Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McAlester council debates 1-cent sales tax proposal to fund roads, sewer and other infrastructure
Summary
At a special meeting the McAlester City Council discussed putting a one-cent-per-dollar sales tax for infrastructure on a future ballot, weighing uses for roads and sewer capacity, timing alongside other ballots and whether existing earmarked taxes (including one for a cancer center) could be repurposed.
Mayor called a special meeting to discuss a proposal to place a one-cent sales tax dedicated to infrastructure before city voters, saying the levy would provide a new, protected revenue stream for roads, sewer work and other capital needs. "If we take it to the community and it's 10% low for it, go, oh, well, that was really unpopular," the Mayor said, arguing the council has an obligation to offer a solution to long-standing infrastructure shortfalls.
The Mayor and council reviewed a staff chart showing current local sales-tax allocations and the proposed 1% infrastructure earmark. According to the chart, the city's current allocations include two percentage points for the general fund and existing smaller earmarks: a half percent for infrastructure, a quarter percent for a cancer center, and a quarter percent for early-childhood safe rooms and for waterline improvements. The Mayor said the proposed 1% dedicated to infrastructure could generate about $4.5 million a year and would allow the city to restore road budgets and address aging equipment without drawing down the general fund.
Council members pressed for details about the cancer center fund and whether the existing earmarked revenue could be repurposed. A council member asked, "Now that they've remodeled the old cancer center and OU Stevenson has taken it over...are we still what are we gonna what's this money gonna go for?" The Mayor responded that the tax was intended to fund an expansion (phase 2, described as roughly 15 chairs) and that the city has been pursuing private fundraising to accelerate the project rather than waiting for the tax expiration.
Staff and the Mayor explained the city's bond schedule and cautioned that payoff of one bond does not automatically free recurring funds: the city sets money aside for upcoming balloon payments on later bonds. "Don't get excited because the next one has a balloon payment," the Mayor warned, noting that when some bond payments end, the city will still hold funds to meet a large upcoming balloon payment and therefore immediate additional capacity may be limited.
Council members also discussed countywide sales-tax shares that benefit county services (jail, fire, roads) and noted the city cannot reassign county-levied allocations. Members exploring the proposal emphasized public engagement: the council discussed holding a town hall early in January and said an April ballot could be feasible if the city files paperwork by February and avoids conflicting ballot measures like a school bond.
No formal motion or vote occurred at the special meeting. The Mayor said staff would prepare briefing materials and charts for the next discussion and outreach plans. The council adjourned the special meeting and recessed until the regular 6:00 p.m. session.
