09-10 FIRST Results

Below is a copy of the preliminary results of our Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST) results for the 09-10 school year. I am pleased to report that once again EISD has achieved the rating of “Superior Achievement”. The FIRST system is designed to give school districts and the public an overview of how the district is doing with regards to finances.

As you can see, some of the indicators are yes/no and other indicators are rated on 5 point scale. A perfect score would be a total of 80. For the 09-10 school year EISD received 78 points. You can click on an indicator for more information.

In the coming months, EISD will hold a public hearing to discuss the financial situation of the district. The FIRST results will be a part of that hearing.


Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas

2009-2010 District Status Detail

Name: EUSTACE ISD(107905) Publication Level 1: 6/17/2011 9:03:31 AM
Status: Passed Publication Level 2: None
Rating: Superior Achievement Last Updated: 6/17/2011 9:03:31 AM
Indicators Answered YES: 21 Indicators Answered NO: 1
District Score: 78 Passing Score: 56


# Indicator Description Updated Score
1 Was The Total Fund Balance Less Reserved Fund Balance Greater Than Zero In The General Fund? 4/25/2011 7:50:22 PM Yes
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) 4/25/2011 7:50:22 PM Yes
3 Were There No Disclosures In The Annual Financial Report And/Or Other Sources Of Information Concerning Default On Bonded Indebtedness Obligations? 4/25/2011 7:50:23 PM Yes
4 Was The Annual Financial Report Filed Within One Month After November 27th or January 28th Deadline Depending Upon The District’s Fiscal Year End Date (June 30th or August 31st)? 4/29/2011 3:43:55 PM Yes
5 Was There An Unqualified Opinion in Annual Financial Report? 4/25/2011 7:50:23 PM Yes
6 Did The Annual Financial Report Not Disclose Any Instance(s) Of Material Weaknesses In Internal Controls? 4/25/2011 7:50:23 PM Yes
      1 Multiplier Sum
7 Did the Districts Academic Rating Exceed Academically Unacceptable? 4/25/2011 7:50:23 PM 5
8 Was The Three-Year Average Percent Of Total Tax Collections (Including Delinquent) Greater Than 98%? 4/25/2011 7:50:23 PM 5
9 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 (Data Quality Measure)? 5/10/2011 10:02:45 PM 5
10 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) 4/25/2011 7:50:24 PM 3
11 Was There No Disclosure In The Annual Audit Report Of Material Noncompliance? 4/25/2011 7:50:24 PM 5
12 Did The District Have Full Accreditation Status In Relation To Financial Management Practices? (e.g. No Conservator Or Monitor Assigned) 4/25/2011 7:50:24 PM 5
13 Was The Aggregate Of Budgeted Expenditures And Other Uses Less Than The Aggregate Of Total Revenues, Other Resources and Fund Balance In General Fund? 4/25/2011 7:50:25 PM 5
14 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 The Fund Balance Deficit Situation) 5/10/2011 4:06:27 PM 5
15 Was The Ratio Of Cash And Investments To Deferred Revenues (Excluding Amount Equal To Net Delinquent Taxes Receivable) In The General Fund Greater Than Or Equal To 1:1? (If Deferred Revenues Are Less Than Net Delinquent Taxes Receivable) 4/25/2011 7:50:25 PM 5
16 Was The Administrative Cost Ratio Less Than The Threshold Ratio? 4/25/2011 7:50:25 PM 5
17 Was The Ratio Of Students To Teachers Within the Ranges Shown Below According To District Size? 4/25/2011 7:50:25 PM 5
18 Was The Ratio Of Students To Total Staff Within the Ranges Shown Below According To District Size? 4/25/2011 7:50:26 PM 5
19 Was The Total Fund Balance In The General Fund More Than 50% And Less Than 150% Of Optimum According To The Fund Balance And Cash Flow Calculation Worksheet In The Annual Financial Report? 4/25/2011 7:50:26 PM 5
20 Was The Decrease In Undesignated Unreserved Fund Balance < 20% Over Two Fiscal Years?(If 1.5 Times Optimum Fund Balance < Total Fund Balance In General Fund Or If Total Revenues > Operating Expenditures In The General Fund,Then District Receives 5 Points) 4/25/2011 7:50:26 PM 5
21 Was The Aggregate Total Of Cash And Investments In The General Fund More Than $0? 4/25/2011 7:50:26 PM 5
22 Were Investment Earnings In All Funds (Excluding Debt Service Fund and Capital Projects Fund) More Than $20 Per Student? 4/25/2011 7:50:27 PM 5
      78 Weighted Sum
      1 Multiplier Sum
      78 Score

Determination Of Rating

A. Did The District Answer ‘No‘ To Indicators 1, 2, 3 Or 4? OR Did The District Answer ‘No‘ To Both 5 and 6? If So, The District’s Rating Is Substandard Achievement.
B. Determine Rating By Applicable Range For summation of the indicator scores (Indicators 7-22)
Superior Achievement 72-80 and Yes to indicator 7
Above Standard Achievement 64-71 or >= 72 and No to indicator 7
Standard Achievement 56-63
Substandard Achievement <56 or No to one default indicator

Indicator 17 & 18 Ratios

Indicator 17 Ranges for Ratios   Indicator 18 Ranges for Ratios
District Size – Number of Students Between Low High District Size – Number of Students Between Low High
< 500 7 22 < 500 5 14
500-999 10 22 500-999 5.8 14
1000-4999 11.5 22 1000-4999 6.3 14
5000-9999 13 22 5000-9999 6.8 14
=> 10000 13.5 22 => 10000 7.0 14

Leave a Reply