District 1 Supervisor John Montgomery said his area of representation, which constitutes 26 percent of Oktibbeha County’s total assessed property value, will be undercut by a formula, splitting the proceeds of an upcoming $10 million road bond between each of the county’s five districts.
Supervisors on Monday voted 3-2 to split the bond funds proportional to the total mileage of roads, a move both Montgomery and District 3 Supervisor Marvell Howard criticized after they said they were led to believe the board would discuss alternative ways to divvy the money.
Both supervisors opposed the matter, while it was pushed through with support from District 2 Supervisor Orlando Trainer, District 4 Supervisor Bricklee Miller and District 5 Supervisor Joe Williams.
After supervisors said they had concerns last year about how the county would divide the money, Trainer said he was open for a board discussion on splitting proceeds similar to how state aid funding is divided: one-third of the money is split equally between the five districts, one-third is divided based on road mileage and the final portion is spread across the districts according to their population.
Both Montgomery and Howard alluded to the state aid formula and adding a fourth metric — district assessment values — but discussions failed to gain any traction at the table.
Districts 1 and 3 have the lowest road mileage in Oktibbeha County — 19 percent and 12 percent, respectively — while District 4 (25 percent), District 2 (22 percent) and District 5 (22 percent) are at the top of the list. District 4 (30 percent) and District 1 (26 percent), however, combine for more than half of Oktibbeha County’s assessed value. District 3 and District 5 both represent 15 percent of the total, and District 2 rounds off the list at 13 percent.
In the past, Montgomery said road money was split using assessed valuations as a guidepost until the county moved to equal, 20-percent divisions. He said he was outraged supervisors would back a formula giving District 1 only 19 percent and called the entire process “a sham.”
An equal, 20-percent division would give each district supervisor $2 million from the $10 million bond. For Montgomery, a formula based off assessment would give his district $2.6 million, while the road mileage formula’s 19 percent divvy would only provide $1.9 million for District 1.
A 12 percent share for District 3 means Howard will only receive $1.2 million, while the other three districts, excluding Montgomery’s, would all receive more than $2 million each.
“There are needs in District 1 that are just as vital as any other district in this county. The (assessed value) of District 1 is right at $100 million. You take (Districts 2 and 5) together, and that’s about $108 million. So, you’re going to tell me that 2 and 5 are going to get 22 percent a piece, and 1 is going to get 19 (percent),” he asked fellow board members. “…Anything less than 20 percent — how can that be fair for District 1?”
Howard takes aim at two colleagues
Williams first attempted to assuage Montgomery’s anger by saying 19 percent of the bond was close to 20 percent but later attempted to push the point of using mileage by saying District 1 “might not have the roads” in need of repairs to warrant additional funding.
“Don’t even say that. You’re telling me he can’t find a project,” Howard asked Williams. “It’s been done. The handwriting is on the wall. I’ve been here long enough to know … it’s going to hurt a bit worse when it comes back around.”
Howard also targeted Miller after she said she didn’t think it was fair to divide the bond proceeds equally when “the road miles are so different” between each district. He accused the first-term supervisor of abandoning a previous stance of looking at different formulas and “going back on (her) word.”
“Sometimes there are good reasons for unequal distribution. District 4 is the largest district and has the most road miles, as well as the highest assessment value,” Miller said after the meeting. “The money was divided equally between the districts for the four-year road plan. Some of the road projects in District 4 have cost more than estimated.”
Howard pushed Williams to also commit to refunding money advanced for District 5 road projects ahead of the bond. Williams at first declined to do so, so Howard motioned for the board to vote on the matter.
Williams then asked for Howard to specifically list which projects he wanted refunded, and Howard asked Williams, “You don’t know what you spent your money on?”
Howard later rescinded his motion.
‘A prime example of a setup’
After the meeting, Montgomery called the meeting “a prime example of a setup” and said those supervisors who supported the funding formula did a disservice to District 1 taxpayers.
“I was elected to represent all citizens in the city and county, throughout all the districts, and do the right thing countywide. The problem is everyone on our board doesn’t feel the same as me. They arrange the numbers to benefit themselves … and don’t care that it hurts others in other districts,” he said. “It’s a slap in the face. This is a disgrace that this happened to our board. I apologize to the people of my district. This is an embarrassment.”
Last year, supervisors voted to issue a combined $14.5 million in bonds to improve Oktibbeha County’s infrastructure. Approximately $4.5 million was specifically pledged toward Blackjack Road improvements in District 5, while the remaining $10 million is to be used countywide.
A $14.5 million issuance is likely to require a 2.4-mill tax increase for debt service. That figure could be reduced to 1.4 mills if a previous tax hike for maintenance is applied to the bond, but Trainer previously said he would prefer to keep the allocation on as is.
Carl Smith covers Starkville and Oktibbeha County for The Dispatch. Follow him on Twitter @StarkDispatch
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 43 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.