Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Sua Financing Resolutions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

SUA adopts loan and reimbursement resolutions, approves consent docket in 5–0 votes

5929280 · August 19, 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

At the Aug. 18, 2025 meeting, the Stoner Utilities Authority unanimously approved its consent docket and adopted two formal resolutions related to financing water and wastewater system improvements.

At the Aug. 18, 2025 meeting, the Stoner Utilities Authority unanimously approved its consent docket and adopted two formal resolutions related to financing water and wastewater system improvements.

Trustees voted 5 to 0 to approve the consent docket. The board then adopted Resolution SUA 2025‑5, authorizing a loan from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $112,905,000, approving issuance of a promissory note secured by a pledge of revenues and authorizing related agreements, professional services engagements and fee payments. The resolution also ratified an amended lease agreement between the City of Stillwater and the borrower, and confirmed a year‑to‑year pledge of certain sales tax revenue described in the text of the resolution.

A motion and a second were made for Resolution SUA 2025‑5; the vote was recorded 5 to 0 and the motion carried.

The board then considered Resolution SUA 2025‑6, described by staff as a reimbursement resolution. A staff member explained that the reimbursement resolution allows the authority to expend project‑related costs and, if eligible, later reimburse those expenditures from the proceeds of debt to be incurred. Trustees moved, seconded and approved Resolution SUA 2025‑6 by a 5 to 0 vote.

After adoption of the resolutions, trustees made and carried a motion to adjourn; the adjournment vote was 5 to 0.

The meeting record does not show individual trustees named as movers or seconders; all formal roll‑call tallies are recorded as 5 to 0 in favor.