The Atoka presiding official opened and closed a public hearing on the fiscal year 2026 budget before the governing body voted to approve the city’s proposed spending plan and related authority budgets on motions made during the meeting. Councilors and staff described the package as a cautious plan, with the city manager preparing for potential downturns by reducing totals in the proposal.

“The funds change and flow throughout the year,” the presiding official said, calling the document “a living document” and explaining that the manager had designed reductions to prepare for potential revenue declines. Councilor (unnamed in transcript) noted at one point that “16% decrease is what he’s projecting,” and staff said the sales-and-use tax estimate had been lowered as a precaution.

The council first moved to approve the FY2026 city budget; the transcript records roll-call votes of “Yes” from Mister Sheryl, Miss Pogue, Miss McGee and Mister Kathy on that motion. The council then considered a formal resolution described in the record as "Resolution number 20 25 dash 20" to approve the same fiscal-year budget; the resolution was seconded and carried on a roll call that recorded affirmative votes from Miss Pogue, Miss McGee, Mister Sheryl and Mister Kankey (names and spellings appear variably in the transcript).

After the city vote, the meeting recorded similar approvals for a series of associated budgets with motions and roll-call votes: the token municipal court’s FY2026 budget, the Atoka Municipal Authority FY2026 budget (recorded in the transcript as a separate resolution), the Atoka Industrial Facilities Authority FY2026 budget, and the Atoka City Industrial Development Authority FY2026 budget (noted in the transcript with resolution numbers including variants such as 2025Dash23 and 2025 dash 22). Each of those items was recommended for approval by staff or a councilor, seconded, and passed on recorded roll-call votes that the transcript lists as affirmative.

Council members asked questions about several line items during the discussion. One councilor raised concern that one line looked like a 33% projected increase and asked whether equipment needs or timing might explain the change; staff answered that some costs may have been budgeted in the current year already or may shift to later years. Another councilor suggested part of the projected drop could stem from the loss of lease revenue.

The meeting record shows routine procedural steps — motions, seconds and roll-call tallies — rather than policy changes tied to funding decisions. The budgets were adopted on recorded motions; specific dollar amounts and detailed line-item changes were discussed in general terms but are not specified in the transcript.

What’s next: the budgets, described in the meeting as preparatory and subject to change as actual revenues and expenditures are realized, will be implemented and adjusted during the fiscal year as needed. No follow-up actions or implementation assignments were recorded in the transcript text.