Digest of opinions, 09/2012, v.48 no. 3

              Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt
Vol. 48, No. 3 Quarterly September, 2012
Digest
of Opinions
2012-10
The Hon. Jason Murphey July 23 2012
State Representative, District 31
1. A board of county commissioners has
the authority pursuant to 69 O.S.2011,
§ 1401 to issue road crossing permits
to citizens, including public utility
companies and cable television sys-tems,
to lay pipe and conduits under
roads or highways under the board’s
jurisdiction.
2. A board of county commissioners
has the express power to adopt rules,
regulations and conditions related to
road crossing permits issued pursuant
to 69 O.S.2011, § 1401. This broad
regulatory power includes the author-ity
to charge fees for road crossing
permits.
3. The amount of a road crossing permit
fee must be reasonably related to the
costs of administering and regulat-ing
the permit issued pursuant to 69
O.S.2011, § 1401. The fees shall
not be used as a revenue-generating
measure.
4. A road crossing permit fee must be
deposited into an account to offset the
costs to the county for administering
and regulating the permit. There is no
prohibition against depositing these
funds into the county highway fund as
authorized by 69 O.S.2011, § 1503 if
funds from that account are expended
by the county.
5. A board of county commissioners=s
regulatory authority to adopt rules,
regulations and conditions includes
the power to assess a fine for non-compliance
with rules regarding
road crossing permits issued pursu-ant
to 69 O.S.2011, § 1401. See
Jackson v. State, 211 P. 1066, 1071-
72 (Okla. Crim. App. 1923) .
6. Title 28 O.S.2011, § 13, which pro-hibits
the charging of unauthorized
fees by public officers, is applicable
to county commissioners who know-ingly
charge a fee or levy a fine not
authorized by law. A fee or fine in
excess of the amount reasonably
required for administration and
regulation of the permit would be
unlawful. It is within the discretion
of the district attorney to determine
whether to file charges pursuant for
a violation of this statute. Rideout v.
Wynn, 987 P.2d 446, 448 (Okla. Civ.
App. 1999).
E. SCOTT PRUITT
Attor ney General of Oklahoma
SANDRA D. RINEHART
Senior Assista nt Attor ney General
Opinion 2012-11
The Hon. Seneca Scott Aug. 20, 2012
State Representative, District 72
1. Once a county elects to come un-der
the County Budget Act, all the
county’s agencies, instrumentalities,
departments, offices, boards and
commissions are required to comply
with the County Budget Act. 19
O.S.2011, § 1404(7).
2. A county budget board is responsible
for preparing the county budget but