I think the link between Newcastle and Moore/Norman has been needed for a while now.
I do not at all understand the eastern route between Norman and the lake. I'm assuming it's to bypass tribal land east of T-bird?
I'm still at a loss as to how a non governmental organization (OTA) has eminent domain power? Or, is it just assumed that the state will take what the OTA needs and give it to the OTA?

Uh, uh, ummm...Not sure how to tell you this, but...

This is taken from the OTA website,
What is the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) is an instrumentality of the State of Oklahoma (the State) and a body corporate and politic created by statute in 1947. The Authority is authorized to construct, maintain, repair and operate turnpike projects at locations authorized by the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma and approved by the State Department of Transportation.
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is similar to a public utility, providing a needed, basic service at a fee that yields a return to its investors. The Authority must generate sufficient revenues to operate and maintain its roads at a high quality while covering the interest and principal payments owed to bondholders (investors) who have purchased its revenue bonds.

The Authority consists of the Governor (ex-officio) and six members serving without pay for eight-year terms from districts established in the State Statute. The Governor may remove any member of the Authority, at any time, with or without cause. The members are appointed to represent defined geographical districts. Authority members have full control over all turnpike operations; however, the OTA must operate in strict compliance with trust agreements that define operating procedures to be followed. The Authority employs an Executive Director to manage the day-to-day operations. The Executive Director is appointed by the Authority’s Board.

The OTA receives no state appropriation and none of the money raised by tolls is given back to the state. My understanding from reading this is that the organization is granted it's power by the state but is not an official state agency. If they were at state agency we would be able to see who the bond holders are and the terms of the bonds. This is one of the points of contention for the folks who are fighting the current proposal.

This last bit taken from the OTA site is pretty interesting,
In addition to providing this responsibility to the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, limitations were placed on the selection of toll road locations. It is the sole discretion of the Oklahoma Legislature to authorize projects considered for construction by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. Originally, fourteen toll road projects were approved. Today, there are 32 toll road projects authorized by Title 69, Section 1705.

I thought that the OTA governing board was who approved the projects. Does this sentence mean that the Oklahoma Legislature was previously briefed and approved recent and proposed construction? If so that seems like news to all of the legislators in the Norman area.

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) is an instrumentality of the State of Oklahoma (the State) and a body corporate and politic created by statute in 1947. The Authority is authorized to construct, maintain, repair and operate turnpike projects at locations authorized by the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma and approved by the State Department of Transportation.
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is similar to a public utility, providing a needed, basic service at a fee that yields a return to its investors

So OTA is similar to a city water department. Still government.

Similar is the key word for me. I don't know of a government agency who's purpose is to "yield a return to it's investors". IMO if they were an official government agency the concern would be for the citizens, not the investors/bond holders who are mentioned numerous times on the OTA site.
However, my opinion could be clouded by my disdain of paying way too much $ just to drive to Tulsa.

The relevant section of the authorization is found in subsection 20 of 69-1705:



(20) All or any part of an Oklahoma City Outer Loop expressway system beginning in the vicinity of I-35 and the Turner Turnpike and extending west into Canadian County and then south to I-40; and then south and east to I-35 in the vicinity of Moore and Norman; and then extending east and north to I-40 east of Tinker Field; and then extending north to the Turner Turnpike to complete the Outer Loop.

For the past two or three years, OTA and ODOT have been moved under the same Transportation cabinet and both ran by Tim Gatz. "Yield a return to investors" is talking about bond holders. It would be like if ODOT was actually allowed to issue bonds to fully complete projects. If Oklahoma actually allowed this, Norman residents would be fighting with ODOT than OTA. Only difference is that the bonds are paid with tolls instead of tax money.

So really Access Oklahoma is Governor Stitt approved initiative to generate economic activity. There is no corporate boogeyman profiting from tolls.

^^^^ very well said! I had something typed up but I didn’t have the words to say it that good so I deleted it.

The OTA Supreme Court hearing will be streamed at this video at 10 am this morning:


https://youtu.be/tgyfZN0BaS8

So this court date apparently is wasn’t any major one as this article states they haven’t set a date on when a decision will be made.

https://kfor.com/news/local/turnpike-expansion-plan-argued-at-oklahoma-supreme-court/

So this court date apparently is wasn’t any major one as this article states they haven’t set a date on when a decision will be made.

https://kfor.com/news/local/turnpike-expansion-plan-argued-at-oklahoma-supreme-court/

it was the oral arguments before the Oklahoma supreme court .. it was the big court date .. they will issue their decision in their own time ..

Similar is the key word for me. I don't know of a government agency who's purpose is to "yield a return to it's investors". IMO if they were an official government agency the concern would be for the citizens, not the investors/bond holders who are mentioned numerous times on the OTA site.
However, my opinion could be clouded by my disdain of paying way too much $ just to drive to Tulsa.Don't know of a government agency who's purpose is to yield a return to its investors? How about every governmental agency that issues bonds?? A huge part of the investor economy is buying government-issued bonds. All the way from small municipalities to housing authorities to states to the US government.

it was the oral arguments before the Oklahoma supreme court .. it was the big court date .. they will issue their decision in their own time ..
When do we expect a court decision?

Pike Off OTA wins summary judgment on all counts. A phenomenal day.

Pike Off OTA wins summary judgment on all counts. A phenomenal day.
So they cant go through with the bonds as they are?

Thankfully it seems like the OTA is confident the new turnpikes will still be built. Just have to go back and redo some things. Just a bunch of NIMBYs taking advantage of endless red tape laws that make building infrastructure do difficult in this country.

Oh the small chance the opposition wins i guess we can all sit back and watch as their little bubble gets overrun with sprawl(which is coming regardless) with no way to address the inevitable congestion. Edmond has already made that mistake. There’s really a lot of people in this city that don’t want growth but sure want the pluses that come with it.

Thankfully it seems like the OTA is confident the new turnpikes will still be built. Just have to go back and redo some things. Just a bunch of NIMBYs taking advantage of endless red tape laws that make building infrastructure do difficult in this country.

Oh the small chance the opposition wins i guess we can all sit back and watch as their little bubble gets overrun with sprawl(which is coming regardless) with no way to address the inevitable congestion. Edmond has already made that mistake. There’s really a lot of people in this city that don’t want growth but sure want the pluses that come with it.


PluPlan, do you personally (not your parents) own a home/property?

PluPlan, do you personally (not your parents) own a home/property?
Yes more than one actually and even if I didn’t I fail to see how that is relevant in any way. Why don’t you try to make an argument about the point not bring what I own or not trying to discredit my opinions. It’s a weak argument.

Either way, it seems like this won’t impact the projects too much just will require the OTA to go back and redo the meetings. That’ll buy Pike Off more time to try and pull of whatever they can come up with to cause further delays ultimately canceling the project. Welcome to infrastructure building 101 in America. It’s part of the reason why the USA has some of the highest cost of infrastructure building of any modern country in the world.

The OTA just needs to make sure they are careful on what they do now and I would bet they will be.

The case that matters is the one at the OK Supreme Court. That is the one the determines bond use by OTA.

Pike Off OTA wins summary judgment on all counts. A phenomenal day.

Looks like an elected judge serving the pathway of the proposed turnpike wants to be elected again. This is what appeals courts are for.

Looks like an elected judge serving the pathway of the proposed turnpike wants to be elected again. This is what appeals courts are for.

This elected judge serves and sits in Seminole County.

I've mentioned that the OTA has already purchased numerous properties on Indian Hills, but I haven't head about any purchases in east Norman/Noble yet. Just finishing the route between Mustang and the Kickapoo spur should help with some of the through traffic between i-35 and i-40.
I still don't see the need for the east Norman part of this yet.

Looks like an elected judge serving the pathway of the proposed turnpike wants to be elected again. This is what appeals courts are for.
I honestly wondered about that. Seems like a conflict of interest to even allow that judge to make a ruling if that is the case.

Article from Fox 25:

https://okcfox.com/news/local/oklahoma-turnpike-authority-ota-pikeoff-ota-open-meetings-act-access-oklahoma-project-15-year-expansion-plan-norman-neighborhoods-rarchar-tortorello-violation-ward-5-december-1-2022#

KFOR story: https://kfor.com/news/local/judge-rules-in-oklahoma-turnpike-authority-open-meeting-act-violation-trial/

So they cant go through with the bonds as they are?

this was not deciding that it was just about open meeting act violations ... it doesn't change much or set back the OTA really at all

This elected judge serves and sits in Seminole County.

So why is the case and ruling from Cleveland County? Innocent question.

this was not deciding that it was just about open meeting act violations ... it doesn't change much or set back the OTA really at all

Right, the bond question is the bigger one. Cut the funding, and how do you proceed. All they will do with this ruling is change their processes for future meetings and potentially have an "open" meeting to show the plan for this and call it done. Even if they start the official meeting process over, the end result won't change from just this meeting. It's good for the future though to tell OTA that they have to play by the rules.

Supreme Court with the Bond....now that's the juicy one.

So why is the case and ruling from Cleveland County? Innocent question.

The Cleveland county judge who got the case recused himself. So this judge took over.

this was not deciding that it was just about open meeting act violations ... it doesn't change much or set back the OTA really at all
Do you have any insight on when that meeting will be held? And if the OTA will have to hold an additional meetings or how it would take? I wouldn’t expect very long.

Article from Fox 25:

https://okcfox.com/news/local/oklahoma-turnpike-authority-ota-pikeoff-ota-open-meetings-act-access-oklahoma-project-15-year-expansion-plan-norman-neighborhoods-rarchar-tortorello-violation-ward-5-december-1-2022#

KFOR story: https://kfor.com/news/local/judge-rules-in-oklahoma-turnpike-authority-open-meeting-act-violation-trial/


Tassie Hirschfeld, a lead plaintiff, says she believes todays development invalidates all current contracts for the project.

This just feels like wishful thinking from someone who thinks their magical gotcha actually means something.

This just feels like wishful thinking from someone who thinks their magical gotcha actually means something.
That was my opinion as well. The more I read about this the more I realize how insignificant this ruling actually is. This is the equivalent to a speed bump in a parking lot.

This just feels like wishful thinking from someone who thinks their magical gotcha actually means something.

very much so ..

The ruling is a pretty big deal in that it basically seems to follow Oklahoma law. It's based on solid Oklahoma Supreme Court precedent, and very much reminds me of the old Oklahoma Industrail Authority from the 1970s. Probably their most memorable debacle was the ad valorem tax break they promised to the General Motors Plant in Midwest City. The Attorney General and the Midwest City School District sued alleging among other things that the Authority didn't have that power and nevertheless, they had numerous violations of the Open Records/Open Meetings Acts.

Similarly, the courts reversed nearly every action taken by the OIA. It seems that every few decades, some state agency is going to get too big for its britches and get spanked. I think this may be one of those cases. Every once in awhile, state agencies find out that they don't have the power to act with impunity and that they have to follow the law.

On an unrelated note, I hope similar accountability comes to the OKC Alliance at some point as I believe a public-private partnership built to circumvent the law should not be found to be a legally effective entity for that purpose, but that's another fight for another day.

Now, all that said, I imagine in OTA's very worst case scenario, they simply have the meetings again, dot their Is, cross their ts, and they can have that very same route approved in a few months' time. While the engineering reports, etc. will have to be resubmitted and re-approved, I don't imagine much, if anything has changed about any of that.

And I do hope that the appellate courts let this stand and send a message to the OTA and other state actors that acting in the light of day is part of their job description.

The ruling is a pretty big deal in that it basically seems to follow Oklahoma law. It's based on solid Oklahoma Supreme Court precedent, and very much reminds me of the old Oklahoma Industrail Authority from the 1970s. Probably their most memorable debacle was the ad valorem tax break they promised to the General Motors Plant in Midwest City. The Attorney General and the Midwest City School District sued alleging among other things that the Authority didn't have that power and nevertheless, they had numerous violations of the Open Records/Open Meetings Acts.

Similarly, the courts reversed nearly every action taken by the OIA. It seems that every few decades, some state agency is going to get too big for its britches and get spanked. I think this may be one of those cases. Every once in awhile, state agencies find out that they don't have the power to act with impunity and that they have to follow the law.

On an unrelated note, I hope similar accountability comes to the OKC Alliance at some point as I believe a public-private partnership built to circumvent the law should not be found to be a legally effective entity for that purpose, but that's another fight for another day.

Now, all that said, I imagine in OTA's very worst case scenario, they simply have the meetings again, dot their Is, cross their ts, and they can have that very same route approved in a few months' time. While the engineering reports, etc. will have to be resubmitted and re-approved, I don't imagine much, if anything has changed about any of that.

And I do hope that the appellate courts let this stand and send a message to the OTA and other state actors that acting in the light of day is part of their job description.

thank you for the analysis

Another salvo fired at OTA.

New lawsuit: Over $42 million unlawfully spent by OTA
https://kfor.com/news/local/new-lawsuit-seeks-to-recoup-over-42-million-paid-by-oklahoma-turnpike-authority-for-expansion-plans/

A bunch of those "innocent explanation", "mistake", "no big deal", "oops" posts haven't aged very well...

i mean this is yet another meaningless action occurring until we have the results from the Supreme Court Ruling. that is the one that might actually have a chance to derail these projects. all of these others, are just pushing off start dates.

A bunch of those "innocent explanation", "mistake", "no big deal", "oops" posts haven't aged very well...

As one of the people who was making those posts, not in my eyes.


“They don’t agree with the ruling. They don’t think they have to fix anything. And what they’re doing right now is rubber stamping the contracts again after a year and adding more money to those contracts and telling their contractors go full steam ahead,” said Amy Cerato, a plaintiff.

This is just "the contracts weren't done right", *OTA redoes the contracts*, "wait, we wanted the contracts to be forever disallowed".

The only thing that might have stopped the Access Oklahoma projects is if Stitt had lost to Joy, and that very much did not happen.

The ruling never said anything about reapproving contracts. What did the plaintiffs expect a new design or a new set of contractors?

I have a question regarding the OTA's online pay portal. Does anyone know if OTA designed that in-house or are they using a third party developer? The reason I ask, is my coming is wanting to implement a portal for our customers to pay invoices by ACH or Credit Card and I had mentioned designing a website similar to what OTA and many other turnpike authorities have. Any help on this would be great.

The ruling never said anything about reapproving contracts. What did the plaintiffs expect a new design or a new set of contractors?

Pretty sure it was magical thinking where they expected the previous ruling to be a silver bullet that stops the projects entirely.

I have a question regarding the OTA's online pay portal. Does anyone know if OTA designed that in-house or are they using a third party developer? The reason I ask, is my coming is wanting to implement a portal for our customers to pay invoices by ACH or Credit Card and I had mentioned designing a website similar to what OTA and many other turnpike authorities have. Any help on this would be great.

Rule number one in web development: never be the person who writes code that handles credit cards. Outsource that and do it to someone who knows what they are doing and has plenty of experience doing so, and is known to be compliant with all the appropriate payment industry standards.

Rule number one in web development: never be the person who writes code that handles credit cards. Outsource that and do it to someone who knows what they are doing and has plenty of experience doing so, and is known to be compliant with all the appropriate payment industry standards.

very much this. now ACH payments are much easier to code. have done that at two jobs now. but remember you have to have a bank provider that lets you send through to get them out to the Fed Warehouse so they can go anywhere.

Pretty sure it was magical thinking where they expected the previous ruling to be a silver bullet that stops the projects entirely.

very much this. I think i'm the only one on my block here in Norman, that actually wants the expansion. atleast the part from I-44 to I-35, and around the airport. And they were all so happy with the previous ruling and were throwing parties that the Turnpike was dead.... they literally thought that would just make the OTA just stop everything and give up.

very much this. now ACH payments are much easier to code. have done that at two jobs now. but remember you have to have a bank provider that lets you send through to get them out to the Fed Warehouse so they can go anywhere.

Do you have any recommendations on third party providers of this type of service? I am looking at comparing outside provider costs versus bring it in-house, but I am at a loss on how to find a provider that can do something as simple as the plate pay site makes paying bills for the customer.

https://kfor.com/news/local/ota-expansion-plan-near-lake-thunderbird-denied/?ref=nbcnewsapp

Federal government tells OTA the south access route is too close to the Bird.

Looks like they may be forced to go east of the lake. The route going west of the lake always seemed an odd choice to me.

Can they go east of the lake? For some reason I was thinking that was never an option for some reason, but it's also possible I'm just remembering wrong.

i think it's more likely they just shift things a bit further west.

Can they go east of the lake? For some reason I was thinking that was never an option for some reason, but it's also possible I'm just remembering wrong.

Looking at a map that looks like the easiest way to get to Hwy 9. Intersect the new turnpike near Thunderbird Casino and bring Hwy 9 up to divided highway standards through Norman to I-35

Looking at a map that looks like the easiest way to get to Hwy 9. Intersect the new turnpike near Thunderbird Casino and bring Hwy 9 up to divided highway standards through Norman to I-35

I believe Native American sovereignty precludes going east of the lake.

Can they go east of the lake? For some reason I was thinking that was never an option for some reason, but it's also possible I'm just remembering wrong.

long ago east of the lake was the long term plan i was surprised when they decided to west of the lake when the plan was unveiled ..

I believe Native American sovereignty precludes going east of the lake.

in what way ?

I believe Native American sovereignty precludes going east of the lake.

This is a very BoulderSooner kind of post.

You have wasted several minutes of my day now as I went off trying to figure out just what the hell you could have possibly meant by that and I have no idea by what authority you believe that any Native entity might be able to halt an eminent domain action by the OTA. I know the Natives are hoping for some sort of jurisdictional mission creep from criminal to civil, but McGirt was just overturned and there are still folks out there wanting to argue for this kind of sovereignty?

And that said, I couldn't imagine any Native nation would turn down the potential gaming and other revenue a turnpike spur wold bring, so even if there were issues of sovereignty, I doubt that'd be enough to stop the road from getting built.

There was a piece on this on the local news on NPR this morning. It didn't mention Native American involvement but it did say the land is somehow controlled by some Fed Govt agency and can only to be used for "Projects of interest to the Federal Government".

I would imagine they’ll probably try to stay west of the lake if at all possible so that they can maintain the planned interchange with the proposed E/W connector.

This is a very BoulderSooner kind of post.

You have wasted several minutes of my day now as I went off trying to figure out just what the hell you could have possibly meant by that and I have no idea by what authority you believe that any Native entity might be able to halt an eminent domain action by the OTA. I know the Natives are hoping for some sort of jurisdictional mission creep from criminal to civil, but McGirt was just overturned and there are still folks out there wanting to argue for this kind of sovereignty?

And that said, I couldn't imagine any Native nation would turn down the potential gaming and other revenue a turnpike spur wold bring, so even if there were issues of sovereignty, I doubt that'd be enough to stop the road from getting built.

Sorry to have wasted several minutes of your day. Somebody or somebodies were concerned about that issue. I did not make this observation with no basis of fact.
Is it your opinion that Oklahoma can use E.D over tribal lands?
https://www.normantranscript.com/news/who-knew-affidavit-reveals-officials-had-prior-knowledge-of-norman-turnpikes/article_0ceff484-597e-11ed-af28-435b49fe8b58.html
Oct 31, 2022
Cleveland said in his statement to the court that he recalled Stacy approaching him about the turnpike one day in his office sometime “after Dec. 7 and before Feb. 22.”

“He said he heard the Kickapoo Extension was going to be on the west rather than the east side of Lake Thunderbird because the OTA did not want to deal with Indian land,” Cleveland’s statement reads.

That's a long way from saying that sovereignty played a part though. They may just not have wanted the appearances that it would bring. Or maybe they have a history of tribes being able to argue for higher land value. But that's not to say that just having tribe land there, means they can't build.

I think Midtowner's point is, just make sure the facts support the claim clearly before making a statement like that.

If you want to read a recent Law Review Note about Tribal Sovereignty and a State's power of Eminent Domain, you can check this out:
Partially Tribal Land:The Case for Limiting State Eminent Domain Power under 25 USC § 357 [PDF] (https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/BennettA_CMT_Post-SA%20%28JJ%29.pdf)
tl/dr: Federal statute allows state eminent domain for condemnation of tribal lands allotted to individual landowners, but not of lands held by a tribal entity. (Please see the Note for appropriate citations. There are 175, not including the Note Title.)

And @Midtowner, no, McGirt was not overturned.

Sorry to have wasted several minutes of your day. Somebody or somebodies were concerned about that issue. I did not make this observation with no basis of fact.
Is it your opinion that Oklahoma can use E.D over tribal lands?

It depends on what you mean by "tribal lands." Do I think Oklahoma can aquire land which has been deeded into trust? No. I think only the federal government could aquire that land--and they could. The trust land is a federal entity and because of principles of federalism, the State can't aquire federally protected/held interests.

Now, if you're talking about the aquisition of land within the bounds of an historic native nation? It definitely again depends on the type of interest. The 10th Circuit has held that a tribe with a fee simple interest in land cannot be subject to E.D. by a State actor. If all we're talking about are the historic bounds of nations, I think first, it depends on which nation. The Kickapoo Reservation was recently found to have been specifically disestablished by Congress in the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals, so I think you have no problem there. There are other indian nations which have specific reservations and territories, and I think you'd have a hard time there. I think with most Oklahoma tribal interests, outside of trust land, I think the State can take through eminent domain, but I think it's going to be a fight the State might avoid if all they have to do is take the road a different direction.

And if the tribal governments are pressuring the State to not build roads through their territory, I really have to wonder what they're thinking... do they just not want economic development and more valuable land? Do they not want to bring jobs and opportunities to indian country? Their loss.

I'm confused. From the piece I heard on NPR the other day and an article on KFOR's website a couple days ago the land belongs to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Not any tribe. The Bureau works very closely with tribes but if the land belongs to the Bureau then it belongs to the Federal Government.