Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Prague council approves $10.225M police‑station bonds after resident alleges missing public hearing
Summary
The council approved Series 2025A bonds for the new police station and Series 2025B for streets/utilities, but a resident told the meeting the city never held the statutorily required public hearing on the capital improvement plan. Council discussed legal risk, the city attorney advised proceeding with option to redo a hearing if needed, and the bond measures were approved.
The New Prague City Council approved the sale of two general‑obligation bond issues — Series 2025A, a $10,225,000 bond issue for the new police station, and Series 2025B for street and utility projects — after staff and the city’s financial advisor presented bid results and financing details and after a public commenter raised procedural concerns.
Brian Paulson, a resident who identified himself and gave his address, told the council he had reviewed the packet and the March 17 meeting video and concluded the city did not hold the public hearing required by the city’s capital improvement plan and related bond‑issuance materials. "They were sold under false pretense," Paulson said, arguing the published notice and the minutes did not show the required hearing for the police‑station item.
Rebecca Curts of the city’s financial advisor (Ellers) summarized the 2025A sale results, saying the office received four bids and that the issue came in smaller than originally anticipated after a premium bid; she also noted Standard & Poor’s assigned a double‑A long‑term rating to the issues. Curts said the apparent low bidder was an underwriting firm based in Milwaukee and highlighted a true‑interest cost around the mid‑4% range for the police‑station issue and a lower true‑interest cost for the shorter‑term street/utility issue.
Council members discussed Paulson’s challenge and whether to pause for legal review. The city attorney, Scott, replied by text that he "can't tell exactly whether a hearing was had" from a quick check but that he would recommend approving and, if necessary, redoing a hearing or adjusting the closing date to address any procedural defect. Staff said the bond closing is scheduled at the end of May and that lenders typically hold bids for the day; delaying action could risk the offered rates.
After that discussion the council moved to approve resolution 25501 (Series 2025A) and later resolution 25502 (Series 2025B). The Series 2025A vote was recorded as 3–1 in favor; other bond votes were approved by voice vote. Staff noted how premium proceeds and a partial use of building‑fund cash were applied to the Series 2025A structure, and the packet included sources/uses, an updated debt‑service schedule and estimated tax impacts.
The council’s action authorizes staff to accept the bids and proceed with the financings; staff said the city attorney could be consulted before the closing or, if a procedural error is confirmed later, staff could delay closing or hold a supplemental hearing and reissue as needed.
What's next: The council approved the bond resolutions at the meeting; the closing date was described as scheduled for the end of May. Staff said they would follow up with the city attorney to confirm whether a post‑vote correction (redoing a hearing or delaying closing) is needed and would report back to the council.
