County Commissioners Play Robin Hood

Group can't split repair allocation, officials say
By John David Sutter
The Oklahoman, 3/31/06

An association of county commissioners has no right to divide $25 million in emergency money for county bridge repair, state and county officials said Thursday.

A Monday vote by the Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma appeared to split a $25 million one-time appropriation equally among the state's 77 counties. Oklahoma County officials called the move "highway robbery." Before hearing opinions from the state Transportation Department and a state legislator that the vote held no legal weight, association president Mike Thompson said Thursday his group intended to move the money with its vote. It was his impression that the Transportation Department had given the association that right.

A document from Monday's meeting shows commissioners met to discuss "apportionment of the $25 million." The document, given to The Oklahoman by association Executive Director Ken King, says that the group "divided the money."

King said Thursday it was never the group's intent to move money. "How can we (make that decision)? It's state money," King said. "We're not a state agency. We're not an entity of the state."

By state law, a private nonprofit group such as the commissioners association cannot divide money that comes from a state road and bridge improvement account, said Gary Ridley, executive director of the state Transportation Department.

The money, which was given to counties by the Legislature, must be divided using a mathematical formula outlined in state statutes, Ridley said. That formula tries to factor in which counties are most in need of money for bridges.

Oklahoma County Commissioner Brent Rinehart, who attended the association's meeting, said the vote had appeared to be the final say. That's why commissioners in Oklahoma County fought back, he said.

"I think maybe there's re-election campaigns going on," King said. The seats of Oklahoma County Commissioners Jim Roth and Stan Inman go up for election this year.

'Flabbergasted' State Rep. Mark Liotta, R-Tulsa, said he was "flabbergasted" the commissioners association voted on the matter. He co-authored the bill that gave the money to counties for the emergency repairs.

"ACCO could have voted that the moon is blue, it would have had the same effect," he said.

"Any board, association, group can hold a vote on what position they want to take and what they would like to see, but they are not an entity of state government and they have no ability to direct state funding ... that's the Legislature's job."

Liotta said he doesn't think the vote was out of line if taken only as a recommendation.

The association's 12 board members voted to distribute the funds to eight multi-county districts, which would have received $324,675.32 for each of their county members.

The vote infuriated officials in the state's largest county, Oklahoma County, who said it was unfair of the association not to consider factors such as county population, number of bridges in need of repair, school bus routes and traffic.

"I hate that Oklahoma County has to make such a big deal about it, because legislators are liable not to give us more of it (bridge money)," association President Thompson said.

King said the association's vote was meant to show the state Transportation Department how well it could handle a recommendation of this type. He said he hopes counties will continue to get more control of road and bridge money because ground-level commissioners and county associations know best what their counties need.

He thought of the vote: "Gee, if we do a good job of this, maybe we'll be invited back to participate in recommendations for other state funds."

Protecting our highway funds

by STAN INMAN
The Edmond Sun 4/3/06
www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_093232616.html

EDMOND - Last week the Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma (ACCO) attempted to alter the traditional formula for distributing road and bridge funds to counties. This change was related to a one-time appropriation of $25 million by the state. It was designed to be a "fair" allocation of the monies. However, it was anything but equitable to Oklahoma County.

By dividing the funds evenly between all 77 counties and placing decision-making authority regarding spending in its circuit engineering districts (CEDs), ACCO abandoned any objective standard of allocation. No consideration was given to traffic counts, bridge conditions or to gas taxes paid by a county. In short, this scheme would have taken your gas taxes and subsidized the bridge and road repairs of other counties.

When your county commissioners voiced opposition to this plan, the reaction from ACCO was regrettable. What are the results of our action? First, the state Department of Transportation said it will not deviate from the standard allocation formula. Second, there will be serious consideration about the propriety of paying dues to an organization that has continued to lobby against the interests of urban county residents. Your tax dollars should work for you, not against you.

You need know that these outcomes would not have happened had your commissioners not acted. The board has maintained a commitment to protecting your tax dollars and using them in the most effective manner possible. I will continue that commitment for the citizens of Oklahoma County.

(Stan Inman of Edmond serves as District 3 Oklahoma County commissioner. He is up for re-election this year with former Rep. Ray Vaughn stating his intention to run as well.)

So who is getting their fair share?

Selective outrage
The Oklahoman, Letter to Editor 4/5/06

Oklahoma County commissioners are angry as to how state bridge repair funds are to be split among the counties. They seem to think population should decide the allocation. They complained Cimarron County was getting the equivalent of $114.60 per resident while Oklahoma County would get only 47 cents per resident. Why do the Oklahoma County commissioners covet bridge money going to counties with small populations. Are the rural areas not supposed to improve their bridges?

Where was the outrage when the gross production taxes depended on by many rural school districts were confiscated by the large counties for redistribution by the state? Harper County has 26,000 acres of school land leased by the state. The rents go the Capitol and we get back approximately 10 cents on the dollar. Almost none of the oil- and gas-producing areas have been able to build new facilities for schools since the taking of the gross production taxes.

Bill Armor, Laverne