The OTA Plans for the Supreme Court
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority held a Special Board Meeting on June 9, 2022, and passed several resolutions relating to the funding and construction of the much-disputed ACCESS Oklahoma projects, specifically seeking approval and validation of bonds to construct a group of projects known as the Outer Loop – East West Connector, Outer Loop – Tri-City Connector and the South Extension. This specific set of road plans has been targeted in Pike Off OTA et al. v. OTA, a lawsuit filed in Cleveland County District Court, case number CV-2022-1692.
Legal Hurdles for the OTA
The lawsuit alleges that the OTA does not have authority to construct the Outer Loop Connectors and South Extension due to 69 O.S. § 1705(f), part of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority Enabling Act, passed by the Oklahoma Legislature in 1987, which authorized the building and expansion of several turnpike plans under the stipulation they would be financed by a single bond. A bond raising funds for those turnpikes was issued in 1989, and the lawsuit says that no part of the Outer Loop Connectors or the South Extension were built after the bond issuance. The lawsuit also alleges that the Oklahoma Legislature never authorized expansion south of Norman.
The OTA held this special meeting to move along the projects that have been stalled since the filing of the lawsuit. “By having this special meeting, we avoid months-long delays to critical statewide projects such as the needed widening of the Turner and Kilpatrick turnpikes,” OTA Director Tim Gatz said, according to an article published by the Journal Record.
During the Special Meeting, the OTA passed a resolution to terminate a $200 million line of credit approved during the May meeting of the Oklahoma Council of Bond Oversight (COBO), whose 5-member group is responsible for review and approval of all financial requests by state agencies, authorities, departments, and trusts. COBO stipulated the line of credit was not to be used for the projects named in the Pike Off OTA lawsuit. The OTA also authorized issuance of $1 billion in revenue bonds and authorized an application with COBO to finance ACCESS projects, which will likely be approved or denied at COBO’s next meeting. The Authority also voted to send design routes of the ACCESS plans to the Oklahoma Transportation Commission.
Perhaps most pertinent to those involved in or following the lawsuits naming the OTA, the Authority’s board passed a resolution that directs an application to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to validate the bonds to be issued to finance the ACCESS projects at issue in the pending litigation. This caused backlash from some plaintiffs in the Pike Off OTA suit, who say that the OTA board’s move to push the issue to the Supreme Court is underhanded.
Some plaintiffs believe the OTA is attempting to circumvent the lower court system whose ruling may not be as favorable towards them as a Supreme Court ruling. “Going through that validation process brings certainty. We’re certainly not sidestepping or going around anything. We’re moving quicker towards a resolution so everyone has certainty,” Gatz said, according to a Norman Transcript article.
Not the First Time, Not the Last Time
It’s not unprecedented for the OTA to go straight to the Supreme Court. In fact, the OTA last sent an application to the Supreme Court to validate bonds in 2016. The OTA has reason; outlined in Title 69 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the OTA is authorized to go straight to the Supreme Court for bond validation. “The Authority is authorized in its discretion to file an application with the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for the approval of any bonds to be issued hereunder, and exclusive original jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Supreme Court to hear and determine each such application” 69 O.S. § 1718.
The Act then goes on to say: “It shall be the duty of the Court to give such applications precedence over the other business of the Court and to consider and pass upon the applications and any protests which may be filed thereto as speedily as possible” 69 O.S. §1718. This bit of legislation means Gatz’s statements about getting to a conclusion as quickly as possible are not unfounded. The OTA’s last application to the Supreme Court, concerning bonds for their Driving Forward turnpike plan, was made in September of 2016, and the Court issued a ruling approving those bonds in December 2016.
It’s likely that many members of Pike Off OTA don’t want a quick conclusion, because if that conclusion is a ruling against them, the ACCESS projects will begin moving forward, and condemnation and land acquisition proceedings will move forward as well. There’s not much to worry about just yet, though. ACCESS Oklahoma is a 15-year long plan, and the Norman-area turnpike projects are supposedly pretty far down the list, according to both Gatz and OTA Deputy Director Joe Echelle.
Stay Up-to-Date
There are a few meetings to watch out for to keep yourself updated on the OTA’s progress: The OTA Board meeting on June 28th, the COBO meeting on July 28th, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court hearing for which a date has not yet been set. It will also be interesting to see how the Cleveland County lawsuits will play out (there is a second lawsuit alleging that the OTA violated the Open Meetings Act), especially if they wait for the Supreme Court decision. Because the Oklahoma Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on bond legality for the OTA, the Pike Off OTA et al. v. OTA judgment will be deeply influenced by the Supreme Court’s ruling. If the Supreme Court approves the bonds, the District Court will support the OTA’s Motion to Dismiss; if the Supreme Court doesn’t approve the bonds, it’s likely the plaintiffs would file for Summary Judgment to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
As we watch this unfold over the coming weeks and months, we’ll keep you updated on the rulings that will influence the OTA’s next moves, so you can stay informed about when and where they’re building, and understand just what kind of authority they have and what power Pike Off OTA has against them.
