Atoka council votes down proposed solid‑waste fee increase after extended debate on fund transfers

The Atoka Town Council on Jan. 13 declined to adopt a proposed ordinance that would have raised solid‑waste service fees and added an administrative charge, after a contentious question‑and‑answer period and a roll‑call vote that defeated the measure.

At a second and final reading of an ordinance amending Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 17‑108 of the Atoka Municipal Code (solid‑waste service user fees), staff explained the town had the option to extend its trash contract for two additional one‑year periods and that the vendor had proposed higher prices for years four and five. Staff described a proposed $1 monthly per‑customer increase (spread across the optional years) and an administrative fee intended to cover year‑round servicing, can replacements and billing reconciliation.

Public commenter Bill Austin and another commenter, Mr. Henry, questioned whether the town had previously transferred funds from the solid‑waste fund into the general fund. Staff and members confirmed the town has historically transferred money out of the solid‑waste fund and said the current annual transfer figure used in budget planning is $195,000. Councillors discussed that continuing transfers would require offsets elsewhere in the budget if additional revenue from fees were not realized.

Councilors sought several clarifications: the per‑customer fee amounts staff used in their memo, what the administrative fee covers, how many customers are billed, and whether the knuckle‑boom/grapple truck purchase was an eligible expenditure from the solid‑waste fund. Staff said the administrative fee funds delivery and repair of cans, service‑ticket responses and billing operations; they stated the cost of the proposed administrative component and that the solid‑waste fund could legally pay for certain pieces of equipment such as the knuckle‑boom truck if the board so allocated.

During roll‑call voting on the ordinance, Alderman Jianni, Alderman Lighty, Alderman Schaefer and Alderman P voted no; Alderman Harour and Alderman Dichi voted yes. The motion failed and the ordinance did not pass. Council members then directed staff to draft and return next month with new ordinance language; a member specifically asked staff to prepare a first reading that would leave the 2026 rate intact while proposing a possible change for 2027.

What’s next: Staff will return with a proposed ordinance and clearer options for council consideration; members signaled willingness to hold a work session to refine the amounts and effective dates before a second reading.