Utica board hears multi‑year capital plan and warned of a capital‑outlay delay that could shift building aid

Utica City School District trustees received a detailed capital‑projects and financing briefing Tuesday that outlined current authorizations, early‑aid start requests and a potential cash‑flow timing problem that could delay building aid.

Mike Biscani, the district’s financial adviser, told the board the district is working through active projects tied to several authorizations, including a $17.9 million project that was increased by roughly $4 million using federal funds, a $65 million authorization approved in May 2024 (with Proctor High School identified as a roughly $30 million project), and a $120 million authorization approved last May. Biscani said the district is aiming to close many projects by December 2027 so they generate full building aid in the 2027–28 school year.

The presentation highlighted a three‑phase borrowing strategy to align debt service with the district’s building‑aid receipts and to preserve a “level local share” so taxpayers do not face an immediate tax increase. Biscani said the district’s building‑aid ratio is approximately 98 percent — meaning an eligible local expenditure generally yields about $0.98 back in building aid — and that a $10 million transfer to capital was used to keep the planned central‑kitchen project 95 percent eligible for aid.

The briefing also flagged a proposed, early‑stage $135 million authorization tentatively planned for a 2028 vote; Biscani said the board is only in the initial scope phase for that future package.

A more immediate operational issue drew the most attention: staff reported a capital outlay project will not be fully completed by the June 30 filing deadline. Dr. Davis and Biscani said roughly 40 percent to 50 percent of that work will finish in July, which would shift the district’s reimbursement timeline. "If we don't submit by June 30, otherwise we would lose the full amount of that aid," Biscani said, urging that staff would prepare paperwork and bring details back to the capital committee and the full board.

Board members asked follow‑up questions about change‑order timing and responses to contractor RFIs; one member noted routine delegation that allows the superintendent to approve change orders under $25,000 but asked whether procedural delays between architects and contractors are causing multi‑month waits. Staff said they would investigate the specific causes and report back.

Biscani also summarized other projects funded by federal sources that do not drive building aid (for example, Donovan roof and a Donovan AC project estimated at about $2.3 million) and the district’s Smart Schools security/technology project, which requires final board signoffs on reimbursement certifications. He noted an emergency soil‑contamination project classified as a local emergency will spread building aid over a 15‑year schedule; SA139 forms for that project were filed and staff set goals to close and submit final cost reports by mid‑December to secure full aid for 2026–27.

The meeting packet included a brief update that the district’s credit rating was upgraded by three notches to Aa3, a development trustees said will lower borrowing costs on future financings.

Next steps: staff said they will return with written detail on the capital‑outlay timing solutions, SA139/ST3 filing options, and the financial modeling that underpins the phased borrowing plan.