Board hears bond‑sale plan and rating advice as district seeks next $6M issuance

Silver Consolidated Schools Board of Education · November 18, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A finance adviser told the Silver Consolidated Schools board the district can proceed with a planned $6 million bond issuance (part of a $25M voter‑approved program), recommended a negotiated sale and suggested pursuing two credit ratings at an estimated combined cost of ~$60,000.

A finance adviser briefed the Silver Consolidated Schools board on Nov. 17 about the next steps in the district’s bond program, asking for direction to begin the formal bond‑issuance process and to prepare the legal resolution at the December meeting.

The adviser reviewed last year’s $25 million voter‑approved bond plan, noting $7 million of the program has been executed and that the board must now consider a planned $6 million issuance to continue funding phase‑1 projects including the Cliff (CLIF) school design effort. “We plan this for a $6,000,000 issuance,” the adviser said, adding the board can choose to increase or reduce that amount.

On sale method the adviser recommended a negotiated sale — using an underwriter — rather than a competitive sale or the New Mexico Finance Authority bond bank. He said negotiated sales give flexibility and the chance to sell at a premium so the district receives close to the full voter‑approved dollars rather than receiving proceeds net of issuance fees.

The adviser also urged the district to seek two ratings (Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s) to try to improve the district’s underlying credit profile. He estimated roughly $30,000 per rating (approximate) and cautioned the board the second rating could come back the same as Moody’s and would be an added cost; he framed that as a tradeoff against lower long‑term interest costs if the additional analysis yields a higher rating.

The board did not make final decisions on sale method or rating procurement at the meeting; the adviser asked for direction to start arranging rating‑agency meetings, prepare an RFP for an underwriter and return with bond counsel and a legal resolution in December. A conservative closing date for the $6 million issuance was discussed as February.