New Prague board hears detailed referendum and bond options as fall vote timeline firmed

The New Prague Area Schools board heard a detailed presentation Tuesday from PMA Securities on options for an operating referendum and a facilities bond, and discussed timeline, tax impact and priorities as the district moves toward a decision in June on whether to put questions on the November ballot.

The presentation framed three choices for the school district: do nothing, wait for higher state and federal funding, or ask local voters for new operating revenue and/or voter-authorized bonds for facility maintenance and security. Michael (PMA), a financial adviser working with the district, said a typical operating referendum increase of $510 per pupil would generate roughly $2 million a year; for a representative $400,000 home that would equal about $20.62 per month. PMA presented two bond scenarios for capital work: a $20 million bond (estimated at about $14 per month on a $400,000 house) and a $30 million bond (about $21 per month).

The presentation summarized revenue and budget context: the district’s voter-approved operating referendum currently provides roughly $246 per pupil (about $1 million a year). PMA showed that many metro districts rely on referendums and that the basic state formula allowance has not kept pace with inflation; on an inflation-adjusted basis, the district would have substantially more revenue per pupil than it currently receives. Brian Fell, director of business services, reviewed the district’s projected FY25 finish and the FY26 preliminary budget: FY25 projected unassigned fund balance 13.43 percent, preliminary FY26 unassigned fund balance projected at 14.31 percent. Enrollment used in the preliminary budget was 3,822 ADM (a projected decline of 86 from the FY25 projection). The district is planning cost-containment measures that include a net reduction of 6.5 FTE (an 8.5 elementary reduction offset partially by two interventionist positions funded partly by state aid).

A facilities task force provided a prioritized project list that PMA summarized as two buckets: approximately $5.1 million for secure-entrance and safety/security work, and about $20 million in maintenance and infrastructure items (roofing, HVAC, plumbing, parking, etc.) — roughly $25 million total. PMA and district staff noted the proposed scope is smaller than past bond requests in the district and emphasized that capital-bond proceeds must be spent only on the uses described on the ballot.

Board members pushed on details and tradeoffs. Board member Dan questioned whether some proposed entrance reconstructions were “gold standard” solutions that could be replaced by lower-cost alternatives; he estimated $3 million for some entrance projects and said less-costly options could preserve usable classroom space. Others urged the board to rely on the architects and security experts who worked with the facilities committee; Superintendent Dr. Andy Volmuth said the task force recommendations reflected committee work and consultant input and offered to bring the architects back for additional Q&A. Several board members emphasized the importance of communicating clear need to voters, noting prior referendums that failed and saying the district must show “need not want.”

Board members also discussed ballot structure and timing. Michael (PMA) said operating and bond questions would be separate ballot questions, and the board could (if it chose) make a bond question contingent on passage of the operating question. Survey work commissioned by the district was expected shortly; PMA and the superintendent said community-survey results would be available to the board before a June decision and Peter Leatherman’s community-survey review was scheduled for June 9 at 5 p.m. to fit the district’s timeline toward a November 4 referendum (early voting in the community can begin in mid-September).

Board discussion touched on strategy and fiscal policy. Several members argued that steady, smaller investments over time reduce the need for large bonds; one board member said building a predictable, recurring capital allotment using operating revenue would lower interest costs and force more rigorous prioritization. Others countered that bonds spread the cost and can be the equitable tool to fund large facility work rather than repeatedly shifting the burden to operations. Board members repeatedly asked PMA for tax-impact scenarios for typical homes, for different bond sizes and for different payment structures; PMA noted the district could structure payments to reduce near-term tax impact (for example, by using interest-only early payments while older bonds retire).

Public sentiment surfaced in open forum. Brian Paulson, identifying himself as a resident and parent, urged the board to prioritize teachers and classrooms over “discretionary” spending and questioned a previously approved tax abatement for a 54-unit apartment project that some residents had linked to developer profit rather than housing for teachers. Paulson urged further consideration of cost savings such as outsourcing busing if that preserved classroom staffing.

What’s next: the board signaled it wants survey results and additional detail on security plans before finalizing whether to place operating and/or bond questions on the ballot. District staff said the board will need to take a formal vote in June to meet state timelines for a November referendum. The district plans additional presentations and public information if the board moves forward.