1 schools fir$t eagle pass isd 2006 report september 12, 2006 financial integrity rating system of...

1

Schools FIR$T

Eagle Pass ISD

2006 Report

September 12, 2006

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas

2

Financial Accountability

Known as “Schools FIR$T”• Fourth Year of Implementation

• Created by the Texas Legislature in 2001

• Designed to help improve management of school districts’ financial resources by evaluating their Financial Performance

• Evaluates the financial health, stability, and condition of school districts in Texas

• Provides Financial Management Performance Rating of school districts for the Texas Education Agency (TEA)

Rating System of Texas

3

How Much Money Flows Through Texas Public School Business Offices?

Amount* Percentage

Local $14,942,058,462 42.63%

State $12,309,158,320 35.12%

Federal $ 2,418,773,992 6.90%

Financing -Bonds $ 5,333,850,386 15.22%

Capital Leases $ 47,149,266 0.13%

Total* $35,050,990,426 100.00%

* TEA Statistical Info: FY Ended August 31, 2001 (in billions)

4

EAGLE PASS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

FISCAL YEAR 2004-05

ALL FUNDS

2004-05 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT

OTHER LOCAL$2,311,486

2.2%

TAX EFFORT$14,502,130

13.5%

FEDERAL$21,092,980

19.7%

STATE$69,364,544

64.7%

TOTAL REVENUES $107,271,140

TOTAL REVENUES-ALL FUNDSBY SOURCE

5

Range of PublicSchool Expenditures

in 1,040 Districts

SMALLEST

$203,896

LARGEST

$1.8 Billion

04-05 EPISD*

$104.4 Million

Note: EPISD is 173rd Largest District (Top 17%)

* 2004-05 Annual Financial Report

6

• Total Enrollment * 13,531

• Campuses 24

• Total Staff * 1,896

• Teachers * 794 (Starting Salary: $33,000)

• Payroll Checks ** 58,200

• Governmental Fund Budgets 75

• Total G/L Accounts ** 18,000

• Purchase Orders Per Year ** 9,254

• Total Vendors 8,500 (500 Local Vendors)

* 2004-2005 AEIS Report

** Estimated

EPISD Fact Sheet2004-2005

7

Defined

• Expands the Public Education Accountability System in Texas to include both Academic and Financial Reporting

• Comprised of indicators at the district level similar to the current Academic Performance Rating System (AEIS Report)

8

Financial Accountability

Rating System

• SB 875, 76th Legislative Session

• TEA consulted with Comptroller of Public Accounts

• TEA forwarded a Proposal to Legislature in December, 2000

• SB 218 Requires Implementation of this System

9

Senate Bill 218

• Subchapter I. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY Added to Chapter 39, Texas Education Code

• Section 39.201. Definitions

• Section 39.202. Development and Implementation

• Section 39.203. Reporting

• Section 39.204. Rules

10

Goals

•Achieve improved performance in the management of school districts’ financial resources

• Facilitate better uses of financial resources

•Demonstrate increased district financial performance

11

Objectives• Assess the quality of financial management

• Publicly report the Rating

• Assure the maximum allocation possible for direct instructional purposes

• Implement a Rating System that fairly and equitably evaluates the quality of financial management decisions

12

Objectives (Continued)Make a Financial Rating System that:

• Is simple and understandable

• Is applicable to all districts

• Is based on quantifiable data

• Allows for self administration

• Provides an early warning

• Is substantially within district’s control

• Is zero burden to districts

13

Data Sources

•Annual Financial Reports filed by school district

•Public Education Information

Management System (PEIMS) Data

14

District Ratings• Based on 21 Indicators

• Failure to pass any of the First 5 (Five) Indicators will result in Automatic Failing:

Indicator #1: Deficit Fund Balance in General Fund

Indicator #2: Default on Debt Payment

Indicator #3: Annual Financial Report not filed within one

Month after November 27 or January 28

Indicator #4: Qualified Opinion in Audit

Indicator #5: Material Weaknesses in Internal Controls

15

District RatingsRating Number of

“No” Answers

• Superior Achievement 0-2

• Above Standard Achievement 3-4

• Standard Achievement 5-6

• Substandard Achievement

More than 6 or No to Default Indicator

• Suspended – Data Quality

16

Sanctions

Substandard Achievement Rating may result in assignment of a

Financial Monitor or Master to control district finances.

17

TEA Reports Require:• Distribution of hard copy reports in transitional year of implementation

1st Year: FY 2001-2002 3rd Year: 2003-2004

2nd Year: FY 2002-2003 4th Year: 2004-2005

• Publication on TEA internet site during full implementation

• Public Notice Posting of Rating

• Public Meeting for discussion of Ratings

18

Overview of 21 Indicators(Divided into Five Components)

I. Critical Indicators (Indicators #1-5)

II. Fiscal Responsibility (Indicators #6-10)

III. Budgeting (Indicators #11-14)

IV. Personnel Management (Indicators #15-17)

V. Cash Management (Indicators #18-21)

19

Five Critical Indicators(Required for a “Passing Rating”)

• Are you Bankrupt?

• Did you pay your Bond Payments?

• Did you file Reports on Time?

• Did you receive a Clean Audit?

• Have you kept the District in Financial Compliance?

20

I. Critical Indicators

(Indicators #1-5)

21

Are you bankrupt?

22

Indicator 1

Are you bankrupt?

1. Was Total Fund Balance less Reserved Fund Balance, greater than

zero in the General Fund?

* Current Result: Yes

** Previous Result: Yes

Calculations: * Total General Fund Balance as of 8/31/05 $8,621,972 LESS Reserves $89,784 = $8,532,188** Total General Fund Balance as of 8/31/04 $6,509,570 LESS Reserves $204,962 = $6,304,608

23

Districts w/ Deficit Fund Balance in General Fund

178

3

15 13

2419

30 34 31

010203040

Fiscal Year

Num

ber

of

Dis

tric

ts

24

EAGLE PASS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTREVENUES VS. EXPENDITURES

MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FUND

45

50

55

60

65

Mill

ion

s

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

EXPENDITURES

REVENUES

EAGLE PASS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

REVENUES VS. EXPENDITURES

MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS FUND

2001-02 AUDITED 2002-03 AUDITED 2003-04 AUDITED 2004-05 AUDITED 2005-06 BUDGET$45.00

$50.00

$55.00

$60.00

$65.00

$70.00M

illi

on

s

EXPENDITURES

REVENUES

$47,973,305

$50,146,293

$54,467,398

$64,367,741

$51,485,576 +$2,172,988 SURPLUS

+$2,981,822 SURPLUS

$60,922,177

$63,608,128

$67,238,970

$65,190,938-$1,624,580 DEFICIT

-$2,048,032 DEFICIT

$62,743,161

+$2,685,951 SURPLUS

2001-02 AUDITED 2002-03 AUDITED 2003-04 AUDITED 2004-05 AUDITED 2005-06 AUDITED

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

Millions

ENDING FUNDBAL.

REV./STUDENT

COST/STUDENT

$5,758,096

$3,808 $4,554

$7,382,676

$3,781

$4,400,854

$3,617 $4,029 $4,671

$8,444,045

$6,396,013

$4,364 $4,599$4,451 $4,743

2001-02 % 2002-03 % 2003-04 % 2004-05 % 2005-06

AUDITED CHANGE AUDITED CHANGE AUDITED CHANGE AUDITED CHANGE BUDGET

PEAK ENROLLMENT 13,262 2% 13,519 2% 13,779 1% 13,976 1% 14,176

REFINED ADA 12,020 2% 12,223 2% 12,490 2% 12,702 1% 12,840

STATE REV. PER ADA $3,870 -5% $3,675 6% $3,893 16% $4,511 -3% $4,382

M & O TAX RATE $1.24 2% $1.27 0% $1.27 0% $1.27 6% $1.35

TIER II $12,572,284 7% $13,419,930 44% $19,377,461 0% $19,423,824 -2% $19,131,606

CURRENT/DEL. COLL. RATE 98% 0% 98% 0% 98% 0% 98% 0% 98%

TEA*

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

Millio

ns

$9,397,148

25

Fund Balance Spending

• Is for nonrecurring costs.

• Is not for paying recurring costs such as payroll, utilities, etc.

• Should not be too low or too high.

26

Indicator 2Did you pay your Bond Payments?

2. Were there no disclosures in the Annual Financial Report and/or other sources of information concerning default on bonded

indebtedness obligations?


** Previous Result: YesCalculations: * The Annual Financial Report for the year ended August 31, 2005 did not disclose Default Disclosures.** The Annual Financial Report for the year ended August 31, 2004 did not disclose Default Disclosures.

27

Did you pay your Bond Payments?

• No defaults through 2005

• Ability to pay over time

• Debt retirement to utilize Interest & Sinking Tax Rates

• I & S Revenues, not too much or too little

28

Indicator 3Did you file Reports on time?

3. 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)?


** Previous Result: YesCalculations: * Date Audit Received 12-16-05 (Due Date: 02-28-06)** Date Audit Received 12-20-04 (Due Date: 02-28-05)

29

Indicator 4

Did you receive a Clean Audit?

4. Was there an unqualified opinion in Annual Financial Report?



Calculations: * Unqualified Opinion for 2004-2005 Annual Financial Report** Unqualified Opinion for 2003-2004 Annual Financial Report

30

Did you receive a Clean Audit?• Illegal deficit spending

• Lack of internal controls

• Misappropriation of funds

• Co-mingling of Designated Purpose Funds

• Failure to meet 85% Requirement

• Improper securities by depository

31

Indicator 5

Have you kept the District in Financial Compliance?

5. Did the Annual Financial Report not disclose any instance(s) of material

weaknesses in internal controls?


** Previous Result: YesCalculations: * No disclosure of Weak Internal Controls included in the 2004-2005 Annual Financial Report.** No disclosure of Weak Internal Controls included in the 2003-2004 Annual Financial Report.

32

Have you kept the District in Financial Compliance?

• Check and balance system

• Internal controls intended to guarantee:

–Proper recording of transactions

–Legal compliance

–Safeguard funds, property & assets against loss

33

II. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

(Indicators #6-10)

34

Indicator 6

Are you doing a good job collecting your taxes?

6. Was the percent of Total Tax Collections (Including Delinquent)

greater than 96%?


** Previous Result: YesCalculations: * 2004-05 Total Tax Collections Total Tax Levy = 14,502,130 ** 2003-04 Total Tax Collections ¸Total Tax Levy = 13,382,473 13,587,674 = 98.48%

35

EPISD Taxes Collected

Current* Delinquent** Total2005 89.41% 8.25% 97.66%

2004 88.51% 9.97% 98.48%

2003 87.87% 11.10% 98.97%

2002 88.02% 9.63% 97.65%

2001 85.03% 9.77% 94.80%

Ninety percent (90%) of school districts state-wide collect 96% of their taxes or more.

*Current Collections Tax Levy = $13,277,294 14,850,249 = 89.41%, Total Current

**Delinquent Collections Tax Levy = $1,224,836 14,850,249 = 8.25%, Total Delinquent

36

Indicator 7Do your numbers match?

7. Did the comparisons of PEIMS Data to like information in Annual Financial Report result in an aggregate variance of less than 4% of expenditures per Fund Type (Data Quality

Measure)?


** Previous Result: Yes* The difference was less than zero percent or 0%.

** The difference was less than zero percent or 0%.

37

Indicator 8

Can the district afford the Debt payment?

8. Were debt related expenditures less than $770.00 per student?



Eagle Pass ISD had less than $65.69 per student.Calculation:

(Function 71 Expenditures – IFA and EDA Allotments) / 2002 Total Students =

* $3,632,908 - $2,743,994 / 13,531 = $65.69

** $8,116,123 - $2,894,377 / 13,385 = $390.12

38

Indicator 8

EPISD

5-Year Percentage Change in students is greater than 2%

Enrollment Growth for Fiscal Year Ending 2005 was 1.1% *

5-Year Growth was 8.2% **Calculation:

* 2005 Total Students – 2004 Total Students / 2004 Total Students =

13,531-13,385/13,385 = 1.1%

** 2005 Total Students – 2001 Total Students / 2001 Total Students =

13,531-12,515/12,515 = 8.2%

39

Indicator 9

Did you follow the rules?

9. Was there no disclosure in the Annual Audit Report of material noncompliance?



* No Material Non-Compliance included in the 2004-2005 Annual Financial Report

** No Material Non-Compliance included in the 2003-2004 Annual Financial Report

40

Did you Follow the Rules?

• Poor segregation of duties

• Records do not reconcile (such as PEIMS and Annual Financial Audit)

• Competitive bid violations

• Inaccurate and untimely reporting

• Fund balance deficit

• Expenditures exceed the budget

41

Indicator 10

Were you able to stay in Financial Compliance?

10. Did the district have full accreditation status in relation to financial

management practices?


** Previous Result: Yes* Full Accreditation, No Master or Monitor Assigned for 2004-2005

** Full Accreditation, No Master or Monitor Assigned for 2003-2004

42

III. BUDGETING

(Indicators #11-14)

43

Indicator 11

Were Students First?

11. Was the Percent of Operating

Expenditures Expended for

Instruction more than 54%?


** Previous Result: Yes* General Fund Budget: State Average 57.9% and EPISD 55.8% as per 2004-2005 AEIS Report

** General Fund Budget: State Average 51.8% and EPISD 54.2% as per 2003-2004 AEIS Report

44

Were Students first?

•Start above 54% to allow for resignations, unfilled teaching positions, etc?

•If too far above 54%, are you overstaffed?

•Schools exist to teach students and additional costs serve to provide support.

•All “Function 11” Expenditures are included.

45

Were Students First?

Instruction

=

55.8% of Expenditures

Calculation:

Expenditures in General, Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds (Excluding SSA Fund Codes) in Function 11 and Object Codes 6112-6499/Expenditures in General Fund, Special Revenue Fund (Excluding SSA Fund Codes), Capital Project Fund, Enterprise Fund 701 (Child Nutrition Program), Functions 11-61 and Object Codes 6112-6499 =

Current: $55,196,496 / $98,999,806 = 55.8%

Previous: $51,982,807 / $92,402,268 = 56.3%

46

Did you live within your means?

47

Indicator 12Did you live within your means?

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?


** Previous Result: Yes* The remaining aggregate in the General Fund was $6.8 million for 2004-05 FY.

** The remaining aggregate in the General Fund was $8.2 million for 2003-04 FY.

48

Did you live within your means?

•Do not begin with a deficit budget.

•Student attendance and tax collections determine revenues.

•Put the expenditure brakes on if the previous months are not meeting budgeted expectations.

•Just because it is in the budget does not mean it is in the bank.

49

Indicator 13Did you borrow enough money for

construction?

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?



Calculation:

Fund Balance in the General Fund as of the Fiscal Year End + Fund Balance in the capital projects fund as of the Fiscal Year End > Standard Capital Fund Margin =

* $8,621,972 + $6,039,549 = $14,661,521 > 0

** $6,509,570 + $7,000,862 = $13,510,432 > 0

50

Indicator 14

Did you save the overpayment?

14. Was the ratio of cash and investments to deferred revenues in the General Fund

greater than or equal to 1:1, or, less than or equal to 0?

* Current Result: Yes -126,313 <= 0

** Previous Result: Yes -178,144 <= 0 Calculation:

Cash and Investments in the General Fund / (Deferred Revenue in the General Fund – Property Tax Receivable Net of Uncollectable =

* $8,389,588 / ($3,067,654 - $3,193,967) = -66.41 => 1 or 0 => -126,313

** $7,226,838 / ($2,883,838 - $3,061,952) = -40.57 => 1 or 0 => -178,144

51

Did you save the overpayment?•TEA funds on estimates.

•Spend only what is earned…or less

•Overpayments should be in the bank, not in the budget.

•State Summary of Finances overpayments settle in the following year and are deducted from next year’s allocations.

52

IV. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

(Indicators #15-17)

53

Indicator 15

Is Administration Overstaffed?

15. Was the Administrative Cost Ratio less than the Standard in

Law?

Current Result: Yes

Previous Result: Yes

54

State Standards for Administrative Cost Ratio:

Standard Enrollment ADA

0.1105 >10,000

0.1250 5,000 to 9,999

0.1401 1,000 to 4,999

0.1561 500 to 999

0.2654 <500

0.3614 Sparse

55

EPISD Standard for Administrative Cost Ratio

* FY 05 Actual .0884

** FY 04 Actual .0904

FY 03 Actual .0842

FY 02 Actual .0766

FY 01 Actual .0785Calculation:

Acceptable Administrative Cost Ratio > District Administrative Cost Ratio =

* .1105 > .0884

** .1105 > .0904

56

Indicators 16 & 17

Did the district hire the acceptable number of teachers

and staff?

Not too many, not too few?

57

Indicators 16 & 17

16. Was the ratio of students to teachers in allowable ranges according to district size?

Current Result: Yes


17. Was the ratio of students to total staff in allowable ranges according to district size?

Current Result: Yes


58

Acceptable Ratio

Students Low Ratio High Ratio >10,000 13.5/6.6 22/14

Student to Teacher/Student to Total Staff

59

Ratio Comparison

State EPISD2005 * 13.5-22.0/6.6-14.0 17.04/ 7.14

2004 ** 13.5-22.0/6.6-14.0 17.38/ 7.18

Student to Teacher/Student to Total Staff State Avg. Student to Teacher Ratio: 14.9, 2004-05 AEIS Report

14.9, 2003-04 AEIS Report

State Avg. Student to Total Staff Ratio: 7.51, 2004-05 AEIS Report

7.52, 2003-04 AEIS ReportCalculation:

Total Number of Students / Total Number of FTE Teachers =

* 13,531/794 = 17.04 ** 13,385/770 = 17.38

Total Number of Students / Total Number of FTE Staff =

* 13,531/1,895 = 7.14 ** 13,385/1,864 = 7.18

60

V. CASH MANAGEMENT

(Indicators #18-21)

61

Indicator 18Does the district have an appropriate Fund Balance?

18. 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?



*Current **Previous

Optimal balance at 150% = $12.68M $11.86M

Optimal balance at 50% = $4.23M $3.95M

Fiscal Year Actual = $8.62M $6.51MCalculation:

Estimate of one Month’s Cash Disbursement Amount During the Regular School Session X 50% Minimum Fund Balance = Optimal Balance at 50%

* $8,452,507 x .50% = $4.23M ** $7,952,713 x .50% = $3.95M

* $8,452,507 x 150% = $12.68M ** $7,905,426 x 150% = $11.86M

62

Indicator 19

Is your Fund Balance stable?

19. Was the decrease in Undesignated Unreserved Fund Balance less than 20% over two fiscal years?


** Previous Result: Yes(If 1.5 times Optimum Fund Balance < Total Fund Balance In General Fund or If Total

Revenues > Operating Expenditures in the General Fund, then Answer this Indicator Yes)

Calculation:

Expenditures in the General Fund in Functions 11-61 Expenditures Object Codes 6100-6400 – Total Revenues in the General Fund < Acceptable Expenditure Revenue Gap

* $82,737,999 - $86,709,840 = -$3,971,841 < 0

** $77,513,492 - $85,200,847 = -$7,687,355 < 0

63

Is Your Fund Balance Stable?Fiscal Year Ended 2003-Undesignated General Fund

Balance of $7,860,351

Fiscal Year Ended 2005-Undesignated General Fund

Balance of $8,532,188

2004-2005 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures in the General Fund $3,971,841

Increase in Undesignated Unreserved General Fund Balance of +$671,837

64

Indicator 20

Can you show me the money?20. Was the aggregate total of cash and investments

in the General Fund more than $0?



Calculation:

The aggregate total of cash and investments in the General Fund was:

* $8.4M

** $7.2M

65

Indicator 21

Is your money working for the District?

21. Were investment earnings in all funds more than $15.00 per student?


** Previous Result: NoCalculation:

Investment Earnings / Number of Students

* $617,377 / 13,531 = $45.62

** $187,494 / 13,385 = $14.01

Note: ** If TEA’s underpayment of $4,466,156 had been invested, an additional $64,313 would have been earned at the Bank’s yearly Average Interest Rate of 1.44%. Indicator 21 would have been “Yes” with an investment of $18.81 per student.

66

Results?

Current Results: 21 out of 21

Previous Results: 21 out of 21

Rating:

SUPERIOR ACHIEVEMENT!

67

2003-2004 School District Rating Status

2004 IndicatorCDN Results Deficiencies

1. Harlandale 015-904 20/21 #11 2. San Antonio 015-907 21/21 - 3. Carrizo 064-903 19/21 #15 4. Eagle Pass 159-901 20/21 - 5. Hondo 163-904 20/21 #18 6. Uvalde 232-903 21/21 - 7. Del Rio 233-901 21/21 - 8. Laredo 240-901 21/21 - 9. Crystal City 254-901 20/21 #1110. La Pryor 254-902 18/21 #11,#19

PEER SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

68

2003-2004 School District Rating Status6. Was the Percent Of Total Tax Collections (Including Delinquent) Greater

Than 96%?

Peer School District: CDN Results: Passed/Failed 1. Harlandale 015-904 98.55% Passed 2. San Antonio 015-907 99.88% Passed 3. Carrizo 064-903 100.04% Passed 4. Eagle Pass 159-901 97.66% Passed 5. Hondo 163-904 98.44% Passed 6. Uvalde 232-903 97.15% Passed 7. Del Rio 233-901 98.51% Passed 8. Laredo 240-901 100.17% Passed 9. Crystal City 254-901 96.33% Passed10. La Pryor 254-902 98.52% Passed

69


17. Was The Ratio Of Students To Total Staff Within the Ranges Shown Below According To District Size?

Peer School District: CDN Results: State Standard Passed/Failed 1. Harlandale 015-904 6.8 6.6 Passed 2. San Antonio 015-907 7.35 6.6 Passed 3. Carrizo 064-903 6.11 6 Passed 4. Eagle Pass 159-901 7.14 6.6 Passed 5. Hondo 163-904 6.18 6 Passed 6. Uvalde 232-903 6.78 6.5 Passed 7. Del Rio 233-901 7.81 6.6 Passed 8. Laredo 240-901 6.62 6.6 Passed 9. Crystal City 254-901 6.04 6 Passed10. La pryor 254-902 5.84 4 Passed

70

18. Was The Total Fund Balance In The General Fund More Than 50% AndLess Than 150% Of Optimum According To The Fund Balance And CashFlow Calculation Worksheet In The Annual Financial Report?

Peer School District: Results:

1 Month's Optimal Bal. Optimal Bal. Fiscal YearDisbursements @ 50% @ 150% Actual Passed/Failed

1. Harlandale 10,988,751 5,494,376 16,483,127 13,797,149 Passed 2. San Antonio 32,278,477 16,139,239 48,417,716 57,812,141 Passed 3. Carrizo 2,115,000 1,057,500 3,172,500 3,849,932 Passed 4. Eagle Pass 8,362,723 4,181,362 12,544,085 8,621,972 Passed 5. Hondo 1,260,000 630,000 1,890,000 4,310,884 Failed 6. Uvalde 2,677,936 1,338,968 4,016,904 6,457,842 Passed 7. Del Rio 5,439,858 2,719,929 8,159,787 18,215,019 Passed 8. Laredo 15,222,725 7,611,363 22,834,088 28,784,978 Passed 9. Crystal City 1,451,518 725,759 2,177,277 5,841,305 Passed 10. La Pryor 397,747 198,874 596,621 331,102 Passed


71

2003 General 2005 General Fund Balance Fund Balance Passed/Failed

1. Harlandale 10,610,503 11,758,495 Passed 2. San Antonio 33,435,452 32,496,017 Passed 3. Carrizo 2,652,559 3,645,567 Passed 4. Eagle Pass 7,860,351 8,532,188 Passed 5. Hondo 2,776,175 3,560,384 Passed 6. Uvalde 2,246,185 2,566,494 Passed 7. Del Rio 8,324,440 13,668,649 Passed 8. Laredo 11,206,652 12,155,696 Passed 9. Crystal City 4,477,498 5,841,304 Passed 10. La Pryor 1,035,568 331,102 Failed


72

Schools FIR$T

Eagle Pass ISD

2006 Report

September 12, 2006

Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas

1 schools fir$t eagle pass isd 2006 report september 12, 2006 financial integrity rating system of...

Documents