Karen Casey, the district finance lead, reported the December financial update and January enrollment and described year‑to‑date savings and remaining risks.

Casey told the board the general fund was roughly $350,000 higher than the prior year at the same point and that capital projects were "robust" while salary and benefits ran slightly higher in December due to growth in Seaview schooling. She highlighted more than $1,000,000 in savings in materials, supplies and operating costs from September through December and a projected positive fund balance, while cautioning the board about typical spring and June fiscal pressures.

On enrollment, Casey reported January FTE of 3,288 compared with 3,328 a year earlier and a budgeted FTE of 3,305. She noted particular grade‑level shifts — larger 11th‑grade cohorts and smaller incoming kindergarten cohorts — and said the district would continue monitoring running start, CTE and special education figures.

Why it matters: enrollment, fund balance and savings from operational spending influence the district's near‑term budget outlook and bond credit considerations.

DA Davidson, the district's municipal advisor, provided a bond planning briefing focused on timing, interest rates and credit rating factors. The DA Davidson representative explained the district has authorized a $140 million bond program and that the team's recommendation was to sell a $30 million initial tranche on or about June 5, 2025, to fund early site work and design without borrowing excess cash that would accrue unnecessary interest. The representative said Moody's rating discussions are planned and that the district's likely rating would be in the A2–A3 range (investment grade) with fund balance the single largest factor under consideration. "If you do not need that cushion, that just means the interest rates will be even better," the DA Davidson representative said.

Key dates the advisor identified were: a delegation resolution to the board on March 27, a Moody's rating call on April 23, a pre‑pricing call on May 19 and a potential deposit of $30,000,000 to the district's capital fund on June 5. The representative said current modeling forecasted a tax rate near $2.72 per $1,000 of assessed value — about nine cents lower than the 2024 blended rate of $2.81 based on current assumptions — and reiterated the state's guarantee reduces borrowing costs.

Board reaction and next steps: board members asked about Moody's rating sensitivity to fund balance; the advisor said the difference between an A2 and A3 rating would likely mean a few basis points of additional interest and a modest total dollar impact over 20 years. Board members indicated support for the proposed timing and the concept of selling $30 million first rather than borrowing the entire program up front; the advisor asked for a nonbinding nod to proceed with preparing documents and the schedule noted above.

Capital projects director proposal: the administration proposed creating a temporary capital projects director position funded from capital project funds to provide dedicated district oversight of the large multi‑year building program, hold contractors and architects accountable, attend board and PSCAC meetings and manage procurement steps. The administration said the position would be a year‑to‑year contract paid from capital funds and not from the general fund; the board asked for a refined job description and suggested adding a requirement that the position present directly to the board.

SCAP and related resolutions: later in the meeting the board approved three required resolutions to continue the district's de‑form and SCAP application process for new construction projects (resolution numbers listed in the official packet). Those approvals were taken as recorded motions with aye voice votes.

Ending: the board will receive the formal bond delegation resolution on March 27; the administration will return with a refined capital projects director job description and additional financial updates at future meetings.