Perry managers propose 14% utility-bill hike to address $15M in water projects; council delays final vote for town halls

City Manager Nate Reed told the Perry City Council on Nov. 4 that the city’s water and sewer enterprise funds have run persistent deficits and that the council’s recommended package would raise a typical customer’s overall utility bill by 14 percent to begin addressing roughly $15 million in needed water capital projects.

Reed said the proposal bundles several changes: a roughly 69 percent increase in residential water and sewer charges and an 89 percent increase for commercial water and sewer customers, offset in part by a reduction in the residential electric base rate and small increases to industrial electric rates. "The total increase to your bill that we're proposing tonight is a 14% increase," Reed said, describing the proposal as a collaborative plan negotiated with councilmembers and staff.

Why it matters: Reed and City Engineer Matthew Coe argued that the increases respond to chronic underfunding that has left the water fund about $1 million short and the sewer fund about $400,000 short annually. Coe told the council the city is operating under a notice of violation from the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality because lagoons that store treatment residuals are full and the plant is failing to meet total organic carbon reduction requirements. "We have a current notice of violation with DEQ right now because our lagoons are full," Coe said.

Engineers outlined priority capital projects: creating a passive dewatering/sludge‑box system and associated infrastructure (initial capital estimate ~$1.1 million; life‑cycle cost estimated at roughly $1.4 million), periodic dredging and landfill disposal of lagoon residuals (one contractor bid put dredging at about $330,000 with trucking at roughly $170,000), decommissioning roughly 5.35 miles of antiquated cast‑iron mains the city identified (preliminary budget about $2.0 million), a 12‑inch loop booster station to improve fire flows ($750,000–$1.25 million), and either a substantial rehabilitation of the treatment plant ($10–$12 million) or full replacement ($30–$35 million). Coe and Reed said phasing and grant/loan packaging would be needed to limit the city’s borrowing burden.

Staff and funding options: Reed noted recent cost reductions (a hiring freeze that saved an estimated $110,000, contract pruning and insurance moves) and new revenue sources such as a school‑resource officer contract (~$50,000) and policing contracts with a local employer (~$140,000). He emphasized that much of the city’s sales tax is restricted by prior allocations and debt service and therefore cannot be repurposed to cover utility operating deficits. City staff recommended pursuing grant programs and loan forgiveness where eligible (CDBG, DWSRF principal forgiveness, Indian Health Service, USDA, and OWRB programs were discussed).

Public response: The council heard more than a dozen public commenters during the meeting’s public‑comment period. Several residents on fixed incomes said an average residential increase of about $55 per month is unaffordable and urged either smaller phased increases, expanded assistance, or audits of prior utility spending. "69, 89 percent is almost kind of borderline disrespectful," said local business owner Danny Schaller. Katha Cinnamon, a resident who has spent thousands repairing an older home, said "that $60 more a month is even worse." Multiple speakers described struggling on fixed incomes and warned the increases would force some households to leave.

Other residents supported the plan as necessary. One long‑time resident and business owner said he would accept the $55 monthly increase to preserve essential infrastructure and public safety needs, urging the council to "pay it" now to avoid larger emergencies later.

Council action and next steps: After the presentation and public comment period, the council voted to delay any final action on the rate changes and to hold two public town‑hall meetings for additional education and discussion before a vote. The council set meetings for Monday, Nov. 11 and Monday, Nov. 25 at 6 p.m. at the municipal building. A council motion to table the item carried on roll call.

What remains unresolved: The council did not adopt the rate ordinance or formal tariff changes at the Nov. 4 meeting. Staff left the council with cost estimates, funding options, and a recommended project priority list. Further engineering design, grant applications, and a public education process are planned before council takes a final vote on rate changes.

Documents and authority references mentioned at the meeting include DEQ notice and compliance requirements, DWSRF funding and principal‑forgiveness examples used previously by the city, CDBG as a possible grant source for the sludge‑box project, and other federal/state programs (IHS, USDA, OWRB). The council instructed staff to publish town‑hall details and continue outreach prior to any ordinance vote.