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 of 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.
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. 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 – 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”.
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. 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.
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%, or if property taxes collected per penny of 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. 10. Was there NO disclosure in the annual audit report of material noncompliance? YES – The District followed the rules set out by TEA. 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.
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 one 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% over two fiscal years? YES – There was no decrease in the fund balance.
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. 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%.
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 For the Twelve-month Period Ended August 31, 2013 Description of Dr. Greg Edward Robert David George Reimbursements Gibson Scott Harrod Finley Westbrook Gary Inmon Pevoto Mark Wilson 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 * 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 of payment, including direct pay, credit card, cash, and purchase order.
DISCLOSURE #3 Outside Compensation and/or Fees Received by the Superintendent for Professional Consulting and/or Other personal Services in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 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 #4 Gifts Received by the Executive Officer(s) and Board Members (and First Degree Relative, if any) in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 NONE TO REPORT DISCLOSURE #5 Business Transactions Between School District and Board Members for Fiscal Year 2013 NONE TO REPORT
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 Does the district have major construction Yes, to be paid with projects underway or planned? 2013 Bond Funds Has the district defaulted on any debts within the past two years? No How many business managers has your school district had in the last 5 years? 1 Additional comments or explanations None
Questions and Comments
Recommend
More recommend
