The County Line
- Volume 53, Number 5 - 2009
"Who's going to fix the road?"
That question was asked back in 1995, and it was seemingly answered in a simple manner between county and municipality.
However, the loopholes from that “simple” answer have proven problematic for more than a decade, growing more persistent with each passing year.
Is it time to intervene on behalf of our counties and the safety of our motoring publics?
There is one thing most people in government can agree on these days: We’re all tired of hearing everyone “outside” of government describe how inefficiently and ineffectively government operates, and how it
should be changed. Often we believe
the criticism is unfounded and
unfair. But, there are times when
even I find myself shaking my head.
To understand the current frustration, we have to go back to 1995.
During that Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature, ACCA asked for the passage of a new law to address a growing problem, which can be characterized in a short – very Southern – question: “Who’s going to fix the road?”
An argument over who will be responsible for the maintenance of a public road is the kind of thing that can spur the growing criticism of those who hold public office. “Why,” the question would be from those on the outside, “would elected officials argue over who is going to take the actions necessary to keep a public road safe for the taxpayers?”
In 1995, it was agreed that county roads – roads maintained by the county commission – would remain the county’s responsibility. Municipal roads would remain the responsibility of the municipality, unless annexation made it obvious the city had reached out and taken control of property along the road.
With such annexation, the discussions went, comes revenue to the city and a responsibility that the city should service those people who have become residents of their corporate body. The legislation included the usual provisions that the city and county could reach some agreement to handle things differently, but the basic idea was clear.
Annexation carries with it some responsibility. Annexation means services are to be provided to the citizens, including the acceptance of a responsibility that might be costly. Such responsibilities, we discussed in 1995, should be considered before the annexation takes place.
It wasn’t possible to craft legislation that simply said the responsibility of the road comes when annexation occurs. So, pouring over the details of the legislation took some time and some “give-and-take” between county and city officials.
In the end, legislation was fashioned that clearly stated that a city would be required to take over the road when it annexed the property that lies on both sides. It is that provision – and specifically the reference to “both” sides of the road – that brings us to our discussion today.
There was no disagreement back in 1995. If we go back and remember those folks who are constantly criticizing the actions of government officials, there should be no real disagreement today. But, boy has government taken a “wrong” turn on this matter in the past 14 years.
The issue came to light during a recent steering committee meeting.
One of our county engineers rose and drew a diagram of the most bizarre annexation in his county. Apparently the city had chosen to annex the property on both sides of the road all the way out to a large creek. The city then jumped over the creek and annexed both sides of the road on the other side of the creek as well. However, the annexation was carefully written to leave a small square of property along one side of the creek outside the city.
The result? The city is responsible for the road on both sides of the bridge, while the costly bridge structure itself remains outside the city limits, and therefore, the responsibility of the county.
Now there’s one the talk show hosts would really hold up as a shining example of government working “for” the people. And, once the issue was on the table during the steering committee meeting, I couldn’t believe my ears.
Every engineer in attendance had his own story of this kind of silliness. Government officials, properly elected, who had set out to spot-annex in a way to skirt the responsibility for keeping the road safe for the motoring public, such as school buses and trucks that bring commerce into and out of the community.
How is a county supposed to maintain a bridge when it cannot control the road on either side? How is a county to keep the approach area to the bridge in a safe manner so motorists don’t find themselves swerving into the creek bed below? How can the county replace the bridge, when the time comes, if it doesn’t control the road?
None of these questions really were on the minds of those who obviously set out to swerve around the intent of the legislation – and a sense of responsibility. Providing service to the citizens was not on anyone’s mind. Protecting the motorist was not on anyone’s mind. The only issue being considered at that point was avoiding the expense of maintaining a bridge while wishing to get the revenue generated by the traffic on the roads.
That attitude puts us back where we began. How can we expect the public to have confidence in what we do and say if we constantly do things like this?
When the new legislative quadrennium begins in 2011, we’ll ask the Alabama Legislature to remove any misunderstandings that might exist in the 1995 law. While we’re at it, perhaps we ought to seek to close all the loopholes, too.
Until 2011, seeking legislative intervention should not be necessary. Elected officials should feel an obligation to its citizens and not seek other means necessary to “pass the buck” to avoid providing the very services citizens depend on every day. Obviously, there is something wrong.
Many county bridges, and I’m told there are dozens in the state, will sit in a local government “no-man’s-land” while the public searches for reasons why it should restore its lost confidence in elected officials.
Sure, much of the criticism of government we hear today is outlandish and unfounded. But every once in a while, something so ridiculous pops up that one can only shake his head in disbelief.
|
