By Traci Chapman
Published on June 26, 2008

District 2 Commissioner Don Young defended his decision Tuesday to spend $1.5 million since April on a 15-mile Reno Road project. The work comes in the final weeks when “unlimited funds” are available to Young to spend as he sees fit.

Young, who announced he would not seek re-election June 2, is now subject to Oklahoma law that curtails spending by outgoing commissioners. It allows him to spend only half the funds remaining in his coffers as of July 1 and prohibits him from making any “major” purchases or disposing of any equipment through the end of his term, which is Jan. 1.

The issue of Young’s spending came to the forefront last week, when questions were raised about a major purchase proposed by Young and included on Commissioners’ June 16 meeting agenda. During that meeting, Commissioners opened bids for “one or more new track hoes” for District 2.

The four bids — ranging in price from $161,000 to $179,097 — were tabled to give Young a chance to review them. The award of those bids was again listed on the Commissioners’ June 23 agenda. Young tabled the bids during that session with no discussion.

Young said Tuesday he would not purchase the equipment, and he said the timing of the bids came about because the county had not had any reason to research the subject before.

“No one knew about this because it hadn’t been an issue in the past,” he said. “I’ve dropped the bid — in fact, I wasn’t sure I was going to go through with the purchase in the first place.”

District 3 Commissioner Grant Hedrick confirmed the “conflict” in the law — the June 4 versus July 1 date — came about because of a change made to the candidate filing date.

“It used to be that the filing period was the first full week in July. They moved the filing to June, which is what caused the confusion,” he said.

The bottom line is Young’s ability to spend anything beyond “normal and routine” expenses ended when he did not file for office by June 4, Hedrick said.

“He can’t buy any equipment or dispose of any equipment,” he said. “This keeps commissioners from clearing out their accounts so a successor has funds to operate with.”

The law causing the confusion — Title 19 of the Oklahoma Statutes — governs counties and county officers. Sections 333 and 347 of that statute address the spending of a commissioner who is not running for or serving a consecutive term. Section 333 gives the last candidate filing date as the deadline for spending “other than normal or routine operating expenditures;” Section 347 lists that deadline as “the first six months of the fiscal year,” which would start July 1.

The relevant portion of Section 333 states, “Any county commissioner who fails to file for re-election or is defeated in any primary or general election or by any other manner it is impossible for the commissioner to serve another term in office, shall not acquire, purchase, contract for or dispose of any machinery or equipment, or expend or approve for expenditure any monies for any purpose other than normal or routine operating expenditures except as provided in this section.”

Section 347 also addresses spending by outgoing commissioners. District Attorney Cathy Stocker said on the face of it, the two sections raised some questions for her, and she would research the issue further. Section 347 says, “Whenever a county officer holding an elective office will not immediately serve a succeeding term in the same office, it shall be unlawful for the board of county commissioners, during the first six (6) months of the fiscal year in which said term of office expires, to approve claims for the operation of said office totaling in excess of one-half (1/2) the amount allocated for the operation of said office during said fiscal year, unless approval in writing is obtained from the county excise board, and any claim in excess thereof and any warrant issued pursuant thereto shall be null and void.”

Young said he left the $1.5 million road repair until the last months of the county’s fiscal year — and the last time he could spend the funds on the project — and did so because he “didn’t have the funds to do it until now.”

“You have to do roads during the summer months,” he said. “We’ve been working all spring to dig out the soft places.”

Young also addressed critics, who said he was not stabilizing the road prior to laying asphalt. Mike Hinkson, a local government specialist with the Local Technical Assistance Program, which provides training and the roads scholar program to counties across the state, said last week said it was necessary to stabilize the road base first, before laying asphalt on it.

“You’ve got to dig that mess out or you’ll have the road falling apart from underneath,” Hinkson said. “If you don’t grind and stabilize the base, it lets the moisture into it, it can’t dry out, and it won’t last, especially on heavily traveled roads.”

Young said he did not agree with Hinkson’s assessment and pointed to his 18 years’ experience as a county commissioner.

“Engineers tell you to tear it up and re-lay the whole thing,” he said. “I don’t agree with that. We dug out the soft places, filled and stabilized the base, then we’ll lay asphalt and seal it. That makes the road last longer, in my opinion.”

Young said he laid “three-quarters of the gravel” in Canadian County over the years, “so I think I know what I’m doing. I choose to save the residents’ money and let mother nature do the packing of our road materials. She does a better job of packing that down than I do.”

“There are always going to be soft spots that come up or that you miss when you’re laying the road,” he said, pointing to a section of Banner Road he said was asphalted as part of a 16-mile project in 2006. “That is a small fix. There’s nothing wrong with the rest of the road, and there’s no reason to tear all of that up. It’s a waste of money and labor.”