The Council of Bond Oversight today reconsidered a decision it made to ask for legislative approval of $26M in bonds for improvements to Zink Dam in Tulsa. The move allows the Capitol Improvement Authority to issue the bonds and the Department of Central Services to enter into a lease agreement with the River Parks Authority in Tulsa to pay for them without a concurrent resolution being passed in the House and Senate.  The council made the reversal over the objection of some lawmakers including Senator Patrick Anderson of Enid and Representative Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City who believe that using the money for one project goes against the intent of the legislature.

At issue is Senate Bill 239 passed in 2009 which states:

The Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority (OCIA) is authorized to acquire real property, together with improvements located thereon, and personal property for purposes of construction of Zink Dam improvements, stream bank stabilization and construction of two additional low-water dams on the Arkansas River in Tulsa County.

The idea at the time was for the state funds to be a match for $50-million in federal funds that would eventually lead to “a total economic impact of $2.8-billion and approximately 9,450 jobs” according to a Senate press release sent out when the bill passed.  That federal funding has not come through to this point, however.

State Director of Finance Preston Doerflinger sits on the Council of Bond Oversight and made the motion to reverse course on requiring another vote by the legislature.  ”It’s almost like a middle school boyfriend and girlfriend: how many different ways are we going to ask the legislature to say ‘we really, really do like you. This really is what we meant to do.’”

A concurrent resolution does not have to go through the committee process, so such a measure could be voted on by both houses almost immediately if need be.  When asked if the council backtracked in fear that such a resolution would fail, Doerflinger responded, “I can’t speak to what the legislature may or may not have done.” (see more with Doerflinger below).

Former House Speaker Chris Benge attended the meeting on behalf of the Tulsa Metro Chamber where he is Senior Vice President of Government Affairs.  He believes that legislative intent is clear. “The legislature has spoken on this four different times: two authorizations and two appropriations,” said Benge.  ”I felt that is adequate and shows that the intent to support the project.”  When asked if there was worry that a resolution would have failed in the legislature, Benge said he didn’t know, “it’s always hard to predict what would come out of the legislature.” (see more with Benge below)

When told of the council’s decision, Senator Anderson said it opens the door to a lawsuit against the state.  ”The Constitution is clear. When we pass bonds – it’s in Article X, Section 16 – the money we allocate for a bond issue has to be spent specifically on the projects that the Legislature directs it to be spent on.  I think this violates this legislative intent.”  Anderson says he believes a resolution to approve the bonds would have a tough time getting through the legislature.  He said there may be a resolution coming soon that will express the intent of the legislature to NOT issue the bonds for the single project. But he admits the only way to stop the bonds from being issued would be a legal challenge. (see more with Anderson below)