State Law Declares County Responsible For Bridge Maintenance
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 6/28/08 @ 10:59 pm - Filed Under Featured, Local Politics
The county council and commissioners are trying to abdicate their century old responsibility for maintaining bridges in this county by pawning it off on the city. They claim that since they no longer have a cumulative bridge fund, they are no longer responsible for bridge maintenance. But what does state law actually say:
IC 8-16-3-1:
in those counties in which a cumulative bridge fund has been established, the county executive is responsible for providing funds for all bridges, including those in municipalities, within the counties except those bridges on the state highway system.
It doesn’t say exists it says established. The county clearly established a cumulative bridge fund and there’s nothing in that code section that says they are not responsible if they rescind the levy. The city should not be held responsible for the county’s shortsightedness. If they don’t have enough money to pay for bridges (although they seem to have a cool $25 million for the Maplecrest Extension bond) then they can reinstate the cumulative bridge fund…
Comments
14 Responses to “State Law Declares County Responsible For Bridge Maintenance”
Leave a Reply
Jeff:
The first part of the statute you provide reads as follows:
_____________________________________
Authorization to provide fund
Sec. 1. Notwithstanding IC 8-18-8-5, all municipal corporations and county executives may provide a cumulative bridge fund to provide funds for the cost of construction, maintenance, and repair of bridges, approaches, and grade separations.
_____________________________________
The word “may” is used instead of the word “shall”, so the question becomes what happens when the county decides that it no longer wants to provide a cumulative bridge fund?
Can the county decide to discontinue the fund? If it can decide to do so, what happens to the bridges in the county?
Just asking some questions as I see the first part of the statute as discretionary and not mandatory.
The ultimate question then becomes, is the county forever locked into a fund once it is established, or is it allowed to discontinue the fund?
Charlotte,
I think the county has every right to establish the levy as well as discontinue it. But the 2nd part of the statute seems clear to me - once the county establishes the levy they are responsible for that maintenance from that day forward…
Jeff:
I am not disagreeing with you on the second part. What I am wondering is what happens if the county now decides to discontinue the fund?
How do we take care of our bridges?
Maybe I am missing something here. But I read it as giving the county or a local city the OPTION if putting this tax into effect to cover their bridge work, if they desire. Once they take exercise this option tax that they are on the hook for it. No place in this law does it provide for them to reverse themself. But maybe some other state law it provides them a way out of it.
I have long been a strong supporter of the Sheriff running the 911 call center. As of today I no longer do. For me it is simple that the county comes along some day and tells the cities that they no longer can fund that either!
Bloom, Brown, and Peters have shown they have little real leadership.
I am not so sure of the County Council either. They bought into the Maplecrest Ext. project by these same people.
This bridge fund issue did not just happen. Bloom and Peters knew about it years ago but they kept their heads well planted into the sand.
One has to wonder how voters will continue to go to the polls and keep returning these people to office.
J.Q.
This is my whole question. I am not disagreeing with anyone, I am simply asking is it possible when a statute is worded like the “bridge fund” statute as providing a discretionary service, does that in and of itself then create a later option of discontinuing the fund?
In plain language “may” means a “possibility” not a certainty. If it allows an out, then what kind of burden does that then put on cities to maintain their bridges?
If the word “shall” had been chosen, it would not have allowed an option. In statutory interpretation, the word “may” is seen as discretionary.
Is a follow-up provision required to enable them to stop doing something they started doing? Or can they just discontinue the fund when they desire?
And, J.Q., you make a valid point about other services from the county. If the statutes or enabling wording uses “may” instead of “shall”, are we looking at other areas where the county will decided to back out of previously provided services.
Does anyone know what other services the county provides that are discretionary in nature?
And I forgot, sorry, but what happens to county bridges (not city) in those counties that do not have bridge funds or in counties like ours where the fund may be discontinued?
One thing for sure…SOMEONE (either the city, county OR even the state) is going to need a BIGGER FAN when the $**t hits it.
All I can see coming from this is a lighter billfold for US.
(as usual)
B.G.
John Q.:
Interesting about your position on the Sheriff running the 911 center. While we are zeroing in on the law, here is another to chew on.
The Sheriff is, by the Indiana Constitution, the Servant of the Courts and the Keeper of the Jail. Indiana Sheriffs have been extending their power (and budget) over the years to cover things like;
Criminal Investigation, Traffic Inforcement and Accident Investigation. All without any legal athority I have found so far. I may have missed somewhere but…..
Now, speaking of the 911 center and dispatching of police, fire and ambulance services;
How about a Board consisting of The Sheriff, The Police Chief, The Fire Chief and the Head of EMS and a Civilian? They would select a Director that answers to the board and runs the day to day operations. This seems to work well in other states where as many as three counties are served b this “Central Dispatch”. who, by the way, as in Micigan, dispatch ALL City, County, State Police as well as Fire, EMS, Highway/Street Departments using ONE one radio system and software package.
More if you are interested. Thanks
Indiana Constitution
Section 6. All county, township, and town officers, shall reside within their respective counties, townships, and towns; and shall keep their respective offices at such places therein, and perform such duties, as may be directed by law.
Indiana Code 36-2-13-5
Duties
Sec. 5. (a) The sheriff shall:
(1) arrest without process persons who commit an offense
within the sheriff’s view, take them before a court of the county
having jurisdiction, and detain them in custody until the cause
of the arrest has been investigated;
(2) suppress breaches of the peace, calling the power of the
county to the sheriff’s aid if necessary;
(3) pursue and jail felons;
(4) execute all process directed to the sheriff by legal authority;
(5) serve all process directed to the sheriff from a court or the
county executive;
(6) attend and preserve order in all courts of the county;
(7) take care of the county jail and the prisoners there;
(8) take photographs, fingerprints, and other identification data
as the sheriff shall prescribe of persons taken into custody for
felonies or misdemeanors; and
(9) on or before January 31 and June 30 of each year, provide
to the department of correction the average daily cost of
incarcerating a prisoner in the county jail as determined under
the methodology developed by the department of correction
under IC 11-10-13.
(b) A person who:
(1) refuses to be photographed;
(2) refuses to be fingerprinted;
(3) withholds information; or
(4) gives false information;
as prescribed in subsection (a)(8), commits a Class C misdemeanor.
I think JQ and I have the same reading of the statute.
Charlotte,
I don’t think the question is whether or not they can eliminate the cumulative bridge fund - they already did. The question is whether or not eliminating that fund takes them off the hook for bridge maintenance.
JQ and I do not think it does but I’m sure the county would disagree. As for what remedy the municipal governments have if the county refuses to repair the bridges - I see two options:
1. Ask the state legislature to change the law
2. Sue the county under the existing law
I.M. Concerned:
Thanks for clearing that up. It’s been a while since I searched the Indiana Code!
What fund is or will be used to pay off the Maplecrest Road Extension?
What is the status of the County’s Bridge Fund? If they say they no longer have an accumulative Bridge Fund then why is there still money in it and why are they using that fund to pay for the bridge construction?
Gary,
The Major Bridge Fund is being used to pay off the Maplecrest Extension. The county specifically chose that fund because it’s one of the funds that would possibly be exempt from referendum.
The Cumulative Bridge Fund was previously eliminated by the county and thus they now have no money to repair bridges. The fundamental difference between the two funds, as I understand it, is based on the size of the bridges they can be used for.
I don’t think it takes a genius to figure out that we’re going to have problems with the Major Bridge Fund in the future…
There is a major difference between the “Cumulative Bridge Fund” and the “Major Bridge Fund”. Don’t know if anyone caught it.
The “Cumulative Bridge Fund” provides a cumulative bridge fund to provide funds for the cost of construction, maintenance, and repair of bridges, approaches, and grade separations.
The “Major Bridge Fund” provides a major bridge fund in compliance with IC 6-1.1-41 to make available funding for the construction of major bridges. Only for construction!
The “Major Bridge Fund” only covers for the construction of a major bridge as defined in the code. The 200 feet minimum construction requirement only applies to Ft Wayne in Allen County while 100 feet for smaller cities. Nothing about the “Major Bridge Fund” provides for maintenance or repair.
The “County Wheel Tax” is apparently in about 47 counties. As far as the allocation of the “County Wheel Tax” it appears that the taxes are to be allocated not to the county but to both county and cities within the county based on population (60%) and mileage (40%). I wonder what law the county is using to justify allocation of the cities portion back to them?