As has become the norm, many agenda items were tabled at the regular monthly meeting of the Sulphur City Council. The meeting was held last Tuesday evening, due to Veteran’s Day holiday on Monday.
The most important tabled item concerning Sulphur residents was the proposed increase in utility rates.
After a brief discussion on the issue, members voted to table and allow City Manager Andy Freeman to check with surrounding towns to determine their rates.
It is unclear if surrounding towns have their own water wells, as Sulphur does, or if they have to purchase their water from other towns, lakes, etc. The cost difference could be significant if they purchase from another source. Sulphur does not have to actually purchase water since they have their own wells.
Sulphur residents currently pay approximately $7.00 per 1,000 gallons for water. Prior to discussing the rate increase, board members approved the sale of water to area rural water districts at a rate of $2.20 per 1,000 gallons.
The water, sewer and trash rates are the revenue that funds the Sulphur Municipal Authority (SMA) while the local sales tax funds the City of Sulphur general fund.
According to the City Treasurer, Ginger Cornell, in the past few years the funds have been tight in the SMA, however, in the current year the balances have been increasing. As of October 31, the cash balance in SMA was $664,128.00 which is an increase of approximately $307,000.00 for the same time period last year. If the funds in SMA continue to increase, the question is will a rate increase be necessary at this time? The board raised the rates in July, 2022. The water increase was 15%, sewer increase was 15% and the trash increase was 20%. Approximately 500 residents also received another increase in 2023 when all homes were required to convert to city owned poly carts which added an additional $3.00 per month per cart to homeowners for cart maintenance.
Other tabled agenda items included the following: •discussion and action on declaring the soccer fields located at West 16th and Oklahoma Street as surplus property and considering advertising the property for sale; (this item garnered opposition from some citizens in attendance);
•discussion and possible action on possible federal aviation project to use allotted airport improvement grant funding; (tabled to allow city manager to explore cost of asphalt crack sealing on the runway);
•discussion and possible action on possible federal aviation project to use allotted airport improvement grant funding or authorizing a portion of the Sulphur Municipal Airport’s allotment to be transferred to another municipal airport; (all FAA grant money is a 90/10 grant);
•discussion and possible action on the video and communications franchise agreement between the City of Sulphur and Cable One, Inc.. D/B/A Sparklight;
•payment to CD Brown Construction for invoice no. 4 of the irrigation water line project in the amount of $295,445.45; (funds not available);
•payment to Myers Engineering for engineering services on the OWRB.Chickasaw Nation Water Project-wells, pump station and lines in the amount of $26,973.90; (funds not available); and
•payment to Beytco, Inc. for invoice no. 1 of the irrigation booster pump station project in the amount of $24,476.65; (funds not available).
Agenda items that were approved at the meeting included:
• returning $1,950.00 of unused grant funds to the attorney general. The initial grant was for $15,000 used to purchase night thermal cameras for the police department.
•approved ordinance adopting the updated Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund Joinder and Master Plan Documents to comply with the Internal Revenue Service Language Requirements.
•the appointment of Will Clark to Sulphur Development Board as recommended by the Sulphur Chamber of Commerce.
•quote from CASCO Industries, Inc. to purchase two sets of outdated bunker gear for the fire department in the amount of $10,358.00.
•quote from CASCO Industries, Inc. to purchase a self-contained breathing apparatus, two bottled and a mask for the fire department in the amount of $9,137.00.
•approved quote from Axon Enterprises, Inc., for lease purchase of body cameras for the police department in the amount of $46,656.80.
•quote from Dusty Diesel to delete the DEF system on sanitation truck unit#24.5 in the amount of $4,000.00.
Council members approved the hiring Del Sol Consulting, Inc. from Mandeville, LAfor the FEMA Disaster Recovery Process for the tornado damage and debris clean up.
Lastly, members approved a bid for the water wells Section B or Section C for laying water lines depending on the water well drilling location in an 833) and the other clarifying that only citizens of the United States are allowed to vote in this state (S.Q. 834).
State Question 833 went down in flames with 61.61 percent of those casting their ballot voting no on the measure.
State Question 834 was approved by a wide margin with a yes total of 80.73 percent.
Murray County voters also turned down S.Q. 833, and approved S.Q. 834 by similar margins.
Following are the results in last week’s election with state totals in the center column and county results on the right:
FOR PRESIDENT STATE RESULTS CO. RESULTS (Libertarian)
Chase Oliver/Mike Ter Matt........ 9,184 (0.59%) 35 (0.60%) (Republican)
Donald J. Trump/JD Vance......... 1,035,217 (66.17%) 4,686 (79.69%) (Democrat)
Kamala D. Harris/Tim Walz......... 499,043 (31.90%) 1,078 (18.33%) (Independent)
Rob. F. Kennedy, Jr./N. Shanahan.... 15,992 (1.02%) 65 (1.11%) Chris Garrity/Cody Ballard......... 5,137 (0.33%) 167 (0.27%)
FOR OKLA. CORPORATION COMMISSIONER STATE RESULTS CO. RESULTS (Libertarian)
Chad Williams............................ 114,128 (7.42%) 351 (6.07%) (Republican)
J. Brian Bingman........................ 978,870 (63.68%) 4,376 (75.64%) (Democrat)
Harold D. Spradling.................... 444,254 (28.90%) 1,058 (18.29%) FOR U.S REPRESENTATIVE, DIST. 4 DIST. RESULTS CO. RESULTS (Republican)
Tom Cole.................................... 199,784 (65.25%) 4,528 (77.68%) (Democrat)
Mary Brannon............................. 86,568 (28.27%) 944 (16.19%) (Independent)
James Stacy............................... 19,849 (6.48%) 357 (6.12%) OKLA. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, DIST. 3
STATE RESULTS CO. RESULTS Yes.............................................. 724,299 (50.26%) 2,413 (44.63%) No............................................... 716,744 (49.74%) 2,994 (55.37%) OKLA. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, DIST. 4
Yes.............................................. 716,283 (49.76%) 2,345 (43.45%) No............................................... 723,329 (50.24%) 3,052 (56.55%) OKLA. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, DIST. 7
Yes.............................................. 736,685 (51.01%) 2,492 (46.06%) No............................................... 707,432 (48,99%) 2,918 (53.94%) COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, DIST. 1
Yes.............................................. 900,476 (64.30%) 3,118 (58.75%) No............................................... 500,043 (35.70%) 2,189 (41.25%) COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, DIST. 4
Yes.............................................. 888,327 (64.30%) 3,186 (59.89%) No............................................... 506,049 (36.29%) 2,135 (40.12%) COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, DIST. 5
Yes.............................................. 823,378 (59.11%) 2,874 (54.07%) No............................................... 569,629 (40.89%) 2,441 (45.93%) COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIST. 2, OFFICE 2
Yes.............................................. 896,697 (64.53%) 3,141 (59.31%) No............................................... 492,793 (35.47%) 2,155 (40.691%) COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIST. 4, OFFICE 2
Yes.............................................. 901,113 (64.99%) 3,192 (60.42%) No............................................... 485,419 (35.01%) 2,091 (39.58%) COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIST. 5, OFFICE 1
Yes.............................................. 894,859 (64.56%) 3,160 (59.891%) No............................................... 491,170 (35.44%) 2,116 (40.11%) COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIST. 5, OFFICE 2
Yes.............................................. 802,962 (58.75%) 2,825 (53.44%) No............................................... 563,874 (41.25%) 2,461 (46.561%) COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIST. 6, OFFICE 1
Yes.............................................. 818,125 (61.55%) 2,987 (56.51%) No............................................... 511,151 (38.45%) 2,299 (43.49%) COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIST. 6, OFFICE 2
Yes.............................................. 787,770 (59.29%) 2,913 (55.18%) No............................................... 540,847 (40.71%) 2,366 (44.82%) STATE QUESTION 833
Yes.............................................. 559,360 (38.39%) 2,150 (39.28%) No............................................... 897,750 (61.61%) 3,324 (60.72%) STATE QUESTION 834
Yes.............................................. 1,206,370 (80.73%) 4,970 (88.53%) No............................................... 287,971 (19.27%) 644 (11.471%)
