As we reported last week, the 2009 legislative session was relatively calm for Oklahoma’s local governments. Last week’s post summarized the good news, including some greater control over governance and more land use planning tools. There is bad news, too. Local governments suffered some loss in powers, got new duties without help paying for them, and still hold a big IOU from the state. Other sessions have been worse, though. There is reason for relief in city hall and the courthouse. Here’s the rundown.

Bills that prohibit local governments from acting, also known as preemptions, are among the most serious for local governments, because they can keep the government from responding to demands from citizens. This year’s only example, HB 1473, is a minor one. It exempts agricultural  land 40 acres in size or larger from ordinances restricting land use and building construction when those areas are annexed into a city. This could mean cities can never rezone or restrict buildings on this property, even after it is developed. Here’s the Oklahoma Municipal League’s response, which references an earlier version with an even stricter 10-acre minimum.

Read the rest of this entry »

Nobody fears the coming of a new legislative session more than Oklahoma’s 1,900 local governments. Because they are legally “creatures of the state,” our counties, cities, and special districts are subject to the state’s complete control. The Legislature often exerts that control by restricting funding sources for local governments, preventing them from taking certain actions, requiring them to act in certain ways, and giving them new duties, often without funding the additional costs. Collectively, these existing and new mandates play an important role in shaping how communities provide public services.

The 2009 session was fairly calm for local governments. A later post will address some negative legislative results for local governments. Here are some that most local governments would view as positive:

• SB 431 allows counties to establish fines and to cite and prosecute alleged violators of zoning, subdivision, flood plain, and storm water ordinances. This gives counties more tools to manage the growing development that is taking place outside city limits.
• SB 487 gives state agencies and local governments sued under the Government Tort Claims Act more flexibility in working with claimants to structure settlements. This could allow local governments to reduce property tax impacts of these settlements.
• Local governments got a little more revenue flexibility and freedom from HB 1480, which expands allowable uses of lodging taxes, and HB 1048, which reduces steps counties must take in collecting delinquent property taxes.
• Counties got more management flexibility from HB 1608, which adds sheriff’s deputies and others to the list of public employees who can work shifts of more than eight hours per day, and SB 490, which raises the dollar amount where counties can award contracts to the second lowest bidder if the lowest bidder cannot fulfill the contract.
• HB 1483 gives Oklahoma water use priority over out-of-state use. Oklahoma cities support this bill since it may help them meet growing water demands.
• City governments may find it easier to hire for key positions due to HB 1753, which expands the area in which a city manager may reside to include the school district serving the city and an area within 10 miles of the city limits, and HB 1420, which lets small cities hire part-time city planners.

Read the rest of this entry »

Recently, The Oklahoman criticized OK Policy for our opposition to a proposal under legislative consideration that would waive existing state laws that require insurance companies to provide coverage of basic health benefits as part of any policy for young adults. The editorial asserted that allowing insurance companies to offer “bare-bones coverage” would be an aggressive step in addressing the crisis of the uninsured in Oklahoma.

It’s helpful to begin by reviewing what is actually being considered. HB 2026, authored by Rep. Kris Steele, and HB 1038, authored by Rep. Doug Cox, would both allow insurance companies to offer health insurance products exempt from state benefit requirements in the individual market to persons under the age of 40. Oklahoma currently mandates coverage of about a dozen benefits. But more than half of these benefit requirements apply only for group coverage or for adults over the age of 40 (here’s an example of an apparent mandate that would be unaffected by these bills -  coverage of routine obstetrical/gynecological exams is required only for group policies covering 50 employees or more).

Read the rest of this entry »