large_ok-loft-hero-bg.jpg

medium_ok-loft-hero-bg.jpg

small_ok-loft-hero-bg.jpg

thumbnail_ok-loft-hero-bg.jpg

ok-loft-hero-bg.jpg

category-articles.jpeg

Press Releases

Priority Project

2020-2021

### Executive Summary

#### Key Metrics

- Oklahoma has 23,138 bridges, 58% of which are located in counties.
- In FY19, 85% of all the State’s structurally deficient bridges were on the county system.
- Oklahoma’s County Highway System encompasses more than 82 thousand miles, carrying 9% of the State’s traffic volume.
- In FY20, Oklahoma taxpayers, through 7 tax bases, funded 11 different infrastructure programs at a cost of $1.1 billion; with counties receiving 35% of total funding.
- Between FY08 – FY20, 56% of CIRB’s funds were spent on roads and 44% on bridge reconstruction projects.

In 2006, as part of a comprehensive plan to improve Oklahoma’s infrastructure, new revolving funds were created under the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) for specific needs, one of which was dedicated to County Improvements for Roads and Bridges (CIRB). This fund, which is derived from a share of motor vehicle collections, dedicates state revenue for high priority county road and bridge projects, as selected by county commissioners through their respective regional districts.

As directed by statute, the majority of CIRB funds “are to be used for the sole purpose of construction or reconstruction of county roads or bridges on the county highway system that are of the highest priority as defined by the Transportation Commission.” However, statutes were amended in FY20 to allow a portion of CIRB’s revenues to be used by counties for transportation maintenance and operations.

Through this evaluation, the Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency (LOFT) sought to determine the performance outcomes of CIRB in improving structurally deficient county infrastructure across the State.

LOFT’s evaluation resulted in four key findings:

#### Finding 1: Despite Infrastructure Improvements Under CIRB, One Out of Five County Bridges Remain Structurally Deficient

Between 2008-2019, CIRB contributed to an overall 24 percent reduction in structurally deficient county bridges. However, significant infrastructure challenges remain that impact local communities and the State’s transportation system. LOFT’s analysis found that one out of five county bridges in Oklahoma are structurally deficient, and specific geographic areas of the State have higher concentrations of deficient infrastructure.

![deficient-bridges.png](https://dy8iim215g2zo.cloudfront.net/deficient_bridges_b146fd87e4.png)

In FY19, every county in Oklahoma, excluding Roger Mills, had structurally deficient bridges. The counties with the greatest number of structurally deficient bridges also have the highest concentration of bridges, and the slowest progress in addressing deficiencies.

In 2019, the State had 1,070 bridges classified as “school bus critical,” a designation given by ODOT to bridges determined to be critical safety concerns to schools due to low tonnage capacity. LOFT identified a communication gap regarding signage reflecting this status, as well as notification to school districts of when a bridge is identified as school bus critical.

LOFT forecasts increasing costs for the State due to aging and rapidly deteriorating infrastructure. Eighty six percent of Oklahoma’s structurally deficient bridges are more than 50 years old, and county bridges are typically not engineered to last as long as ODOT-designed bridges, which have a 70-to-80 year lifespan. For example, 69 county bridges built within the last twenty years are already classified as structurally deficient.

LOFT’s regional comparison found that Oklahoma ranks first in both the total number and percentage of structurally deficient county bridges.

![deficient-bridges-state-comparison.png](https://dy8iim215g2zo.cloudfront.net/deficient_bridges_state_comparison_3a30197fde.png)

#### Finding 2: CIRB’s Funding Formula Could More Efficiently Target County Infrastructure Challenges

In FY20, the State made a combined investment of $386 million to maintain and improve county roads and bridges, representing 35 percent of all state transportation funding. CIRB accounts for 31% of funds dedicated to county infrastructure.

CIRB funds are apportioned in equal amounts of up to $15 million to the State’s eight Transportation Districts. LOFT’s analysis finds CIRB’s current funding formula fails to account for areas of greatest need or greatest concentration of infrastructure, either for quantity of county bridges or total county road mileage.

CIRB was not intended to be the sole funding source for replacing structurally deficient bridges, but a tool to accelerate the effort. In FY19, ODOT estimated it would cost $811 million to replace the 2,497 structurally deficient county bridges in Oklahoma. The annual available funding per bridge ranges from $28,000 to $125,000 due to the equal apportionment of CIRB funds to Circuit Engineering Districts (CEDs) without factoring in need or density of structures.

![odot-summary-reports.png](https://dy8iim215g2zo.cloudfront.net/odot_summary_reports_0a23dc349e.png)

Recent legislation (HB2892) adjusts one-fourth of CIRB’s apportionment formula to be distributed directly to counties with the greatest infrastructure needs; the change takes effect July 1, 2021.The county-directed funds are to be used for maintenance and operations.

LOFT also determined that counties may not be maximizing federal funding, as half of the State’s counties do not utilize federal funds.

#### Finding 3: CIRB’s Processes Lack Prioritization, Are Overly Complex and Under- Coordinated.

LOFT’s review of CIRB found no clear criteria for prioritization within the process for selecting projects to ODOT for consideration of CIRB funding.

![prioritization-factors.png](https://dy8iim215g2zo.cloudfront.net/prioritization_factors_f3496e0c9d.png)

In comparing the CIRB 5-Year Plan to ODOT’s 8-Year Plan, LOFT finds that ODOT’s 8-Year Plan considers factors to assist with prioritization of projects and the CIRB 5-Year Plan does not. While not all the prioritization factors from the 8-year plan are translatable to CIRB’s plan, key metrics such as average daily traffic, critical needs, and improvement costs can be considered.

In contrast to the transportation data metrics used by ODOT, LOFT finds that CIRB fails to utilize a data-driven approach in selecting infrastructure projects, instead relying exclusively on County Commissioners. With needs that far outweigh availability of funding, the CIRB program will have limited impact without prioritization.

Throughout the evaluation of CIRB and accompanying fieldwork, LOFT observed both inconsistent standards and a lack of oversight for county bridge projects. These issues could be contributing factors to the number of bridges that require eventual replacement and the rapid deterioration of newer structures.

LOFT also finds that the differing alignment of both ODOT Transportation Districts and CED Districts creates unnecessary communication and operational barriers for CIRB’s planning process. Additionally, LOFT identified duplication of services regarding the role of Circuit Engineering Districts. Last, better coordination of county project submissions to regulatory bodies could expedite processing and project start times.

#### Finding 4: Oklahoma Has Opportunities to Leverage Best Practices from Peer State Transportation Departments to Strengthen County Education and Capabilities

_Several states have developed methodologies and weighted formulas for allocating limited financial resources to their most pressing infrastructure challenges._

LOFT found that County Commissioners are not utilizing the technical guidance, resources, and training currently available to address local infrastructure needs effectively and efficiently. LOFT found consistent underutilization of available training and resources with both ODOT and locally-developed certified training options for county officials. LOFT identified strategies from peer states in leveraging knowledge and resources regarding federal funding, professional development and training materials.

LOFT’s analysis finds there is a critical need to optimize the State’s investment by promoting enhanced communication, integrated decision-making, and needs- based prioritization for transportation infrastructure projects. LOFT identified Nebraska’s County Match Program as a best practice from which to model infrastructure collaboration efforts across the State.


Executive Summary

County Improvements for Roads and Bridges Report

Report

Report & Resources

Interactive

### Summary of Policy Considerations and Agency Recommendations

The Oklahoma State Legislature and ODOT may consider the following:

#### Policy Considerations

- Amending the funding apportionment in 69 O.S. § 507 to prioritize funding to areas of the state with the most critical infrastructure needs and greatest concentration of roads and bridges.
- Amending 69 O.S. § 626 to require that county engineers provide school districts with a list of all local bridges (county or municipal) that could affect school district transportation routes one month before the start of the school year.
- For increased oversight and accountability, the Legislature may consider amending 70 O.S. § 9-105 to require the Oklahoma State Department of Education annually review local districts’ school bus route evaluations.
- Amending 19 O.S. § 334 to require counties to collect and maintain records to notify school districts of any changes to bridge conditions that could affect school district transportation routes, such as when a bridge is closed, a bridge is repaired, or a weight restriction is removed or posted that could apply to school buses.
- Amending 69 O.S. § 507 to direct and prioritize funding to concentrations of structurally deficient structures.
- Amending 69 O.S. § 507 to require counties that receive direct apportionments under new CIRB formula to produce annual reports reflecting county inventory of structurally deficient infrastructure and schedule for repairs or replacement.
- Amending 69 O.S. § 687.3 to require the Oklahoma Cooperative Circuit Engineering Districts Board to approve access to funds available through the Emergency Transportation Revolving Fund (ETR) based on district data regarding unaddressed infrastructure.
- Amending 69 O.S. § 302.1 to expand the purpose of the Transportation County Advisory Board to include development of criteria for apportionment of CIRB funds.
- Amending 69 O.S. § 687 to align CED district boundaries with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation Districts’ boundaries to bring consistency to districts.
- Restructuring the CIRB program under the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to maximize efficiencies and subject-matter expertise.
- Requiring centralization of infrastructure data and communication channels to ensure local leaders have the relevant information to make decisions pertaining to safety and efficiency regarding local infrastructure.
- Clarifying within statute the classification of “historical significance” as it relates to Oklahoma infrastructure.
- Amending 19 O.S. § 130.7 to require specific training hours, as approved by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, for professional development and continuing education offered in-state for County Commissioners every two years.
- Amending 19 O.S. § 130.7 to assign enforcement authority for statutorily required professional development.
- Amending 19 O.S. § 130.5 to require County Commissioners to maintain active and historic records of training and professional development hours.

#### Agency Recommendations

- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should seek to establish performance benchmarks for the CIRB program for 2030.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should produce annual county road reports for improved roads with a minimum traffic count, that includes data metrics.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should adopt policies for increased coordination with the Oklahoma State Department of Education and counties to improve communication and data sharing regarding school bus critical bridges.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should require consistent standards for labeling school bus critical bridges, potentially incorporating as part of the bridge inspection process.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should allocate any additional funds over the statutory apportionment, such as special appropriations, to districts with greatest critical county infrastructure challenges, instead of equally apportioning additional funds.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should collect and report annual county road conditions similar to data currently collected and reported for county bridges.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should develop a process to educate county transportation officials on identifying and securing all available federal grants and funding opportunities for infrastructure repair and replacement.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should exercise the authority provided under current Administrative Rules and statutes to prioritize and more thoroughly review infrastructure projects being submitted for the CIRB 5-Year Plan, including developing selection criteria.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should work with County Commissioners to utilize a data- driven approach to select infrastructure projects for the CIRB 5-Year Plan.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should work to develop an objective methodology for prioritizing infrastructure projects for the CIRB 5-Year Plan, to include rating for multiple deficiencies or degree of deficiency.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should coordinate county projects for submission to Federal regulatory bodies.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should coordinate with Transportation Districts and County Commissioners to ensure accurate local records pertaining to historically significant bridges.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should add to the definition of “structurally deficient” to account for degree of difficulty for remediation.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should establish minimum standards for road and bridge maintenance for counties, to include requiring plan approval from a civil engineer.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should further collaborate with Oklahoma State University’s Center for Local Government Technology to develop curriculum, training and professional development for County Commissioners and local transportation stakeholders.
- The Oklahoma Department of Transportation should review, evaluate and prepare a report on the statewide governance, configuration and organizational strategies in coordinating management, oversight and funding of all forms of transportation in the State.

Recommendations

June 2021

County Improvements for Roads & Bridges Program

Evaluations In Progress

2022-2023

Report: #23-000-02
Identify and forecast critical jobs as well as related qualifications, assess gaps in preparedness, and identify strategies to improve career readiness.	

Workforce Readiness

Report: #23-090-02
Examine the historical budget of the agency for the past five years and present the percentage of operational funding sources, to include: revenue billed to State agencies for services, State appropriations, and one-time funds, such as federal relief funds.

OMES Budget Review

Rapid Response

Report: 23-922-01
Examine the operational framework for the Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency, including its governance and accountability, total programs administered by the agency, sources of revenue, and expenditure areas.

Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency

ok-loft-seal.png

County Improvements for Roads & Bridges Program

More Reports & Evaluations

Workforce Readiness

OMES Budget Review

Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency