20 OUT OF 20 70 points out of 70 points

(52 points minimum to pass)

Rating SUPERIOR ACHIEVEMENT!

DISCLOSURE #1 SUPERINTENDENT’S CONTRACT

DISCLOSURE #2 Reimbursements Received by the Superintendent and Board Members for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 * The spirit of the rule is to capture all “reimbursements” or payments made on behalf of Board Members or the Superintendent for fiscal year 2013, regardless of the manner

• f payment, including direct pay, credit card, cash, and

purchase order.

For the Twelve-month Period Ended August 31, 2013 Description of Reimbursements

• Dr. Greg

Gibson Scott Harrod Edward Finley Robert Westbrook Gary Inmon David Pevoto Mark Wilson George Ricks Meals 60.00 $ 47.50 $

• $
• $
• $
• $
• $
• $

Lodging 630.13 $ 639.83 $ 433.82 $ 2,298.29 $

• $

433.82 $ 523.77 $ 227.81 $ Transportation 1,058.67 $ 61.77 $

• $

838.78 $

• $

61.77 $

• $
• $

Motor Fuel 34.12 $

• $
• $
• $
• $
• $
• $
• $

Other 2,815.96 $ 55.44 $

• $

63.00 $

• $

18.48 $

• $
• $

Total 4,598.88 $ 804.54 $ 433.82 $ 3,200.07 $

• $

514.07 $ 523.77 $ 227.81 $

Total 10,302.96 $

DISCLOSURE #3 Outside Compensation and/or Fees Received by the Superintendent for Professional Consulting and/or Other personal Services in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 DISCLOSURE #4 Gifts Received by the Executive Officer(s) and Board Members (and First Degree Relative, if any) in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 DISCLOSURE #5 Business Transactions Between School District and Board Members for Fiscal Year 2013 NONE TO REPORT NONE TO REPORT

For the Twelve-Month Period Ended August 31, 2013 Amount Name of Entities Superintendent Received UTSA

• Dr. Gibson

7,083.50 $ Total 7,083.50 $

DISCLOSURE #6 Financial Solvency Report General Fund First Quarter Expenditures Only

2013-2014 Payroll Expenditures (6100) 18,767,682 Contract Costs (6200) 2,281,853 Supplies and Materials (6300) 779,324 Other Operating (6400) 614,636 Debt Service (6500)

• Capital Outlay (6600)

9,878 Within the last 2 years, 1) did the district draw funds from a short-term financing note between the months of September and December No 2) and for the prior fiscal year have a total general fund balance of less than 2% of total expenditures for the general fund function codes 11-61? No No 1 Additional comments or explanations None Has the district defaulted on any debts within the past two years? How many business managers has your school district had in the last 5 years? Does the district have major construction projects underway or planned?

Yes, to be paid with 2013 Bond Funds

Questions and Comments