While the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority hopes the state Supreme Court will validate the issuance of billions in bonds for new projects, two local attorneys said Friday the agency will likely not be able to proceed without a state council’s approval.
The Council of Bond Oversight, which reviews and approves financing requests by state agencies, issued conditional approval for $500 million in bonds for OTA in August.
The agency plans to build two new turnpikes in Norman and tackle improvements statewide to the toll road network at a cost of $5 billion in bonds.
The council granted conditional approval to OTA, provided two lawsuits were settled in the agency’s favor and that the Oklahoma Supreme Court approves of the bonds, but that approval lapsed on Feb. 5.
Attorneys Stan Ward and Richard Labarthe sued OTA for Open Meeting Act violations and won in district court in December. While that ruling is being appealed to the high court, a second lawsuit alleges OTA does not have legislative authority to build Norman area toll roads is also being considered by justices.
This week, Ward filed a Supreme Court protest to point out the lawsuits have not been settled in OTA’s favor and the agency has not obtained new approval from the council after it lapsed.
Ward provided a letter to the high court, dated Feb. 8, from the council to OTA which notified the agency that it had not filed an extension and approval lapsed. His statement to the court also noted OTA had not met the condition of resolving the lawsuits in its favor.
“Thus, the OTA may not proceed with its bond issuance without obtaining some sort of new approval from the council,” Ward wrote to the court.
OTA obtained council approval last summer before it issued an application to the Supreme Court to consider bond validation.
Agency spokeswoman Brenda Perry Clark told The Transcript in July that it would seek the high court’s bond validations after the council issued its own approval.
“If the Council approves, OTA will petition the Oklahoma Supreme Court to validate OTA’s use of bonds to finance the construction of the proposed routes in the ACCESS Oklahoma program at issue in pending litigation,” she said at the time.
Clark, in a statement to The Transcript on Friday, indicated that following a Supreme Court bond validation decision, OTA would simply seek approval from the council and that it did not plan to submit anything to the high court.
Clark said OTA was aware of the council’s deadline and chose to file another application following the Supreme Court’s ruling “that conforms to the court’s decision.”
The spokeswoman added that council approval is required for OTA to issue bonds, but the council’s approval for OTA to seek the high court’s validation is not required by state law. Title 69 addresses the validity of bonds and does not state OTA must seek the council’s approval in connection to the supreme court’s validation requirement.
Labarthe disagreed with the strategy to reapply after bond validation and was skeptical that OTA’s decision not to seek council extension would sit well with justices.
“That’s an open question,” Labarthe said. “It’s interesting that they saw the need to tend to that prior to filing with the Supreme Court in August. It’s unlikely that council would walk away from their express requirement that our case must first be adjudicated in the OTA’s favor and it was not.”
Since OTA unveiled its ACCESS toll road plan in February 2022, the agency has faced several obstructions.
Ward, meanwhile, filed a third lawsuit in January, which asks a court to order OTA to collect refunds on the more than $50 million paid to contractors for the plan.
The lawsuit contends because the agency is in violation of the Open Meeting Act, contracts for ACCESS are invalid.
At the request of Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, the State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd has agreed to audit OTA.
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.