Arlington board reviews draft 2025–26 budget, hears fund‑balance and interfund‑loan update

The Arlington School District Board of Directors on July 14 received a presentation of the district's draft 2025–26 budget and an update on cash‑flow interfund loans. Gina Seaton Horst, the district's executive director of financial services, told the board the draft shows an estimated beginning general‑fund balance of about $2,400,000 and an ending balance just over $3,000,000 if projections hold.

Seaton Horst said the district is watching state and federal funding uncertainty, especially for special education: "We are anxiously awaiting the culmination of the special education safety net funds ... we believe it will be in the range of 700 to $1,000,000." She also described work to rebuild fund balance after reductions in recent fiscal years and said the district expects to surpass last year's May fund position.

The presentation summarized recent use and repayment of interfund loans the board previously authorized. Resolution 24‑13 authorized loans up to $3,000,000 from the capital projects fund; Seaton Horst said the district used about $1,500,000 cumulatively from November through February and has repaid that amount with interest of about $20,700. A later resolution, 25‑04, authorized up to $3,000,000 more to cover low cash‑flow months, primarily June; Seaton Horst estimated interest on that borrowing at about $9,400 and said it will be repaid by year end.

Enrollment and levy assumptions were part of the draft. Seaton Horst reported 2024–25 actual enrollment at 5,545 students compared with a budgeted 5,495. The district's excess levies are included in the revenue picture: an educational programs and operations (EP&O) levy of $13,700,000 for calendar year 2026 and a capital levy of $6,492,000 for calendar year 2026, both noted as voter‑authorized and built into the draft revenues.

Board members asked about out‑year projections; Seaton Horst said preliminary runs show the 2026–27 column could reverse fund‑balance gains and that staff will continue refining assumptions for later years. She reminded the board that the required budget format (the OSPI F‑195) must be adopted by Aug. 31 and submitted to OSPI after a public hearing and any final adjustments.

Discussion — not action — followed the presentation. The board did not adopt the 2025–26 budget at the July meeting; Seaton Horst described the document as a draft to return to the board for final adoption in August.

Ending: The board will receive the budget again at the August meeting, hold the required public hearing and is scheduled to consider a budget resolution for adoption before Aug. 31, 2025.