Tahlequah — Members of a city bond project committee on Tuesday agreed to move forward with a third public ranking survey to help set priorities for a potential municipal bond, discussed outreach materials and financing scenarios and debated how specific ballot language should be.

"We are working diligently on survey number 3," Speaker 2 said, describing the survey as a ranking exercise that will draw from a comprehensive list of previously collected projects. Committee members discussed flyer and slip designs and agreed the survey should remain open long enough for meaningful participation; Speaker 2 recommended "probably no less than 30 days, but probably no more than 90."

The committee reviewed survey content that will list capital projects the planning commission recommends so residents can see how public feedback maps to proposals. Speaker 4 said a draft is available and that she expects to circulate updated outreach materials next week. Speaker 4 said the survey will include street and capital improvement items and that the next survey will let respondents drag-and-drop priorities to generate ranked results.

Committee members also discussed specific projects proposed for the bond. On cemetery work, Speaker 6 clarified the item seeks a columbarium for urns, not a new crematory. On health care, members discussed a Northeastern Health System entry intended to address aging infrastructure; Speaker 8 said preliminary drawings exist but cautioned outside funding is uncertain, noting state and federal rural health grants are possible but not guaranteed.

Financing options were a focal point. Members reported meetings with bond advisors who model capacity from prior tax revenues; Speaker 7 said modeled receipts could approach about $57.5 million and that "the maximum, recommended to bond is the the 43 would be $43,000,000." He said higher-cost or inflation-sensitive items could be handled on a "pay-as-you-go" basis to limit borrowing exposure.

The committee debated whether ballot language should enumerate projects or remain broader with a companion council resolution listing projects. Speaker 7 said "what the attorneys have recommended, is have a pretty broad ballot question," and described a companion council resolution that would include a project list. Speaker 1 warned of voter risk from overly broad language: "someone votes yes because they want a new fire station. And then elected leaders change, priorities change, and we don't get a new fire station because we decide to spend that money elsewhere. And then the public feels like they had 1 pulled over on them." Several members suggested using marketing and the council presentation to show voters exactly what projects the bond would fund.

The committee set a sequencing target: launch Survey 3 after the holidays (a January start was discussed), run a narrowing fourth survey by March, and provide final recommendations to the city council by May to allow a possible June vote. Speaker 3 urged publishing archived survey results for transparency and recommended a mid-May council presentation so the public could review results before a June vote.

The committee also began selecting architects and engineers to prepare project scopes and noted some specialized projects may require firms outside the initial selection. Outreach plans will include a flyer and collection box materials to be reviewed by the survey committee.

Next steps: the committee will refine survey wording—removing or clarifying language that implies guaranteed external matching funds—and finalize outreach materials before the planned post-holiday launch. The council must still decide final ballot language and whether to adopt a companion resolution listing projects.