Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Municipal advisor outlines debt, building-aid scenarios for possible Saugerties capital vote
Summary
The district’s municipal advisor presented financing scenarios showing how a voter-approved capital project could be structured to fit within an anticipated local tax levy “drop-off,” using $4.7 million in capital reserves and two building-aid eligibility assumptions (95% and 70%).
The Saugerties Central School District’s municipal advisor briefed the board on options for a potential voter-approved capital project and long-range debt plan at the June 10 meeting.
Chris DiCarlo of the district’s municipal advisory firm presented assumptions, timelines and two scenarios that used the district’s capital reserve (approximately $4.7 million) to maximize New York State building aid and avoid raising the local tax levy. DiCarlo told the board the district’s current building aid ratio is 66% and that he had modeled a high-aidable scenario (95% of project eligible for aid) and a lower-aidable scenario (70% eligible) to illustrate how project scope and incidental/site costs affect the local share.
DiCarlo outlined key assumptions and dates: a targeted voter date of December 2027, submission and State Education Department (SED) approval in 2029, first short-term borrowing near the start of construction in 2029–30, and a debt service schedule that begins interest payments in 2030 and principal repayments in 2031 under the sample timeline he presented. He used conservative interest-rate assumptions (about 5% for notes, 6% for bonds) and noted that federal changes to tax-exempt bond status could change market rates; as a mitigation option he mentioned issuing through the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) as a pooled financing alternative.
Under the 95%-aidable scenario, DiCarlo said the district could structure a larger project while keeping the local capital levy near an anticipated post‑2029 “drop-off” level (the presentation showed local capital levy roughly flat at the then-current level of about $720,000). Under a 70%‑aidable assumption — reflecting higher incidental or site work that is not fully reimbursable — the maximum project size falls substantially (DiCarlo cited a modeled project of roughly $14.2 million under the lower-aid scenario).
Board members pressed for details about timing, credit rating options and the SED approval process. DiCarlo said SED review timelines vary, that third‑party reviews can speed approvals but add reimbursable costs, and that the district’s current outstanding bonds are through a pooled conduit financing. He also explained the constitutional debt limit (calculated from equalized property values) and said the district’s debt capacity analysis would consider the local share that could be absorbed without increasing the tax levy.
No board action was taken; the presentation was framed as planning and information-gathering. DiCarlo and district staff recommended further work with the district’s facilities team and architects to identify a project scope, to confirm aid‑eligible elements and to run detailed cash‑flow and borrowing models (including phased construction options) before the board sets a proposition for voters.
The presentation referenced the district’s prior $22 million capital project that will fall off the state aid ceiling later in the decade, which affects available aid ceilings; DiCarlo said aligning project timing with that reset would help maximize state reimbursement.
