NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGTO DISCUSS LA VERNIA ISD’S

State Financial Accountability Rating

La Vernia ISD will holda public meeting at 6:30 p.m.

October 19, 2009in the La Vernia Primary Cafeteria

369 FM 1346 SLa Vernia, TX 78121

The purpose of this meetingIs to discuss La Vernia ISD’s

rating on the state’s financialaccountability system

LA VERNIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

FIRSTFinancial Integrity Rating System

of Texas

Public Hearing

October 19, 2009

2007 - 2008

Financial Accountability Rating System of Texas, a financial accountability system for Texas school districts developed by the Texas Education Agency in response to SB 875 of the 76th Texas Legislature in 1999, SB 218 of the 77th Texas Legislature in 2001, and

What is FIRST?

During the 79th Texas Legislature in 2006, HB 1 changes addressed:

Accreditation of school districts Sanctions and Interventions for school districts,

charter schools and campus Required TEA to adopt rules to implement the

changes

What is FIRST Continued?

Effective January 2008 in 19 TAC (Texas Administrative Code) Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter EE, Accreditation Status, Standards, and Sanctions

What is FIRST Continued

Achieve quality performance in the management of school districts’ financial resources, a goal made more significant due to the complexity of accounting associated with Texas school finance system.

Primary Goal

Assess The Quality Of Financial Management

Publicly Report This Assessment Assure The Maximum Allocation

Possible For Direct Instructional Purpose

Implement a Rating System That Fairly and Equitably Evaluates The Quality Of Management Decisions

Objectives of Financial Accountability Rating System

Use Data Currently Being Reported And Available From:

Annual Financial Audit Reports Filed By School Districts

Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS)

Objectives continued

Based upon 24 Indicators Based upon points earned and answers to

critical indicators Failing to pass one or more critical

indicators will result in automatic substandard rating

Fiscal Efficiencies Academic Performance

Indicators

Superior Achievement Above Standard Achievement Standard Achievement Substandard Achievement Suspended Due to Data Quality

School FIRST Ratings

Determination of RatingDid the District answer “No” to Indicators 1, 2, 3 or 4?Did the District answer “No” to Both Indicators 5 and 6?If so, The District’s Rating is Substandard Achievement.

Determine Rating by applicable range for summation of the indicator scores (Indicators 7-24)

Superior Achievement

Score 75-85 and Yes to Indicator 7

Above Standard Achievement

Score 65-74 or >= 75 and No to Indicator 7

Standard Achievement

Score 55-64

Substandard Achievement

Score <55 or “No” to one default Indicator

Status Count % Total

Passed 1,017 98.64%

Failed 13 1.26%

Error 1 0.10%

Total 1,031 100.00

STATE OVERALL STATISTICS 2007-2008 STATUS COUNTS

2007-2008 RATING COUNTSRatings Count % Total Enrollme

nt% Total Enrollment

Superior Achievement

907 76.97% 4,324,395 94.80%

Above Standard Achievement

100 9.70% 213,018 4.67%

Standard Achievement

10 0.97% 865 0.02%

Substandard Achievement

13 0.97% 15,040 0.33%

Suspended Due to Data Quality

1 0.10% 8,369 0.18%

LA VERNIA ISD FIRST HISTORY

Year Rating

2001-2002 Superior Achievement

2002-2003 Superior Achievement

2003-2004 Superior Achievement

2004-2005 Superior Achievement

2005-2006 Superior Achievement

2006-2007 Superior Achievement

Status: Passed

Rating: SUPERIOR ACHIEVEMENT

District Score: 85

LA VERNIA ISD2007-2008 RATING

Superintendent’s Employment Contract

Attached to Schools FIRST Financial Management Report

Disclosure #1

Disclosure #2Fiscal Year 2008

Total reimbursements received by the Superintendent and each Board Member including transactions resulting from the use of school district’s credit card for meals, lodging, transportation, fuel and other items (registration fees).

Description of Reimbursement

Superintendent Harvey

Board Member Schier

Board Member Gimbel

Board Member Quarles

Board Member Watson

Board Member Brooks

Board Member Bilicek

Board Member Jendrusch

Meals $259.43 $70.02 $81.23 $42.26 $24.09 $13.91 $111.46 $41.94

Lodging $1159.52 $389.13 $389.13 $428.55 $364.68 $364.68 $364.68 $364.68

Transportation

$20 $89.76 $196 $180 $180 $260.15 $180

Motor Fuel

$75.65 $89.20

Other $1366 $592.85 $592.85 $682.85 $427.85 $427.85 $752.85 $427.85

Total $2804.95 $1217.41 $1063.21 $1349.66 $996.62 $986.44 $1578.34 $1014.47

Disclosure #2

Disclosure #3Fiscal Year 2008 continued

Outside Compensation and/or Fees Received by the Superintendent for Professional Consulting and/or Other Personal Services in Fiscal Year 2008.

None to report.

Gifts received by the Executive Officers and Board Members of gifts that

had an economic value of $250 or more in the aggregate in the fiscal year.

None to report

Disclosure #4Fiscal Year 2007 continued

Disclosure #5Fiscal Year 2007 continued

Business transactions between School District and Board Members for Fiscal Year 2007 for 12-month period.

None to report

Was the Total Fund Balance Less Reserved Fund Balance Greater Than Zero in the General Fund.

Answer: Yes

Indicator #1

Was the Total Unrestricted Net Asset Balance (Net of Accretion of Interest for Capital Appreciation Bonds) in the Governmental Activities Column in the Statement of Net Assets Greater than Zero?

Answer: Yes

Indicator #2

Were there NO disclosures in the Annual Financial Report and/or other sources of information concerning default on bonded indebtedness obligations?

Answer: Yes

Indicator #3

Was the Annual Financial Report filed within one month after the November 27 or January 28 deadline depending upon the district’s Fiscal Year end date (June 30 or August 31)?

Answer: Yes

Indicator #4

Was there an Unqualified Opinion in the Annual Financial Report?

Answer: Yes

Indicator #5

Did the Annual Financial Report NOT disclose any instance(s) of material weakness in internal controls?

Answer: Yes

Indicator #6

Did the District’s academic rating exceed academically unacceptable?

Score: 5

Indicator #7

Was the percent of total tax collections (including delinquent) greater than 98 percent?

Score: 5

Indicator #8

Did the comparison of PEIMS data to like information on the Annual Financial Report result in an aggregate variance of less than 3 percent of expenditures per fund type (Data Quality Measure)?

Score: 5

Indicator #9

Were the Debt-Related Expenditures (net of IFA and/or EDA allotment) less than $250 per student? (If the district’s 5 year percent change in students was a 7 percent increase or more, or if property taxes collected per penny of tax effort were more than $200,000, then the district receives 5 points.)

Score: 5

Indicator #10

Was there NO disclosure in the Annual Audit Report of Material Noncompliance?

Score: 5

Indicator #11

Did the district have full accreditation status in relation to financial management practices? (i.e.. No conservator or monitor assigned)

Score: 5

Indicator #12

Was the percent of operating expenditures expended for instruction more than or equal to 65%? (Functions 11, 36, 93 and 95) (Phased in over five years: 55% for 2006-2007, 60% for 2007-2008, 65% for 2008-2009)

Score: 3

Indicator #13

Was the percent of operating expenditures expended for instruction more than or equal to 65%? (Function 11, 12, 31, 33, 36, 93 and 95)

Score: 3

Indicator #14

Was the aggregate of Budgeted Expenditures and Other Uses LESS THAN the aggregate of Total Revenues, Other Resources and Fund Balance in General Fund?

Score: 5

Indicator #15

If the district’s Aggregate Fund Balance in the General Fund and Capital Projects Fund was LESS THAN zero, were construction projects adequately financed? (Were construction projects adequately financed or adjusted by change orders or other legal means to avoid creating or adding to the fund balance deficit situation?)

Score: 5

Indicator #16

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, then the district receives 5 points)

Score: 5

Indicator #17

Was the Administrative Cost Ratio less than the standard in State Law?

Score: 5

Indicator #18

Indicator #19

Was the Ratio of Students to Teachers within the ranges shown according to district size?

Score: 5

District Size # Students

Low High

<500 7 22

500-999 10 22

1,000-4,999

11.5 22

5,000- 9,999

13 22

=> 10,000

13.5 22

Indicator #20

Was the Ratio of Students to Total Staff within the ranges shown below according to District size?

Score: 5

District Size - # Students

Low High

< 500 5 14

500 - 999

5.8 14

1,000 – 4,999

6.3 14

5,000 – 9,999

6.8 14

=> 10,000

7.0 14

Was the Total Fund Balance in the General Fund more than 50 percent and less than 150 percent of Optimum according to the Fund Balance and Cash Flow Worksheet in the Annual Financial Report?

Score: 5

Indicator #21

Was the decrease in Undesignated Unreserved Fund Balance less than 20 percent over two Fiscal Years? (If 1.5 times Optimum Fund Balance is less than total Fund Balance in General Fund or if Total Revenue in the General Fund exceeded Operating Expenditures in the Fund, then the district receives 5 points)

Score: 5

Indicator #22

Was the Aggregate Total of Cash and Investments in the General Fund more than $0?

Score: 5

Indicator #23

Were Investment Earnings in all funds (excluding Debt Service Fund and Capital Projects Fund) more than $20 per student?

Score: 4

Indicator #24