new staying ahead of the curve: school districts responding to … · 2019. 2. 7. · staying ahead...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
4 Research Brief Office of the State Comptroller
$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
5 Division of Local Government and School Accountability March 2011
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.
6 Research Brief Office of the State Comptroller
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.
7 Division of Local Government and School Accountability March 2011
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
New York School DistrictsPercentage Change in
Property Value 2009 to 2010
Change in Full ValueDecline (-76% to nearly 0%)
Flat to moderate growth (0% to 5%)
Strong growth (more than 5% to 77%)
Not applicable
New York School DistrictsPercentage Change in
Property Value 2008 to 2009
Change in Full ValueDecline (-18% to nearly 0%)
Flat to moderate growth (0% to 5%)
Strong growth (more than 5% to 27%)
Not applicable
8 Research Brief Office of the State Comptroller
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%
More than 40% to 50%
More than 50% to 65%
More than 65% to 92%
9 Division of Local Government and School Accountability March 2011
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%
More than 15% to 30%
More than 30% to 40%
More than 40% to 50%
More than 50% to 93%
N/A (Outliers and NYC)
10 Research Brief Office of the State Comptroller
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
11 Division of Local Government and School Accountability March 2011
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
12 Research Brief Office of the State Comptroller
Selec
ted Fi
scal S
tress
Indic
ator
s for
Scho
ol Di
strict
s by R
egion
(200
9)
13 Division of Local Government and School Accountability March 2011
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
14 Research Brief Office of the State Comptroller
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
15 Division of Local Government and School Accountability March 2011
New York StateOffice of the State Comptroller
Division of Local Government and School Accountability110 State Street, 12th Floor • Albany, New York 12236
March 2011