The
11 counts of the toll bridge lawsuit
By Staff Reports
3/5/2007
The South Tulsa
Citizens Coalition's lawsuit lists 11 counts that identify
issues of fact and law on the proposed toll bridge.
Both sides agree that Count I -- whether the bridge agreement constitutes a franchise -- is a question of law.
"The Oklahoma Constitution specifically says that if a political subdivision grants a franchise in excess of 25 years it must be submitted to a vote of the people," the coalition's spokesman Michael Covey said. No public vote on the bridge was taken.
Count II deals with debt that the city of Jenks could incur and laws that limit public debt. The bridge agreement calls for a certain percentage of funds to be placed in an interest-bearing account for maintenance or repairs that may be needed at the end of the 75-year agreement in an effort to avoid any public expenditure in the future.
Plaintiffs maintain that the agreement binds revenue from the city in future fiscal years unless it can be proven that the bridge will be in good condition.
Count III addresses eminent domain. The court has considered this premature because condemnation proceedings have not begun.
Count IV deals with the statutory authority to build a bridge and infringement of powers of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. Defendants believe that the court will have to decide this issue.
A 1971 Supreme Court case ruled that only the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has the power to build toll roads. The Legislature later enacted a law that would allow public trusts to construct toll roads and bridges in counties with no more than 500,000 residents. Defendants do not dispute that Tulsa County's population is more than 500,000.
Count V alleges violation of the competitive bidding requirements. Jenks admits that the bridge was not competitively bid. Jenks City Attorney Stephen Oakley has said the bridge would be built entirely with private dollars and not public funds so the requirement does not apply.
Count VI addresses eminent domain against a private property owner, Tom Snider.
Count VII deals with whether the Bridge Authority should have to comply with financing laws imposed upon public trusts.
Some of the requirements are whether the bridge meets OTA standards, whether Infrastructure Ventures Inc. has filed a performance bond with the public trust, or whether any member of the public trust has any direct or indirect financial interest in the bridge.
The defendants do not believe that these laws apply to the Bridge Authority.
IVI's officers are Bill Bacon, Bob Parmele and Howard Kelsey, but other investors or potential investors have not been disclosed.
Count VIII deals with legislation that requires the bridge to be self-sufficient within 30 years as determined by the OTA.
Count IX is tied to Count V. Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not comply with competitive-bidding requirements.
Count X questions whether the bridge violates laws that requires the boundaries of a transportation authority to be within the boundaries of the jurisdictions creating the authority.
Tulsa, which connects to the north side of the bridge, is not a member of the Bridge Authority and objects to construction of the bridge.
But Oakley said Tulsa's boundary does not go to the water's edge. The Jenks City Council annexed the river at the proposed toll bridge site in November.
"We're actually on dry ground on the Tulsa side . . . so the whole span . . . is within the Jenks city limits," Oakley said.
Count XI is the request for relief based on the other 10 counts.
Both sides agree that Count I -- whether the bridge agreement constitutes a franchise -- is a question of law.
"The Oklahoma Constitution specifically says that if a political subdivision grants a franchise in excess of 25 years it must be submitted to a vote of the people," the coalition's spokesman Michael Covey said. No public vote on the bridge was taken.
Count II deals with debt that the city of Jenks could incur and laws that limit public debt. The bridge agreement calls for a certain percentage of funds to be placed in an interest-bearing account for maintenance or repairs that may be needed at the end of the 75-year agreement in an effort to avoid any public expenditure in the future.
Plaintiffs maintain that the agreement binds revenue from the city in future fiscal years unless it can be proven that the bridge will be in good condition.
Count III addresses eminent domain. The court has considered this premature because condemnation proceedings have not begun.
Count IV deals with the statutory authority to build a bridge and infringement of powers of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. Defendants believe that the court will have to decide this issue.
A 1971 Supreme Court case ruled that only the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has the power to build toll roads. The Legislature later enacted a law that would allow public trusts to construct toll roads and bridges in counties with no more than 500,000 residents. Defendants do not dispute that Tulsa County's population is more than 500,000.
Count V alleges violation of the competitive bidding requirements. Jenks admits that the bridge was not competitively bid. Jenks City Attorney Stephen Oakley has said the bridge would be built entirely with private dollars and not public funds so the requirement does not apply.
Count VI addresses eminent domain against a private property owner, Tom Snider.
Count VII deals with whether the Bridge Authority should have to comply with financing laws imposed upon public trusts.
Some of the requirements are whether the bridge meets OTA standards, whether Infrastructure Ventures Inc. has filed a performance bond with the public trust, or whether any member of the public trust has any direct or indirect financial interest in the bridge.
The defendants do not believe that these laws apply to the Bridge Authority.
IVI's officers are Bill Bacon, Bob Parmele and Howard Kelsey, but other investors or potential investors have not been disclosed.
Count VIII deals with legislation that requires the bridge to be self-sufficient within 30 years as determined by the OTA.
Count IX is tied to Count V. Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not comply with competitive-bidding requirements.
Count X questions whether the bridge violates laws that requires the boundaries of a transportation authority to be within the boundaries of the jurisdictions creating the authority.
Tulsa, which connects to the north side of the bridge, is not a member of the Bridge Authority and objects to construction of the bridge.
But Oakley said Tulsa's boundary does not go to the water's edge. The Jenks City Council annexed the river at the proposed toll bridge site in November.
"We're actually on dry ground on the Tulsa side . . . so the whole span . . . is within the Jenks city limits," Oakley said.
Count XI is the request for relief based on the other 10 counts.