Hi all:

Doing some research for an HR-related policy and came across 74 O.S. § 840-1.17, which states:

[OMES] may enter into agreement with any municipality or political subdivision of the state to furnish services and facilities of the Office to the municipality or political subdivision in the administration of its personnel on merit principles. Any such agreement shall provide for the reimbursement to the state of the cost of the services and facilities furnished. All municipalities and political subdivisions of the state may enter into such agreements.

Does anyone's municipality do this?  If so, what does the arrangement look like?  I've heard OMES can be a pain to deal with, but it piqued my interest.

Thanks in advance,

Wil M. Crawford
Indian & Environmental Law Group, PLLC
117 S. Ash Street
Ada, OK 74820
Wil@iaelaw.commailto:Wil@iaelaw.com
(580) 453-7051
(918) 948-6190 (fax)
[cid:image001.png@01D99F85.6F8E16F0]
NOTICE:  This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.

Sidewalk is in disrepair. Property owner is asking municipality for permission to remove the sidewalk instead of repairing it.

The sidewalk is the last piece of the sidewalk along that side of the block. The rest of it is in good shape.  This is a fairly frequently traveled route to the dollar store in town.

I've looked at 11 O.S. §§ 36-103 & 36-104 and see that the municipality can step in and repair the sidewalk if the owner doesn't do it. I would think that would be the best course of action here.

But what if the governing body wants to allow the property owner to remove the sidewalk?  I wonder if the city will then be obligated to inspect and maintain the unimproved pathway that will inevitably develop in the same area.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.

Thanks very much,
Kim Spady

I agree with you Kim.  If that walkway is regularly used, then it make more sense to fix the sidewalk.  I guess the City could close that portion of the sidewalk and post appropriate signs.  If the homeowner is allowed to remove the sidewalk, since it is still a public way connection other improved walkways, then a sign should be installed to warn those traveling on that way that it is not maintained and they travel at their own risk.  See Byford v. Town of Asher, 1994 OK 46.  There is a good discussion in that case on the extent of municipal liability for those traveling in public ways.

Jeff H Bryant
Director of Legal Services
Associate General Counsel
jbryant@omag.orgmailto:jbryant@omag.org

[OMAG Small Logo Smooth]
3650 S. Boulevard
Edmond, Oklahoma  73013
Phone: 405-657-1419
Fax: 405-657-1401
Cell: 405-830-8672
www.omag.orghttp://www.omag.org/

From: kim spadylaw.com via Oama oama@lists.imla.org
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 1:16 PM
To: OAMA luistserv (OAMA@lists.imla.org) oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Sidewalk Maintenance - Owner wants to remove sidewalk

Sidewalk is in disrepair. Property owner is asking municipality for permission to remove the sidewalk instead of repairing it.

The sidewalk is the last piece of the sidewalk along that side of the block. The rest of it is in good shape.  This is a fairly frequently traveled route to the dollar store in town.

I've looked at 11 O.S. §§ 36-103 & 36-104 and see that the municipality can step in and repair the sidewalk if the owner doesn't do it. I would think that would be the best course of action here.

But what if the governing body wants to allow the property owner to remove the sidewalk?  I wonder if the city will then be obligated to inspect and maintain the unimproved pathway that will inevitably develop in the same area.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.

Thanks very much,
Kim Spady