Syracuse City board reviews school construction sequencing, targets fall 2027 start amid state approval constraints
Loading...
Summary
Program managers told the Syracuse City board they are targeting a fall 2027 construction start for a multi‑phase school building program, sequencing work to limit simultaneous projects and using two swing schools; state approvals from the Office of State Comptroller and the State Education Department remain schedule risks.
Program Manager Chris and a colleague briefed the Syracuse City Board on the proposed sequencing, financing and schedule for a multi‑phase school construction program and said the team is targeting a construction start in fall 2027.
The plan, Chris said, is to finance the program with four bond issuances — “the 400,000,000 and roughly $100,000,000 per bond,” — sequence work to limit the number of buildings under construction at once, and use two swing schools so moves occur primarily during summer months. Chris said the board is not being asked to take action at the meeting; the presentation was to identify constraints and timelines.
The board was told the schedule balances several constants: a target fall 2027 start, use of two swing schools for elementary moves, limiting overlapping construction, and phasing high‑school renovations over three summers. Program staff said the first two schools slated for full replacement or renovation are Webster and Seymour, which would swing to Levy and Shea; Nottingham, the high school, would remain occupied and be renovated in phases over multiple summers.
Why it matters: the sequencing and financing will shape when students are displaced, the length of construction impacts and the city’s borrowing schedule. Delays in state approvals or in awarding architect contracts could push work later and increase overlap of projects, officials said.
Officials outlined key schedule constraints. Sean and Chris said the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) approval is being targeted for three months but that the previous phase had taken about five months. They also told the board that the State Education Department (SED) has asked for a preliminary submission before design begins; staff and SED are discussing whether that preliminary submission can be combined with the schematic‑design submission, a move that could remove the extra time if SED agrees. "They seem receptive to it, but they're still reviewing it," Sean said about SED.
Staff said architect selection and contract awards are another critical path item. The team is budgeting five months from RFP issuance to award for architect/engineer selection — roughly half the time it took in the prior phase — and anticipates 13 months of design time once a firm is on board. Chris said the team is exploring ways to form selection committees ahead of time so interviews and awards can proceed efficiently when proposals arrive.
On swing space, staff described the operational approach: Webster and Seymour would be vacated for roughly a 24‑month construction period and their students temporarily reassigned to Levy and Shea, which staff said are being prepared this summer (cleaning, IT upgrades and interactive whiteboard updates). Nottingham’s work would be phased so students can remain in the building and work occurs in shifts and during summers; staff described three summers of phased high‑school work as the plan.
Staff also walked the board through near‑term procedural milestones. Chris said the comprehensive plan draft would be submitted to JCP staff in mid‑August, that the school board would hold a working session in late August and a regularly scheduled meeting on Sept. 10, and that the board expects to return to the JCP board on Sept. 25 before submitting material to State Ed and OSC. "Mid August we're gonna submit a draft to JCP staff for review and comment," Chris said.
Board members asked questions about the RFP timeline and about the readiness of Levy and Shea to host students. Tom (staff) said those buildings are being prepared now and that IT upgrades have been completed. A member summarized the risk: if architect work is delayed, "all backs up," and could push the start date later.
No formal action was taken on the schedule at the meeting; staff asked only for the board’s input and for volunteers to serve on standing committees that would expedite future RFP processes. Board members agreed to finalize committee membership at a future meeting.
Next steps: staff will continue monthly calls with State Ed, finalize whether SED will accept the combined preliminary/schematic submission, expedite committee formation for RFPs, and return to the board with a finalized comprehensive plan for approval before submitting to state agencies.
