McAlester council reviews $52 million capital improvement plan; staff urges prioritizing water and wastewater

The McAlester City Council heard a presentation on the proposed Capital Improvement Plan for 2026–2031 and was told the draft lists roughly $52 million in needs while the city currently budgets about $1.5 million per year for capital. A city staff member said the plan groups projects across utilities, streets, public safety, airport and special projects and asked the council to set priorities.

The staff member emphasized utility reliability. "There is nothing more important to this city than the water that we drink and the sewer that we get rid of," the city staff member said, urging the council to prioritize water and wastewater work ahead of other items.

Why it matters: many of the largest line items are for water and wastewater systems, and staff told the council that failing to address those systems would create larger public-health and service problems that could outweigh improvements to roads or parks.

Key projects and cost notes cited by staff included a full facilities planning and engineering report for both wastewater plants (staff said the report is expected to cost about $2,200,000), lift-station repairs (listed at about $150,000), a $70,000 lift station for the West wastewater plant, and an aeration project at the West plant listed at about $650,000. Staff said an electrical evaluation for both plants should be included in the facility plan rather than listed separately.

For the water treatment plant, staff said the city needs a modern SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system and automatic callout/alerting to monitor pump status, pressures and chemical dosing; current systems, they said, report only storage-tank levels. Staff also identified a raw-water pump-station generator estimated at about $350,000 and multiple smaller replacement items such as chemical-feed skids and valve actuators.

Streets and equipment needs listed in the CIP included a new asphalt roller and a three-quarter-ton flatbed truck, concrete forms (about $18,000), a loader-mounted jackhammer (about $15,000), and a moveable message board trailer. Staff said the IMS (infrastructure management/street management) program will handle many street-surface projects previously carried on the CIP.

Stormwater projects were described as largely self-funded through stormwater fees; staff listed a Connex storage container for stormwater crews, a replacement street sweeper (placeholder $95,000), a vac trailer and roughly $100,000 for “master drainage projects” anticipated this year. Staff also said a FEMA emergency declaration/grant will cover a large portion of work at one softball-complex drainage site; the city’s recorded share was listed at about $155,000.

Public safety and facilities items included new tornado sirens (two remaining replacements), major roof repairs at the north and south fire stations (estimated $80,000 and $200,000 respectively), a new brush truck (listed around $250,000), EKG monitors (not eligible for a particular quarter‑cent equipment fund and therefore not to be paid from that fund), and less‑lethal equipment and radio upgrades for police. Staff said the digital radio conversion is expected to enable interagency voice communications among local fire, police and sheriff units and is tied to a pending 9‑1‑1 consolidation effort.

Airport and economic development items included purchase or replacement of an Avgas truck (staff said a leased truck on site was offered for sale at about $50,000) and a tug to move larger aircraft. Staff said airport fuel sales have increased but the operation still requires some general-fund subsidy as it buys large inventory and has lease costs.

Other items on the CIP were a proposed land‑development code rewrite (staff said they are pursuing a grant but it is not secured), a $1.7 million library remodel that the council previously committed to and which staff said lacks expected outside funding from a private/Bitcoin operation, a $500,000 allocation for Choctaw between Third and Fifth streets, and a multi‑million‑dollar estimate for Sixth Street from Carl Albert to Wyandotte (staff said that corridor could total about $5,000,000 when replacing underlying water, sewer and storm infrastructure plus concrete surface).

Council direction and next steps: staff asked council members to review the items, discuss priorities with constituents, and return guidance to staff on which projects should be advanced first. No formal votes or motions were recorded during the presentation; the staff member asked the council to place priorities on the draft list and to consider that some funds are restricted to specific uses (for example, a gas‑tax allocation and a stormwater fee cannot be reallocated by the city).

The presentation included specific dependencies and constraints: some sewer work will require a railroad permit to bore under tracks; several projects depend on external grant awards (including FEMA and other grant prospects) and on achieving a digital radio/9‑1‑1 merger; and the city’s TIF revenue expectation the council referenced has not yet materialized, reducing available leverage for other projects.

Councilmembers asked clarifying questions during the presentation about project timing, potential grant availability for the land‑development code rewrite, and which funds could or could not pay for specific items. Staff reiterated the request that the council return prioritized direction so that staff can sequence engineering, permitting and grant applications.

The council took no formal action during the presentation and the CIP will return to future agenda(s) after members provide priorities to staff.