Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Electric Bonds topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pratt City Commission adopts intent resolution to seek up to $22.1 million in electric utility revenue bonds

Pratt City Commission · August 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission adopted Resolution 080425 on Aug. 4, 2025, authorizing notice of intent to issue electric utility system revenue bonds up to $22,105,000 to fund about $20 million in electric system improvements, including diesel generators to add roughly 15,000 kilowatts, officials said.

The Pratt City Commission on Aug. 4 adopted Resolution 080425, declaring the city’s intent to pursue electric utility system revenue bonds of up to $22,105,000 to pay for roughly $20 million in electric system repairs and upgrades, including the acquisition and installation of diesel generators that the resolution says would add approximately 15,000 kilowatts of generating capacity.

Kevin Cowan of Gilmore and Bell, the city’s bond counsel, told commissioners the resolution is a first, non‑binding step that authorizes the city to publish notice and move forward with the bond process. "This is just to get authorized. It doesn't obligate you to issue the bonds," Cowan said, describing the required 15‑day publication and protest period and the difference between utility revenue bonds and general obligation debt.

The resolution text, read into the record by the chair, lists project elements including a generation building, switchgear, power line and SCADA upgrades, design, engineering and contingency. The resolution cites KSA 10‑1201 for statutory authority and sets the maximum bond authorization at $22,105,000 to cover project costs plus bond reserves and financing.

Commissioners stressed that the proposed utility revenue bonds would be payable from utility system revenues and would not automatically raise property taxes. The chair asked for clarification and said, "It is important to understand if we do pass this bond revenue ... does not mean property taxes will be increasing." Cowan reiterated the distinction: utility revenue bonds are not general obligation tax‑backed pledges.

The commission approved a motion to adopt the resolution and to publish the required notice on the city website and in the Tri‑County Tribune. No roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript; the motion passed on a voice vote.

Next steps outlined by counsel include determining how the bonds will be sold (direct placement with a local bank or a public offering with an underwriter), preparing an official statement if the bonds are publicly offered, and returning to the governing body for final approval of the financing terms if and when a sale is negotiated.

The resolution does not obligate the city to issue bonds for a particular amount or on a timetable; it authorizes staff to continue planning and to publish the notice required by state law.