school districts responding to fiscal challenges

O F F I C E O F T H E N E W YO R K S TAT E CO M P T R O L L E R

DIV IS ION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABIL ITY

Thomas P. DiNapoli • State Comptroller

Staying Ahead of the Curve: School Districts Responding to Fiscal Challenges

ResearchBrief

Summary

• ThisreportdescribesthefiscalchallengesfacingschooldistrictsinNewYorkState.Aswithotherclassesofgovernment,schooldistrictshavestruggledtomaintainfiscalbalanceinthemidstofrisingcostsanddecliningeconomicconditions.Aseriesof22financialindicatorswereanalyzedtoassessthefiscalconditionofschooldistricts.

• SchooldistrictslocatedintheMid-HudsonandLongIslandregionsareshowingsignsoffiscalstresson16ofthe22financialindicatorsexamined—significantlymorethananyoftheotherregions.Thesedistrictshavebeenmostimpactedbythecollapseinthehousingmarket,higherschoolcostsonaperpupilbasis,higherlevelsofdebt,andrelianceondeclininglocaltaxbasestogeneraterevenue.

•Manyschooldistrictsarerespondingtocurrenteconomicconditionsbyreducingspending.GeneralFundexpendituresdeclinedin33percentofschooldistrictsin2010.Thisrepresentsasix-foldincreaseoverthenumberofdistrictsthatdecreasedspendingin2008.

• Schooldistrictsarehighlydependentonlocalrevenuegeneratedthroughpropertytaxes.Thedeclininghousingmarkethasthereforetakenatollonschooldistricts.Propertyvalueshavedeclinedinnearly88percentoftheschooldistrictslocatedintheLongIslandandMid-Hudsonregions.Sincethesedistrictsderiveroughly75percentoftheirrevenuelocally,reducedpropertyvaluesleadtorevenuestress.Inaddition,theabilityofthesedistrictstoincreasepropertytaxratestomaintainlocalrevenuesislimitedasthesedistrictsalreadyhavehightaxrates(asapercentageofincome)—for32percentofLongIslanddistricts,propertytaxrevenueexceeds7percentofincome.

•Althoughmanyschooldistrictshavebeguntoreacttothesefiscalchallenges,itisimperativethatdistrictsemploycostsavingsandplanningstrategiesmovingforward.Suchstrategiesincludetakingadvantageofmultiyearplanningtools,streamliningandconsolidatingbusinesspracticeswherepractical,andinvestigatingopportunitiesforcostsavingsviasharedserviceagreements.

Introduction

RecentdifficulteconomicconditionsaffectedschooldistrictsacrosstheStateindifferentways.Forthe2009-10schoolyear,nearly88percentofschooldistrictrevenuesweregeneratedthroughStateaidorrealpropertytaxes.Therefore,aspropertyvaluescontinuetodeclineinthewakeofthehousingmarketcollapse,asStateaidisreducedandfederalstimulusfundingisphasedout,thefinancialconditionofschooldistrictsmaybecomeincreasinglyprecarious.Forinstance,fiscalstressattheStatelevelhasalreadyledtoreductionsfromplannedStateaidforschooldistrictsof$1billionin2010-11.AccordingtotheGovernor’sproposedbudget,schooldistrictscouldfaceadditionalcutsamountingto$1.5billionin2011-12,dueinpart,tothephase-outoffederalstimulusfunds.Inaddition,thereisagrowingintoleranceforanyincreaseinpropertytaxesasawaytofillthegapsinotherrevenuesources.

Inlightoftheserealities,itiscrucialthatatthelocallevel,schoolofficialsdevelopstrategiestoeffectivelymanagethesechallengesnowtoavoidfiscalcrisesinthefuture.Manyschooldistrictsappeartohavetakensomeinitialstepsbyreducingtherateofspendinggrowthin2010.Thisreportanalyzes22indicatorsoffiscalstressinmultiplecategoriessuchasspendingpatterns,cashposition,reservelevels,revenuetrends,debtburdens,andtheimpactofprovidingcostlyservicestohighneedsstudentpopulations.Throughthisanalysis,itispossibletoidentifythespecificregionsinwhichschooldistrictsaremostatriskoffacingseverefiscalstressinthefutureandtodeterminewhatfactorsaredrivingthestress.1

2 Research Brief Office of the State Comptroller

Real Property Taxes and

Assessments53%

Other Local Revenue

5%

Federal Aid 7%

State Aid 35%

School Year 2009-10

State Aid and Property Taxes Account for 88 Percent of School District Revenues

Note: Real Property Taxes includes other property tax items such as PILOTS

1 AcompletelistoftheseindicatorsandtheresultsbyregionareincludedinAppendixA.

Aggregate Results

SchooldistrictslocatedintheMid-HudsonandLongIslandregionsareshowingsignsoffiscalstressacrossmultiplemeasures.Districtsintheseregionsrankedpoorlyon16ofthe22fiscalstressindicatorsselectedforanalysis.Thisisespeciallyevidentwherethedeclineinthehousingmarkethasbeenmostsevere.Aspropertyvaluesdecline,merelymaintainingexistinglevelsofpropertytaxrevenueusuallymeansincreasingtaxrates,andtheseincreasesarenotpoliticallyviableinmanylocalities.Asaresult,fiscalcapacity(e.g.,thepracticalabilitytoraiserevenue)isconstrained.2

DistrictsintheFingerLakesregionwereaboveaverageon10outof22indicators,whilethoseinCentralNewYork,theSouthernTierandWesternNewYorkwereaboveaverageon9outof22indicatorsexamined.Alloftheseregionshavehighratesofpupilneed(asmeasuredbythepercentageofstudentseligibleforthefreeandreducedpricelunchprogram),relativelylowpropertywealth,arehighlydependentonStateand/orfederalrevenues,andhavehighlevelsofdebt.

Overall,districtsintheCapitalRegion,MohawkValleyandtheNorthCountryexhibitedthefewestsignsoffiscalstress,withdistrictsintheCapitalRegionfacingchallengesrelatedtohigherthanaveragespendinggrowthandhighpropertytaxes.DistrictsintheMohawkValleyandNorthCountryregionsfacestressrelatedtohighdebtlevels,revenue-relatedrisksandhighlevelsofpupilneed.

3 Division of Local Government and School Accountability March 2011

8

11 11

1516

8 8

6

87

910

16 16

6 6

9 9

02468

1012141618

2009 2010

Fiscal Stress Is More Widespread in Downstate Areas

Num

ber o

f Ind

icat

ors

Flag

ged

(Max

=22)

Number of fiscal indicators for which the region’s districts are performing below the statewide average.

CentralNY

Long Island

Capital District

FingerLakes

MohawkValley

North Country

Southern Tier

WesternNY

Mid-Hudson

2 Forthisanalysis,webenchmarkedagainsttheaverage.Becausetheaveragecanbedistortedbyextremevalues,schooldistrictsthathadfewerthan250pupilsorhadperpupilexpendituresgreaterthan$30,000wereexcludedfromtheanalysis.Theregionalsummariesthatareincludedinthisreportarethereforebasedon630oftheState’s697schooldistricts.Unlessotherwisenoted,theNewYorkCitySchoolDistricthasbeenexcluded.

Spending Trends

Growthinexpenditurescanbeasignofeitherfiscalstrengthorfiscalstress,andthereforeshouldbeexaminedincontext.Spendinggrowthcanreflectthefactthatresidentshaveastrongwillingness,andability,tosupportagrowingeducationalprogram.Itcanalsoindicatethatdemandforeducationalservicesisincreasing.Schoolofficialsshouldbecognizantofsuchincreasesandassesswhethertheyaresustainableovertime.

Alternatively,decliningexpendituresmayindicateservicereductionsorprogramcutsthatcouldalreadysignifysomeleveloffiscalstress.From2007to2008,34districts(5.4percent)reducedexpenditures.Inthe2009-10schoolyear,209schooldistricts(33percent)reducedexpenditures—oversixtimesmoredistrictsthanintheearlierperiod.Aswithothertypesofgovernment,reductionsinspendingarebecomingmorecommoninschooldistricts.

WhileeducationspendinggenerallytendstobehigherinNortheasternstates,NewYork’sschooldistrictsspendmorethananyotherstate’s,and,in2008,spentnearly1.7timestheU.S.average.In2010,NewYork’seducationexpendituresreachednearly$22,000perpupil.Schooldistricts’largestexpenseispersonnel,andasaresulttheyareimpactedbyrisinghealthinsuranceandotheremployeebenefitcosts.Schooldistrictspendinghasincreasedbynearly5percentannuallyfrom2007to2009,butslowedtolessthan3percentgrowthin2010.


$0 $2 $4 $6 $8

$10 $12 $14 $16 $18 $20

Salaries

Contractual

Employee BenefitsEquipment and Capital Outlay

Debt Service

Spending by Object, 2000 to 2010

Bill

ions

2002 20062000 2004 20102008

$10,259

$17,173 $16,491

$13,454$14,300 $13,848

$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000

$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000$20,000

How New York Compares: Current Expenditures per Pupil (2008)

New Jersey

U.S. Average

New York Massachusetts Vermont Connecticut

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Education Finances 2008


Onaverage,thelargestspendingincreasesoccurredamongdistrictslocatedonLongIsland(3.0percent)andintheSouthernTier(2.9percent)andWesternNewYork(2.7percent).Roughly25percentofdistrictsinLongIslandandWesternNewYorkalsoexperiencedreductionsinfundbalance,measuredasapercentageofexpenditures.

DistrictsintheMohawkValley,NorthCountryandFingerLakesregionswereabletokeepspendinggrowthbelowthestatewideaverageof2.5percent.Thesedistrictsgenerallyspendlessthanthestatewideaverageonaperpupilbasisaswell.

Poor Operating Position

Operatingpositionisanotherimportantindicatoroffiscalstress.Itrepresentsadistrict’sabilitytobalanceitsbudgetandpaybillsontimewhilemaintainingadequatelawfulreservestowithstandshort-termfiscalpressures.Indicatorsofoperatingpositionincludethesizeoftheunreservedfundbalance—whichrepresentstheavailabilityof“rainy-dayfunds”forunplannedexpenses—andtheamountofliquidity—whichrepresentstheextenttowhichcashisavailabletocoverbudgetaryliabilities.

In2010,schooldistricts,onaverage,hadunreservedfundbalancesthatamountedto10.8percentofgeneralfundexpenditures.However,nearly8percentofdistrictshadunreservedfundbalancesoflessthan5percent.3Thisraterepresentsanimprovementover2009,whenmorethan16percentofdistrictshadlowfundbalance.Thefederalstimulusfundsthatbecameavailabletoschooldistrictsin2009helpedstabilizetheirbudgetsbymitigatingreductionsinStateaid.

Ingeneral,schooldistrictshaveenoughliquiditytocovercurrentexpenses.However,8percentofdistrictsinCentralNewYorkand7percentintheFingerLakesandMohawkValleyregionshadliquidityratioslessthan1.5—indicatingthatcashflowmaybecomeaproblemforthesedistricts.4

3 Unreservedfundbalanceincludesappropriatedaswellasunappropriatedfundbalance.Schooldistrictshaveastatutorycapontheunappropriatedportionofthefundbalancewhichpreventsthemfromannuallyretainingoperatingfundsinexcessof4percentofcurrentschoolyearbudget.Itisimportantforschoolofficialstocarefullyestimatefuturespendingneedswhenfundingdedicatedreserves,asthesefundscanonlybeusedforspecificpurposes.Forexample,arecentauditfoundthatover$400millionmorethannecessarywasheldinreservedfundsforemployeebenefitsaccruedliabilities(EBALR)andgenerallytheexcesscouldonlybetransferredintootherreservefunds.

4 Theliquidityratiorepresentscurrentassetsdividedbycurrentliabilities.Itisameasureofcashposition,indicatingthecashonhandinrelationtocurrentliabilities.Thebenchmarkof1.5waschosenbyOSCstaffbasedonwhatisreasonableforaschooldistrict.


Revenue Stress: State Aid Cuts and Declining Property Values

Factorsthataffectrevenuestreamscanalsoposechallengestoschooldistrictbudgets.Forschooldistricts,propertytaxesaretheprimarysourceoflocalrevenue.Therefore,decliningorlowpropertyvalues,andhightaxesrelativetoincomecanbeasourceofconstraint—especiallyduringtougheconomictimes,astaxpayersbecomemoreintolerantofrateincreases.Additionally,fiscaldifficultiesattheStateandfederallevelscanleadtoreductionsinStateandfederalaid,whichespeciallyimpactthosedistrictsthatdependheavilyongovernmentalaid.

In2010,propertytaxrevenuesaveragedover5percentofincomestatewide.However,thereissignificantvariationinthismeasurearoundtheState.Downstate(wherepropertyvaluesandincomesaretypicallymuchhigher),propertytaxesrepresentahigherpercentageofincome.ForLongIslandschooldistricts,propertytaxesexceed7percentofincomefor32percentofthedistricts.

7.5%

9.6%

5.5%

12.2%

87.4%

87.5%

5.8%

8.2%

34.8%

7.5%

1.4%

3.6%

2.4%

42.1%

82.3%

0.0%

2.0%

5.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Western NY

Southern Tier

North Country

Mohawk Valley

Mid-Hudson

Long Island

Finger Lakes

Central NY

Capital Region

2008 to 2009

2009 to 2010

Property Value Decline Became More Widespread in 2010.

Percentage of Districts with Property Value Decline by Region

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Local Revenue

State Aid

Federal Revenue

Revenue by Source, 1999-2010

Bill

ions

Additionally,nearly88percentofLongIslandandMid-Hudsondistrictsexperienceddeclinesinpropertyvaluesfrom2009to2010.Thesefactorsareasourceofrevenuestressfordownstatedistricts,especiallysincetheyrelysoheavilyontheirtaxbasesforfunding—withroughly75percentofeducationrevenuecomingfromlocalsources.

Thehousingmarketdeclinehasbecomemorewidespreadsince2008—affectingupstateregionsaswell.Thenumberofdistrictsexperiencingdeclinesinpropertyvaluehasincreasedsubstantiallyfrom2009to2010,especiallyintheCapitalRegionwherenearly35percentoftheschooldistrictsexperienceddeclines.WesternNewYorkistheonlyregionwherethepercentageofdistrictsdecliningdidnotincreasein2010.Thisishardlyunexpected,sincetheregionhashadrelativelylow(andoftenlagging)propertyvaluesforsometime,andhasthereforebeenlessaffectedbythedeclininghousingmarket.

Stateaidtoschoolsincreasedby9percentannuallyfrom2006to2009,andthendecreasedbynearly8percentin2010.WhileStateaidincreaseshaveenableddistrictstoincreasespending,dependenceonrevenuesfromothergovernmentscanalsoposearisk,asaidgetsreducedwhenfiscalproblemsoccurattheStateorfederallevel.Indeed,the2010-2011StateFiscalYearEnactedBudgetreducedStateAidtoschooldistrictsby5.2percent.Inupstateregions,56percentofrevenueisderivedfromStateandfederalsources,comparedtoonly25percentfordownstatedistricts—suggestingthatschooldistrictsinupstateregionsaremorefiscallyvulnerabletoreductionsinStateaid.


Property Value Decline Becomes More Widespread from 2008 to 2010

New York School DistrictsPercentage Change in

Property Value 2007 to 2008

Change in Full ValueDecline (-77% to nearly 0%)

Flat to moderate growth (0% to 5%)

Strong growth (5% to 46%)

Not applicable





Strong growth (more than 5% to 77%)

Not applicable





Strong growth (more than 5% to 27%)

Not applicable


Relianceonfederalsourcesofaidalsoposesrisk.Withthephase-outoffederalstimulusfundingafterthe2010-11schoolyear,schooldistrictscouldfacesignificantgapsin2011-12.Therecentawardof$697millioninfederalRacetotheTopfundingmayfillsomeofthisgap,buttheexactdetailsconcerningdistributionanduseofthesefundsremainuncertain.

High Debt Burden

Theoverallamountsofoutstandingdebtaswellasthebudgetaryburdenofthedebt(debtservice)areimportantindicatorsoffiscalstress.Schooldistrictshavelittleornodiscretionintheamountofprincipalandinterestthatmustberepaideachyear,andthisobligationcanbecomeasignificantburden.

Schooldistrictdebtincreasedby8.2percentannuallyfrom2000to2010astheratesofStateBuildingAidreimbursementsincreased.Onaverage,debtservicerepresents8.5percentofannualschooldistrictexpenditures.However,theStatereimbursesaportionofthesecoststhroughbuildingaid,whichin2010represented7.0percentofexpenditures.Therefore,theaverageeffectivedebtburdenis1.5percent.

Indownstateregions,buildingaidprovideslessofanoffset,andLongIslandandMid-Hudsondistrictscarryaheavierbudgetarydebtburden.However,totaldebtasapercentageofpropertyvaluewithintheschooldistrict,(whichrepresentsakeyindicatorofthelong-termaffordabilityofthedebt)ismuchhigherinupstateregions.

Percentage of School DistrictRevenue from State or

Federal Aid, 2010

Percentage of Revenue from AidUp to 20%

More than 20% to 40%





High Cost Factors

Districtsthatfacehigher-than-averagecostsarealsomoresusceptibletofiscalstress.Childreninpovertyorthoseinneedofspecialservicesusuallyplacegreaterbudgetarydemandsonschooldistrictresources.Thesedistrictsmayalsobemoreconstrainedintheirabilitytoobtainadditionalresourcesandsupportfromtaxpayerswithlimitedcapacitytoincreasetheircontributions.

Onaverage,roughlyone-thirdofpupilsstatewideareeligibleforthefreeorreducedpricelunchprogram.Thisfactorcanbeusedasanindicatorofpupilneed,andsuggeststhatdistrictswithahigher-than-averagepercentageofstudentswithextraneedsfacegreaterdemandtoprovideadditionalservices.Insomeruralregions(suchastheNorthCountryandtheSouthernTier)thispercentageoftenexceeds45percent.Insomeurbanschooldistricts,thenumberofpupilsinneedincreasessignificantly—exceeding80percentintheRochester,SyracuseandBuffaloCitySchoolDistricts.

SomedistrictsintheMid-HudsonandLongIslandregionsalsotendtohavegreater-than-averagepercentagesofpupilswithlimitedEnglishproficiency—indicatingthatthesedistrictsmayfacesimilardemandsforspecializedservices.

Percentage of Studentson Free or Reduced Price

Lunch Plans, 2010

Percentage of Students

Up to 15%





N/A (Outliers and NYC)


Mitigating the Impact

ThedatapresentedheresuggestsadifficultroadaheadformanyoftheState’sschooldistricts.Itisimperativethatdistrictsbegintoplannowtoavoidseverefiscalstressthatwouldnecessitatedisruptiveprogrammaticcutbacksinthefuture.Thereareanumberofstepsthatschooldistrictsshouldtaketohelpmanagefiscalstress,andmanyalreadyareexploringthefollowingopportunities.

Take Advantage of Multiyear Planning Tools –TheOfficeoftheStateComptroller(OSC)hasrecentlyadaptedexistingmultiyearplanningtoolsforusebyschooldistrictofficials.Byhelpinglocalofficialsunderstandtheimpactoftoday’sdecisionsovertime,multiyearplanningisonewaytobegintheprocessofmanagingthedifficultiesthatlieahead.Thesetools,whichincludeanonlinetutorialandspreadsheettemplates,areavailableonlineat:www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/training/modules/myfp/index.htm.

Additionally,OSC-sponsoredtrainingsessionsonmultiyearplanningaremadeavailableonaregularbasis.Schoolofficialsmayalsoattendacustomized“hands-on”multiyeartrainingseminarinwhichtheycanworkwithOSCstafftobuildamultiyearplanusingtheirowndata.In2010,48districtbusinessofficialsandschoolboardmembersattendedthesecustomizedmultiyearplanningtrainingsessions.

Identify Cost Savings Opportunities Through Improved Business Processes –Inthesedifficulttimes,manylocalgovernmentsandschooldistrictsarere-examiningtheircurrentoperationsinordertostreamlineexistingbusinessprocessesandutilizenewtechnologiestocutexpenses.Recently,theEldredCentralSchoolDistrictinstitutedtheuseofvirtualdesktopstoreplacetraditionalcomputers.Notonlydoesthedistrictstandtorealize$21,300insavingsforeverylabconverted,butitwillalsorealizesavingsassociatedwithdecreasedenergyconsumptionandfewermaintenancecalls.5

Investigate and Execute Shared Service Agreements –Therearepotentialefficienciestoberealizedthroughtheincreaseduseofsharedserviceagreementsandconsolidationsoffunctions.Schoolofficialsshouldsystematicallyevaluateallareasofoperationinordertoidentifyopportunitiesandpotentialpartners,especiallyintheareaofback-officeoperations.Greatersharingofthesecentralbusinessofficefunctionscouldpotentiallysavemunicipalitiesandschooldistrictsupto$765millionstatewide.6

Thefiscaldifficultiesnowfacingschooldistrictshavebuiltupoveraperiodofyearsandthroughavarietyoffactors—decliningeconomicsituation,reductionsinrealpropertyvalues,debtincreases,risinginsurancecosts,etc.Consequently,thebudgetarydifficultiesstemmingfromtheseproblemsarenotlikelytoberesolvedquickly.Schooldistrictswillhavetofocusonemployingmultiplestrategiesandengageincomprehensiveplanningtoachievefiscalstability—aprocessthatwilllikelyrequireseveralyearstocomplete.

5 http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/schools/2010/eldred.pdf6 http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/sharedservices.pdf


Fiscal Stress Indicators

APPENDIX A

Operating Position Indicators This Indicator Measures:Average Unreserved Fund Balance as a Percentage of Total Expenditures (general fund only)

Size of fund balance

Percentage with Unreserved Fund Balance < 5% of General Fund Expenditures

Whether the fund balance is low

Liquidity (Current Assets / Current Liabilities) Cash position

Percentage of School Districts with Liquidity Ratio Less Than 1.5 Whether liquidity is low

Spending Pattern IndicatorsGeneral Fund Expenditures Per Pupil (2010) Spending level

Average Annual Change in Expenditures (2008 to 2010) Growth or decline in spending

Percentage Point Change in Unreserved Fund Balance as a Percentage of Expenditures (2008 to 2010)

Growth or decline in fund balance

Percentage of Districts with Decrease in UFB as a Percentage of Expenditures

Whether fund balance is decreasing for many districts in a region

Debt Indicators Debt Service as a Percentage of Expenditures Indicator of the budgetary burden of debt

payments

Building Aid as a Percentage of Expenditures Indicator of the State-funded offset to debt payments

Effective Debt Burden (Debt Service/exp - Bldg Aid/Exp) The true burden of the debt, taking into account State contributions

Effective Debt Per Pupil True burden of the debt on a per pupil basis

Total Debt as a Percentage of Full Value Debt burden in relation to the school district’s tax base

Revenue Stress IndicatorsProperty Tax Revenue as a Percentage of Adjusted Gross Income The size of the property tax burden.

Property taxes are a greater burden when they consume a greater share of residential income.

Percentage of Districts in Which Property Taxes Exceed 7% of Income The extent to which property taxes are a burden within a region.

Average State and Federal Aid as a Percentage of Total Revenue Reliance on revenue from other governmental sources. Being heavily dependent on State and federal aid is a constraint when cuts are made at the State or federal levels.

Median Full Value Per Pupil 2010 Property wealth

Average Full Value Change 2009 to 2010 Change in property value - indicates if a school district’s property values are growing or declining. Declining property values threaten property tax revenue.

Percentage of Districts with Full Value Loss from 2008 to 2009 Magnitude of the full value decline for a region’s school districts Percentage of Districts with Full Value Loss from 2009 to 2010

High-Cost FactorsPercentage of Pupils Eligible for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch Poverty rate indicator--higher value indicates

greater pupil need

Percentage of Pupils with Limited English Proficiency Indicator of the need for additional academic services

Reg

ion

Ave

rage

Unr

eser

ved

Fund

Bal

ance

/To

tal

Expe

nditu

re(g

ener

al fu

nd

only

)

Perc

ent w

ith

Unr

eser

ved

Fund

B

alan

ce <

5%

of

Gen

eral

Fun

d Ex

pend

iture

s

Liqu

idity

(Cur

rent

Ass

ets

/ C

urre

ntLi

abili

ties)

Perc

ent w

ith

Liqu

idity

Rat

io L

ess

Than

1.5

Gen

eral

Fund

Expe

nd P

er

Pupi

l (20

09)

Ave

rage

Ann

ual

Cha

nge

in

Expe

nd(2

007

to

2009

)

Perc

enta

gePo

int C

hang

e in

Unr

eser

ved

Fund

Bal

ance

as

a %

of

Expe

nd (2

007

to 2

009)

Perc

enta

ge o

f D

istr

icts

with

D

ecre

ase

in U

FB

as a

% o

f Exp

end

Deb

t Ser

vice

as

a %

of

Expe

nd.

Bui

ldin

g A

idas

a %

of

Expe

nd.

Effe

ctiv

e D

ebt

Bur

den

(Deb

t Se

rvic

e/ex

p -

Bld

g A

id/E

xp)

Effe

ctiv

eD

ebt P

er

Pupi

l

Tota

l Deb

t as

a %

of

Full

Valu

e

Cap

ital R

egio

n9.

9%11

.6%

3.6

1.4%

17,7

25

5.

3%1.

8%27

.5%

7.5%

6.3%

1.3%

249

2.5%

Cen

tral N

Y7.

3%18

.4%

3.3

10.2

%16

,716

4.8%

2.6%

6.1%

8.7%

7.7%

1.1%

178

4.1%

Fing

er L

akes

7.2%

18.8

%3.

77.

2%16

,916

4.3%

1.6%

15.9

%9.

3%8.

8%0.

5%93

4.5%

Long

Isla

nd7.

9%15

.0%

3.6

4.0%

21,4

18

5.

2%1.

4%28

.0%

4.1%

2.1%

2.0%

489

0.9%

Mid

-Hud

son

7.7%

26.3

%3.

19.

5%21

,782

5.3%

1.6%

23.2

%5.

8%2.

5%3.

3%75

71.

2%M

ohaw

k V

alle

y10

.7%

19.0

%5.

07.

1%16

,837

4.1%

3.2%

23.8

%8.

6%7.

8%0.

8%18

34.

4%N

orth

Cou

ntry

13.0

%11

.3%

5.0

7.5%

17,5

59

4.

4%2.

9%26

.4%

8.5%

9.2%

-0.7

%-1

043.

7%S

outh

ern

Tier

9.1%

13.7

%3.

95.

5%17

,978

4.5%

2.8%

12.3

%9.

3%8.

5%0.

7%16

24.

4%W

este

rn N

Y11

.5%

11.3

%4.

63.

8%16

,635

3.9%

2.7%

23.8

%9.

2%8.

9%0.

4%56

5.5%

All

Dis

tric

ts9.

2%16

.3%

3.9

6.0%

18,5

73

4.

7%2.

2%21

.4%

7.6%

6.4%

1.2%

269

3.2%

Prop

erty

Tax

R

ev /

AG

I

% o

f Dis

tric

ts in

W

hich

Pro

pert

y Ta

xes

Exce

ed 7

%

of In

com

e

Ave

rage

Stat

e an

d Fe

dera

l Aid

/ To

tal

Rev

enue

Med

ian

Full

Valu

e Pe

r Pu

pil 2

009

Ave

rage

Ful

l Va

lue

Cha

nge

2007

to

200

8

Ave

rage

Full

Valu

e C

hang

e20

08 to

200

9

% o

f D

istr

icts

with

Ful

lVa

lue

Loss

fr

om 2

008

to

2009

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pu

pils

Elig

ible

for

Free

or R

educ

ed

Pric

ed L

unch

Perc

enta

geof

Pup

ils w

ithLi

mite

dEn

glis

hPr

ofic

ienc

y

Cap

ital R

egio

n5.

3%11

.6%

44.7

%$5

73,9

3114

.3%

6.6%

5.8%

31.7

%0.

9%8

Cen

tral N

Y4.

3%2.

0%55

.7%

$327

,196

7.1%

5.2%

2.0%

35.2

%0.

7%11

Fing

er L

akes

4.3%

0.0%

54.1

%$3

21,6

634.

7%4.

3%0.

0%35

.4%

1.3%

11Lo

ng Is

land

5.7%

21.0

%24

.7%

$1,0

88,3

607.

6%-2

.3%

82.5

%19

.1%

5.6%

15M

id-H

udso

n5.

6%20

.0%

25.1

%$1

,052

,953

10.9

%1.

2%41

.1%

22.3

%4.

4%16

Moh

awk

Val

ley

4.7%

9.5%

59.2

%$3

15,9

0010

.1%

7.5%

2.4%

42.8

%1.

0%8

Nor

th C

ount

ry4.

9%13

.2%

61.9

%$3

81,1

2113

.2%

8.0%

1.9%

45.5

%0.

4%8

Sou

ther

n Ti

er4.

7%8.

2%60

.5%

$350

,352

11.6

%7.

7%1.

4%46

.8%

0.6%

6W

este

rn N

Y3.

9%2.

5%57

.9%

$303

,779

3.9%

3.0%

7.5%

38.8

%1.

1%8

All

Dis

tric

ts4.

9%10

.8%

46.4

%$4

91,5

929.

1%3.

9%21

.2%

33.6

%2.

5%

Rev

enue

Str

ess

Indi

cato

rsH

igh-

Cos

t Fac

tors

Sele

cted

Fis

cal S

tres

s In

dica

tors

for S

choo

l Dis

tric

ts b

y R

egio

n (2

009)

Deb

t Ind

icat

ors

Spen

ding

Pat

tern

Indi

cato

rsO

pera

ting

Posi

tion

Indi

cato

rs

Doi

ngW

orse

than

th

e St

ate

Avg

on

X of

22

Indi

cato

rs:

=Reg

ion

is d

oing

wor

se th

an th

e S

tate

ave

rage

.

8

1111

1516

88

68

024681012141618

Cap

ital

Reg

ion

Cen

tral N

YFi

nger

Lak

esLo

ng Is

land

Mid

-Hud

son

Moh

awk

Valle

yN

orth

C

ount

ryS

outh

ern

Tier

Wes

tern

NY

Of t

he 2

1 In

dica

tors

Exa

min

ed, t

he R

egio

n's

Scho

ol

Dis

tric

ts A

re D

oing

Wor

se th

an th

e St

atew

ide

Ave

rage

on

:

8

1111

1516

88

68

024681012141618

Cap

ital

Reg

ion

Cen

tral N

YFi

nger

La

kes

Long

Isla

ndM

id-H

udso

nM

ohaw

k Va

lley

Nor

th

Cou

ntry

Sou

ther

n Ti

erW

este

rn N

Y

Fisc

al S

tres

s is

Mor

e W

ides

prea

d in

D

owns

tate

Are

as

Num

ber o

f in

dica

tors

for

whi

ch th

e re

gion

'sdi

stric

ts

are

perfo

rmin

g be

low

the

stat

ewid

e av

erag

e.

Num

ber o

f In

dica

tors

on

Whi

ch R

egio

nal

Ave

rage

is

Wor

se th

an

Stat

e A

vera

ge


Selec

ted Fi

scal S

tress

Indic

ator

s for

Scho

ol Di

strict

s by R

egion

(200

9)


Reg

ion

Ave

rage

U

nres

erve

d Fu

nd B

alan

ce

/ Tot

al

Expe

nditu

re

(gen

eral

fund

on

ly)

Perc

ent w

ith

Unr

eser

ved

Fund

Bal

ance

<

5% o

f Gen

eral

Fu

nd

Expe

nditu

res

Liqu

idity

(C

urre

nt

Ass

ets

/ C

urre

nt

Liab

ilitie

s)

Perc

ent w

ith

Liqu

idity

R

atio

Les

s Th

an 1

.5G

ener

al F

und

Expe

nd P

er

Pupi

l (20

10)

Ave

rage

A

nnua

l C

hang

e in

Ex

pend

(200

8 to

201

0)

Perc

enta

ge

Poin

t C

hang

e in

U

nres

erve

d Fu

nd

Bal

ance

as

a %

of E

xpen

d (2

008

to

2010

)

Perc

enta

ge o

f D

istr

icts

with

D

ecre

ase

in U

FB

as a

% o

f Exp

end

Deb

t Ser

vice

as

a %

of

Expe

nd.

Bui

ldin

g A

id a

s a

% o

f Exp

end.

Effe

ctiv

e D

ebt

Bur

den

(Deb

t Se

rvic

e/ex

p -

Bld

g A

id/E

xp)

Effe

ctiv

e D

ebt P

er

Pupi

l

Tota

l Deb

t as

a %

of

Full

Valu

e

Cap

ital R

egio

n11

.7%

7.2%

4.1

2.9%

$18,

278

2.6%

3.1%

23.2

%8.

6%7.

2%1.

4%$3

192.

5%C

entra

l NY

8.7%

12.2

%4.

08.

2%$1

7,21

72.

5%3.

0%20

.4%

9.6%

8.4%

1.2%

$204

4.2%

Fing

er L

akes

8.5%

11.6

%4.

77.

2%$1

7,43

41.

8%2.

1%26

.1%

10.4

%10

.0%

0.4%

$58

4.4%

Long

Isla

nd9.

0%10

.1%

4.1

1.0%

$21,

765

3.0%

1.8%

25.3

%4.

3%2.

3%2.

0%$4

511.

0%M

id-H

udso

n8.

7%11

.6%

3.5

3.2%

$22,

163

2.6%

1.7%

27.4

%5.

9%2.

7%3.

1%$7

361.

3%M

ohaw

k Va

lley

13.7

%0.

0%6.

17.

3%$1

6,90

51.

8%5.

4%9.

8%9.

3%9.

6%-0

.3%

-$59

4.6%

Nor

th C

ount

ry16

.4%

3.6%

7.0

1.8%

$18,

205

1.9%

5.9%

9.1%

9.0%

8.4%

0.5%

$147

3.9%

Sout

hern

Tie

r10

.3%

8.2%

4.6

2.7%

$18,

828

2.9%

3.1%

9.6%

10.2

%9.

4%0.

8%$1

544.

6%W

este

rn N

Y13

.4%

2.5%

5.3

1.3%

$17,

314

2.7%

3.6%

22.5

%12

.2%

10.1

%2.

1%$4

055.

5%A

ll D

istr

icts

10.8

%7.

9%4.

73.

5%$1

9,08

22.

5%3.

0%20

.5%

8.5%

7.0%

1.5%

$317

3.3%

Tota

l 20

09

Prop

erty

Tax

R

ev /

AG

I

% o

f Dis

tric

ts in

W

hich

Pro

pert

y Ta

xes

Exce

ed 7

%

of In

com

e

Ave

rage

St

ate

and

Fede

ral A

id /

Tota

l R

even

ue

Med

ian

Full

Valu

e Pe

r Pu

pil 2

010

Ave

rage

Fu

ll Va

lue

Cha

nge

2009

to 2

010

% o

f Dis

tric

ts

with

Ful

l Va

lue

Loss

fr

om 2

008

to

2009

% o

f Dis

tric

ts

with

Ful

l Va

lue

Loss

fr

om 2

009

to

2010

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pu

pils

Elig

ible

fo

r Fre

e or

R

educ

ed P

rice

d Lu

nch

(201

0)

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pu

pils

with

Li

mite

d En

glis

h Pr

ofic

ienc

y

(200

9)

Cap

ital R

egio

n5.

8%18

.8%

44.5

%$6

13,4

423.

3%5.

8%34

.8%

34.3

%0.

9%7

8C

entra

l NY

4.4%

2.1%

54.9

%$3

42,8

904.

0%2.

0%8.

2%37

.8%

0.7%

911

Fing

er L

akes

4.5%

2.9%

54.4

%$3

44,1

362.

8%0.

0%5.

8%36

.6%

1.3%

1011

Long

Isla

nd6.

2%32

.3%

24.2

%$1

,024

,799

-4.7

%82

.3%

87.5

%21

.2%

5.6%

1615

Mid

-Hud

son

6.1%

25.3

%24

.6%

$1,0

23,9

37-3

.1%

42.1

%87

.4%

24.2

%4.

4%16

16M

ohaw

k Va

lley

4.7%

7.3%

60.2

%$3

33,8

573.

5%2.

4%12

.2%

43.7

%1.

0%6

8N

orth

Cou

ntry

5.1%

18.2

%61

.8%

$443

,191

5.5%

3.6%

5.5%

47.6

%0.

4%6

8So

uthe

rn T

ier

4.9%

9.6%

60.5

%$3

84,1

615.

8%1.

4%9.

6%48

.1%

0.6%

96

Wes

tern

NY

3.9%

3.8%

58.4

%$3

22,8

143.

8%7.

5%7.

5%41

.3%

1.1%

98

All

Dis

tric

ts5.

2%15

.1%

46.4

%$5

13,9

911.

7%21

.4%

35.1

%35

.6%

2.5%

=Reg

ion

is d

oing

wor

se th

an th

e St

ate

aver

age.

% o

f Dis

trict

s w

ith F

ull V

alue

Los

s fro

m 2

008

to 2

009

% o

f Dis

trict

s w

ith F

ull V

alue

Los

s fro

m 2

009

to 2

010

Wes

tern

NY

0.07

50.

075

Sout

hern

Tie

r0.

0136

9863

0.09

5890

411

Nor

th C

ount

ry0.

0363

6364

0.05

4545

455

Moh

awk

Valle

y0.

0243

9024

0.12

1951

22M

id-H

udso

n0.

4210

5263

0.87

3684

211

Long

Isla

nd0.

8229

1667

0.87

5Fi

nger

Lak

es0

0.05

7971

014

Cen

tral N

Y0.

0204

0816

0.08

1632

653

Cap

ital R

egio

n0.

0579

7101

0.34

7826

087

Doi

ng W

orse

th

an th

e St

ate

Avg

on

X of

22

In

dica

tors

:

Hig

h-C

ost F

acto

rs

Sele

cted

Fis

cal S

tres

s In

dica

tors

for S

choo

l Dis

tric

ts b

y R

egio

n (2

010)

Deb

t Ind

icat

ors

Spen

ding

Pat

tern

Indi

cato

rsO

pera

ting

Posi

tion

Indi

cato

rs

Num

ber o

f In

dica

tors

on

Whi

ch

Reg

iona

l A

vera

ge is

W

orse

Tha

n St

ate

Ave

rage

:

Rev

enue

Str

ess

Indi

cato

rs

79

10

1616

66

99

024681012141618

Cap

ital

Regi

onC

entra

l NY

Fing

er L

akes

Long

Isla

ndM

id-H

udso

nM

ohaw

k Va

lley

North

C

ount

rySo

uthe

rn

Tier

Wes

tern

NY

Of t

he 2

1 In

dica

tors

Exa

min

ed, t

he R

egio

n's

Scho

ol

Dis

tric

ts A

re D

oing

Wor

se th

an th

e St

atew

ide

Aver

age

on:

8

1111

1516

88

6

87

910

1616

66

99

024681012141618

Cap

ital R

egio

nCen

tral N

YFi

nger

Lak

esLo

ng Is

land

Mid

-Hud

sonM

ohaw

k Va

lleyNo

rth C

ount

rySou

ther

n Ti

erWes

tern

NY

Number of Indicators Flagged (Max = 22)Fisc

al S

tres

s is

Mor

e W

ides

prea

d in

Dow

nsta

te

Are

as

2009

2010

Num

ber o

f in

dica

tors

for w

hich

the

regi

on's

dist

ricts

are

pe

rform

ing

belo

w th

e st

atew

ide

aver

age.

7.5%9.

6%

5.5%

12.2

%

87.4

%

87.5

%

5.8%8.

2%

34.8

%

7.5%

1.4%3.

6%

2.4%

42.1

%

82.3

%

0.0%2.

0%5.8%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%10

0%

Wes

tern

NY

Sout

hern

Tie

r

Nor

th C

ount

ry

Moh

awk

Valle

y

Mid

-Hud

son

Long

Isla

nd

Fing

er L

akes

Cent

ral N

Y

Capi

tal R

egio

n

Perc

enta

ge o

f Dis

tric

ts w

ith

Prop

erty

Va

lue

Dec

line

by R

egio

n

2008

to 2

009

2009

to 2

010

Prop

erty

Valu

e D

eclin

e Be

cam

e M

ore

Wid

espr

ead

in 2

010.

Selec

ted Fi

scal S

tress

Indic

ator

s for

Scho

ol Di

strict

s by R

egion

(201

0)

Executive ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 474-4037 Steven J. Hancox, Deputy Comptroller

Financial Reporting .................................................................................................................................................................... 474-4014(Annual Financial Reports, Constitutional Limits, Real Property Tax Levies, Local Government Approvals)

Information Services.................................................................................................................................................................. 474-6975(Requests for Publications or Government Data)

Justice Court Fund.......................................................................................................................................................................473-6438

Audits and Local Services ........................................................................................................................................................ 474-5404(Audits, Technical Assistance)

Professional Standards ............................................................................................................................................................. 474-5404(Auditing and Accounting)

Research .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 473-0617

Statewide and Regional Projects .................................................................................................................................607-721-8306

Training .............................................................................................................................................................................................473-0005(Local Official Training, Teleconferences, DVDs)

Electronic FilingQuestions Regarding Electronic Filing of Annual Financial Reports ......................................................... 474-4014Questions Regarding Electronic Filing of Justice Court Reports ................................................................. 486-3166

(Area code for the following is 518 unless otherwise specified)

Mailing Address for all of the above:

DirectoryCentral Office

email: [email protected]

Office of the State Comptroller, 110 State St., Albany, New York 12236

Division of Local Government and School Accountability


DirectoryRegional OfficeSteven J. Hancox, Deputy Comptroller (518) 474-4037

Cole H. Hickland, Director - Direct Services (518) 474-5480Jack Dougherty, Director - Direct Services (518) 474-5480

ALBANY REGIONAL OFFICE – Kenneth Madej, Chief Examiner22 Computer Drive West • Albany, New York 12205-1695 Tel (518) 438-0093 • Fax (518) 438-0367 • Email: [email protected]: Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Schenectady, Ulster counties

BINGHAMTON REGIONAL OFFICE State Office Building, Room 1702 • 44 Hawley Street • Binghamton, New York 13901-4417 Tel (607) 721-8306 • Fax (607) 721-8313 • Email: [email protected]: Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins counties

BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICE – Robert Meller, Chief Examiner295 Main Street, Suite 1032 • Buffalo, New York 14203-2510 Tel (716) 847-3647 • Fax (716) 847-3643 • Email: [email protected]: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming counties

GLENS FALLS REGIONAL OFFICE One Broad Street Plaza • Glens Falls, New York 12801-4396 Tel (518) 793-0057 • Fax (518) 793-5797 • Email: [email protected]: Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, Washington counties

HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICE – Ira McCracken, Chief ExaminerNYS Office Building, Room 3A10 • Veterans Memorial Highway • Hauppauge, New York 11788-5533 Tel (631) 952-6534 • Fax (631) 952-6530 • Email: [email protected]: Nassau, Suffolk counties

NEWBURGH REGIONAL OFFICE – Christopher J. Ellis, Chief Examiner33 Airport Center Drive, Suite 103 • New Windsor, New York 12553–4725 Tel (845) 567-0858 • Fax (845) 567-0080 • Email: [email protected]: Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Westchester counties

ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICE – Edward V. Grant, Jr., Chief ExaminerThe Powers Building • 16 West Main Street – Suite 522 • Rochester, New York 14614-1608 Tel (585) 454-2460 • Fax (585) 454-3545 • Email: [email protected]: Cayuga, Chemung, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates counties

SYRACUSE REGIONAL OFFICE – Rebecca Wilcox, Chief ExaminerState Office Building, Room 409 • 333 E. Washington Street • Syracuse, New York 13202-1428 Tel (315) 428-4192 • Fax (315) 426-2119 • Email: [email protected]: Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence counties

Division of Local Government and School Accountability


New York StateOffice of the State Comptroller

Division of Local Government and School Accountability110 State Street, 12th Floor • Albany, New York 12236

March 2011