If you missed Episode 26 of the Right-of-Way Report Podcast on August 24, 2026, we talk all about the City of Norman Staff bringing back a resolution of cooperation to the City Council for additional interchanges on the Southern Extension - and why that’s a bad idea.

The podcast went live one day before the Norman City Council was to vote on a resolution of cooperation at the Council Meeting Agenda that started yesterday evening Tuesday, August 25th.

I am happy to report, that in a 5-4 vote (Mayor Holman, Council Members Deck (2), Kirby (5), Steele (6) and Blodgett (7)) voted down the Resolution of Cooperation and stood with the citizens.

Please take a moment to contact them and thank them for their vote.

We had a building full of citizens WEARING RED. Thank you to all the citizens who came out to support no additional interchanges in east Norman and who spent the time to prepare a speech and deliver it at the end of a very long meeting that adjourned at 2:15 AM.

Thank you also to all the citizens who sent an email to our Council Members asking them to VOTE NO.

Our part of the meeting starts around hour 4:31, which was around 11:00 pm. And lasts until 2:14 AM… THREE plus hours of City Council Member questions to staff, speeches and citizen response.

The four remaining Council Members, Gandesbery (1), Bruce (3), Grant (4) and Dixon (8) unfortunately voted for a poorly written and unnecessary resolution that would have opened up East Norman for unwanted development.

Thankfully, they were in the minority.

Feel free to send them an email educating them about why partnering with the OTA in such a vague way has proven historically to be a bad idea.

You can find their contact information here: Council Members contact information.

Subscribe now

Why Voting NO Was the Right Call

I laid out the history of the OTA trying to get the City of Norman to sign a Resolution of Cooperation Monday. Within that substack, I linked back to what I wrote almost exactly two years ago, when Norman citizens spent eight consecutive weeks showing up at City Council meetings trying to explain why our City should not partner with the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.

Eight weeks.

Citizens rearranged work schedules. We left our families at home. We researched documents, read statutes, prepared public comments, sat through hours of meetings and waited late into the night for three minutes at a microphone….all because a powerful state agency and its army of consultants kept coming back asking our City government to give them something the people who actually live here did not want.

And we won.

In 2024, Council voted NO twice, followed by a unanimous vote to indefinitely postpone the Resolution of Cooperation.

That should have been the end of it.

The citizens had spoken.

The Council had spoken.

NO.

But apparently “indefinitely postponed” means wait two years and try again with a different council and a different resolution.

The roaches crawled back.

And once again, ordinary Norman residents were forced to spend their time and energy fighting the OTA and its well-paid consultants from Poe & Associates; people who are literally being paid to advance this project…..while citizens do this work for free because we are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

And once again, we sat in City Hall until after 2:00 in the morning defending our watershed, our rural community, our roads, our tax dollars and our right to have some meaningful say in what happens to the place where we live.

Think about how backwards that is.

Citizens should not have to defeat the same bad idea over and over and over again until eventually we become too exhausted to show up.

Democracy should not be a war of attrition where government agencies and their contractors get unlimited attempts while citizens have to win every single time.

But Tuesday night, we showed up again.

And this time, FIVE Council Members listened to the people they actually represent.

Five votes.

Enough to kill the Resolution.

Enough to tell OTA NO. AGAIN.

Enough to send the roaches scuttling back into the walls.

For now.

The Citizens Brought Receipts

And that’s really the part of Tuesday night’s meeting I don’t want to get lost.

The citizens didn’t just show up and say “we don’t want these interchanges.”

They explained why.

Speaker after speaker brought history, documents, prior agreements, financial concerns, environmental concerns, public-safety alternatives and firsthand experience with the OTA.

Meanwhile, much of OTA’s pitch depended on some version of: Trust us. This will be good for Norman.

We’ve been doing this far too long to accept “trust us” as evidence.

So, for posterity’s sake and because two years from now I don’t want Norman citizens to have to dig all of this back up again when the roaches inevitably crawl back, I’m going to preserve some of the most important arguments and receipts from Tuesday night’s citizen comments right here and write additional Substack blogs until all are documented.

And let’s start with a particularly important one.

Oklahoma County’s Experience with the OTA - NOT GOOD

One of the most important was unfortunately disallowed by City staff during the citizen-comment period for Item #29.

But it was later played during Miscellaneous Comments and I want to play it again here, because Norman didn’t have to guess what might happen when a local government enters into a Resolution of Cooperation with the OTA.

We already have a case study.

Look at what happened to Oklahoma County after it signed a Resolution of Cooperation with the OTA over the Kickapoo Turnpike.

There’s an old saying that applies remarkably well here:

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

Oklahoma County showed Norman what “cooperation” with the OTA can look like.

Norman wisely chose not to find out for itself.

Share

Environmental Studies: Read the Fine Print

OTA Executive Director Joe Echelle sent Norman City Council Members SEVEN emails between August 20 and August 25 as part of his last-minute full-court press for these additional interchanges.

He covered everything from traffic and population statistics to highway lighting, surveying, Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP), environmental studies and even PIKE OFF’s pending federal lawsuit.

But I want to spend some time on one of those emails because it goes directly to something several Council Members said Tuesday night:

They wanted a resolution with the OTA so they could be part of the planning process to force OTA to mitigate the damage its turnpike would cause.

That sounds great.

But here’s the problem:

What happens when OTA decides mitigation costs too much?

Please read this email “#4” in its entirety and pay careful attention to what was said and what wasn’t said.

“Environmental Studies Are Complete”

In Email #4, entitled “OTA Environmental Studies are starting, in process, or complete,” Echelle accused opponents of spreading “misinformation” by saying OTA had not completed environmental studies.

He told Council:

“You can find the completed environmental studies for projects that are fully designed” on the ACCESS Oklahoma website.

“PikeOff is aware of the environmental documents, and their leadership has used the information to formulate their lawsuit, however, they continue to push a false narrative that OTA hasn’t done studies or isn’t required to perform studies.”

Then he linked two reports as examples.

Yes, Joe. We know about the reports. We’ve read them in their entirety. They cover a fraction of the area the OTA is destroying and they were performed by the OTA only because the federal government required them at certain points where the project crossed federally owned and operated lands or infrastructure, e.g., I44, South Canadian River, I35.

Do you know how to find the reports? You have to go to accessoklahoma.com and scroll down to their map. Then zoom in and click on the roadway.

Easy to find, right?

I’ll make it easier for you. Here are the direct links to the environmental report for the western portion near Newcastle (EWC-28001A - connection with I44 - owned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)) and for the eastern portion around Indian Hills and S. Penn (EWC-28002 & EWC-28003 - Bridge over South Canadian River owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)).

Both of these locations have FEDERALLY REQUIRED environmental reporting laws - the OTA didn’t do the bare minimum out of the goodness of their hearts.

There are NO STATE STATUTES that force them to do environmental studies on any other non-federally owned portion of their toll roads, because they don’t use federal monies to build them. Let that sink in for a minute. They absolutely, 100% misled the Norman City Council in 2022, and they are doing it again in 2026.

Go back and notice that he didn’t say OTA completed one comprehensive environmental impact study examining the cumulative impacts of the entire East-West Connector corridor.

He said OTA has completed “environmental studies” for “projects that are fully designed.”

What Echelle didn’t mention is that these aren’t comprehensive corridor-wide studies. They’re project-specific environmental documents associated with locations where federal infrastructure, federal land or federal permitting requirements come into play.

He also neglected to mention that these sections are already being constructed….and quickly.

OTA can point to a stack of individual reports and say, Look at all the environmental studies we’ve done.

Fine. But studying pieces of a turnpike while you’re already building them doesn’t answer the question Norman has been asking since 2022:

Where is the comprehensive analysis of what happens when you build an entire new turnpike corridor through our watershed?

What happens cumulatively to our streams?

Our wetlands?

Our wildlife?

Our drinking-water supply?

Noise?

Light pollution?

Stormwater runoff?

Flooding?

And what happens when you add interchanges, service roads and the development those new access points facilitate?

Those segmented environmental studies don’t answer those questions.

Studying pieces is not the same thing as studying the whole.

And that distinction matters enormously when OTA is asking Norman to trust it to protect our watershed.

Remember What Norman Was Told in 2022?

Back in March 2022, Joe Echelle came before the City of Norman with representatives from Garver and assured Council that environmental and impact studies would occur before OTA acquired right-of-way and began construction.

It’s now August 2026. And cursory, federally obligatory “environmental studies” have only been completed at I44 and along the South Canadian River.

OTA is acquiring property all along the East-West Connector and proposed Southern Extension.

Construction is moving at breathtaking speed.

They’re building what OTA itself calls the longest bridge in Oklahoma.

So where is the comprehensive environmental impact study for the entire corridor through our watershed?

There isn’t one.

Instead, OTA points to these individual reports and says: See? We did environmental studies.

That’s not the same thing.

And Then There Is “Mitigation”

This is where Echelle’s email gets particularly interesting.

He explained OTA’s environmental process to Council this way:

First, OTA tries to avoid an environmental impact.

If it can’t avoid it, OTA tries to minimize it.

And after that, he wrote:

“any impacts to the environment must be mitigated for.”

That sounds reassuring.

Especially when he says

“In years past, we’ve mitigated…… by purchas[ing] environmental mitigation credits for wetland and stream impacts, which are both acceptable means of mitigation by the federal regulatory agencies.”

Read that again.

OTA can damage a wetland or stream in the path of its turnpike and, under the applicable regulatory framework, potentially satisfy its compensatory mitigation obligation by purchasing credits from an approved mitigation bank.

That may satisfy a federal permitting requirement.

But it doesn’t magically restore the wetland or stream OTA damaged in OUR watershed.

A mitigation credit is not a time machine.

It doesn’t put the destroyed stream back.

It doesn’t restore the lost wetland where it existed.

It doesn’t undo the increased runoff at that location.

And it doesn’t necessarily replace the ecological and water-quality functions lost in the particular community that suffers the impact.

That’s the problem with repeatedly hiding behind the phrase “acceptable means of mitigation.”

Acceptable to whom?

Because “federally permissible” and “good for Norman” are two entirely different standards.

If OTA damages resources in the Lake Thunderbird watershed, I don’t particularly care that it can satisfy some regulatory obligation by writing a check for environmental credits elsewhere.

Norman doesn’t drink water from a mitigation bank.

We drink water from Lake Thunderbird.

And you cannot pollute, pave over, fill or otherwise damage one watershed and then point to environmental improvements somewhere else and tell the people living with the damage that everything has been “mitigated.”

On paper, perhaps.

On the ground, the damage is still here.

That’s exactly why Norman should be demanding avoidance first, particularly for infrastructure that isn’t necessary in the first place.

Don’t unnecessarily damage our watershed and then tell us you’ll compensate for it somewhere else.

Protect OUR streams. Protect OUR wetlands. Protect OUR drinking water.

But wetlands and streams are only one piece of the environmental cost of this project.

The same question applies to every impact OTA creates: What happens when the study identifies real harm, but actually fixing that harm is inconvenient or expensive?

Because the next example is even more revealing. This time, OTA identified the impact, calculated a way to mitigate it—and then essentially concluded that the people affected were too expensive to protect.

Let’s talk about noise.

Share Amy’s Substack

Noise Study on portions of the East-West Connector

One of the existing environmental studies on their website examined traffic noise along a portion of the East-West Connector for about 2.9 miles from S. Penn to 36th Ave NW.

The modeling identified a substantial increase in traffic noise for nearby residences. At one modeled location, the predicted noise level increased from roughly 39 decibels without the project to approximately 66 decibels with it.

Do you know how loud that is? Here I am about 1000 feet from the centerline of I40 in Oklahoma City back in July of this year. Now imagine being 100 feet from this! Do you want to be outside in your backyard with this persistent noise in perpetuity?

OTA evaluated a noise barrier.

But the barrier wasn’t considered reasonable under OTA’s cost criteria.

The analysis used a maximum allowable cost of $85,000 per benefited residence. The proposed barrier was estimated at approximately $3.2 million, or roughly $284,000 per benefited residence.

So the barrier didn’t make the cut.

Think about what that means.

The analysis identifies the impact.

The people living there don’t get to avoid the impact.

They don’t get to move the turnpike.

They don’t get to turn the traffic off at night.

They just get the noise.

Because mitigating it doesn’t satisfy the agency’s cost-effectiveness test.

And that should matter enormously to Norman.

“We’ll Make OTA Mitigate It”

Several Council Members suggested Tuesday night that Norman could cooperate with OTA but insist that OTA mitigate the environmental consequences.

Based on what guarantee?

Joe Echelle just told you in an email to council that he believes impacts “must be mitigated.”

But OTA’s own process can determine that a particular mitigation measure is not reasonable because it costs too much.

Those are two very different promises.

Do not confuse identifying an environmental impact with fixing it.

Do not confuse conducting an environmental study with conducting a comprehensive environmental review of the entire corridor.

And absolutely do not confuse an OTA promise to “mitigate” with a guarantee that OTA will actually pay whatever it takes to protect the people left living beside its turnpike.

Because when the mitigation gets expensive, OTA has already shown us who can be left holding the consequences.

The residents.

And Jenks faced similar challenges with the Creek Turnpike in the early 1990s. The OTA refused to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that the US Army Corps and Fish and Wildlife wanted them to complete. They stuck Jenks with a hefty bill to pay for the mitigation measures and shut off a major arterial into Jenks that the City had to sue them about in federal court.

But in Norman, those consequences don’t stop at someone’s property line.

They drain downhill into our drinking-water supply.

That is precisely why five Council Members were right Tuesday night not to hand OTA more access, more interchanges and more development pressure in the Lake Thunderbird watershed based on promises about what OTA might mitigate later.

Because environmental protection should not work like this:

Build first. Identify the damage. Calculate what it costs to fix it. And then decide the people living next to it aren’t worth the price.

It should be the exact opposite.

Protect first. Avoid the impact whenever possible. Mitigate what absolutely cannot be avoided. And don’t create an unnecessary impact in the first place.

That’s especially true here.

Nobody is forcing OTA to build this turnpike.

Nobody but the developers, highway contractors, engineers, lawyers and bankers WANT the OTA to build the turnpike.

Nobody is forcing OTA to put additional interchanges in our watershed.

And nobody should be asking the citizens who already live here to accept permanent noise, light, pollution, traffic, stormwater and environmental impacts simply because properly mitigating those impacts makes the project more expensive.

The cost of protecting the people and environment harmed by a project is part of the cost of the project.

It isn’t an optional extra.

It isn’t something you eliminate from the budget when the numbers become inconvenient.

And it certainly shouldn’t become a cost silently transferred from the agency building the project to the families and communities forced to live with it.

So here’s my bottom line:

If the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority cannot afford to properly mitigate the impacts of the turnpikes it chooses to build, then it cannot afford those turnpikes.

And if a project only makes financial sense when the people living beside it are forced to absorb the environmental costs……

then maybe that project shouldn’t be built at all.

Now go scream that from your rooftop so maybe the State Supreme Court Justices, Legislators, Governor, Attorney General, Cleveland County Commissioners, and City Council hear us loud and clear….

But then I think about yesterdays Primary Republican Runoff and I’m convinced South Park got it right.

Share Amy’s Substack

NO Means NO.

And that brings us back to Tuesday night.

Five Council Members looked at all of this including the history, the unanswered questions, the financial risks, the environmental consequences, the development pressure and the lived experience of other communities. They decided Norman didn’t need to volunteer for more of it.

They listened to the citizens and voted NO.

That shouldn’t be remarkable.

But after four years of fighting an agency that seems to believe every NO is merely an invitation to come back and ask again, it certainly feels remarkable.

So thank you to Mayor Holman and Council Members Deck, Kirby, Steele and Blodgett.

And thank you to every citizen who wore red, wrote an email, brought receipts, waited until 2:00 a.m. and refused to be worn down.

We shouldn’t have to keep winning the same fight.

But if the roaches crawl back again, we’ll still have the receipts.

And we’ll still be here.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

If you missed Episode 25 of the Right-of-Way Report Podcast on August 17, 2026, we talk all about the City of Norman Staff bringing back a resolution of cooperation to the City Council for additional interchanges on the Southern Extension - and why that’s a bad idea.

This resolution of cooperation will be voted on in the Council Meeting Agenda on Tuesday, August 25th.

We need you in the room WEARING RED. I am also asking you personally to please sign up to speak for Item #29 and the Miscellaneous Comments and send an email to all our Council Members asking them to VOTE NO.

Scroll to the end for the Council Members contact information.

Subscribe now

City of Norman’s History with Resolutions of Cooperation

We’ve done this already. Multiple times. Back in the Fall of 2024, we told the City Council to vote NO on a Resolution of Cooperation for additional interchanges along the East-West Connector - we were already “getting” 5.

They didn’t get one from the City of Norman, so they went to the Cleveland County Commissioners in March of 2025 and got one - even though Cleveland County doesn’t own and maintain Indian Hills - the City of Norman does - so it is unclear how the OTA is going to work through that legal conundrum.

And now they’re back for another round.

I need you to fully understand WHY the OTA keeps coming back to the City of Norman and asking for a Resolution of Cooperation.

Because it is required by Statute: OS 69-1716(b) and OS 69-2-3004.

Don’t believe OTA Joe Echelle when he says the OTA wants to do whatever the City of Norman wants to do…. that he’s perfectly happy without the extra interchanges clogging up our watershed and bootstrapping the City of Norman to infrastructure expansion and maintenance liabilities in perpetuity.

That he just wants to be of service to the Citizens of Norman.

Oh please.

They’re not indifferent. They’re selling indifference while others do the pushing.

If Joe Echelle doesn’t care about the extra, destructive, and unnecessary interchanges, why did the developer cartel call in the President of OU to support the extra interchanges at the OTA’s August 4th Board Meeting?

The President said that the University of Oklahoma supports adding two interchanges in Norman because they are “essential” and “desperately needed” for “economic prosperity.”

“Having these two gateways to Norman will absolutely magnify the prosperity of the city,” Harroz said.

Can someone tell Mr. Harroz, a long-time practicing lawyer, that in 2006 our State Supreme Court said that eminent domain cannot be used for ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?

I feel like all these entities are literally making the case for us that these turnpikes through Norman are meant for ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

You know - Kilpatrick 2.0.

They keep telling us this is about:

Safety. NO.

Relieving congestion. NO.

Reducing travel time. NO.

Allowing their quoted 42% out-of-state traffic to bypass I-35 through Norman and Moore. NO.

But now they are saying the quiet part out loud:

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

Straight-up land grabbing for the benefit of developers, land speculators and banking interests with the OTA conveniently holding the one tool they don't have: the State's sovereign power of eminent domain.

Except there’s a problem.

Economic development alone does not justify the use of eminent domain in Oklahoma.

You know, like… BREAKING THE LAW.

Subscribe now

Proposed Southern Extension Resolution of Cooperation

And that brings us right back to these additional interchanges because economic development requires access.

You know one of the easiest ways to fundamentally change a community? Pave it over.

Jane Jacobs warned about this more than 60 years ago in The Death and Life of Great American Cities. She called it the “erosion of cities by automobiles”: the cumulative process of giving more and more land to roads, parking and traffic until the character of a community itself is changed.

That is exactly what Norman should be thinking about before agreeing to additional interchanges.

We have spent the last fifty years trying to protect the Lake Thunderbird watershed and our drinking water with - and now the City of Norman Council Members, pushed by City Staff, are contemplating adding two more interchanges to a roadway we don’t even want or need?

NO. NO. NO.

If the southern extension is built, it will have an interchange at I35, SH77 and SH9 where infrastructure is already existing. The STATE will be on the hook for working with the OTA on maintenance in those areas. The City doesn’t need, and shouldn’t want, more interchanges that mean more homes and land taken from private property owners, more lights invading east Norman’s dark skies, more noise disturbing our peace, more vibrations shaking our homes, more flooding threatening our watershed, and more pollution fouling our air.

But apparently, the OTA doesn’t care if they are built.

The developers are pushing everyone they can, including the OU Foundation and the OU President and the Norman Chamber of Commerce, to get those interchanges so they can bust up the east-Norman zoning laws and put in service roads, which will attract commercial and industrial buyers. Then those 1 home per 10 acres rules right now will be thrown out the window when developers threaten to sue the City.

The big time developers asked the OTA and their minions to reconsider a meeting with the City and then feigned indifference.

And I hope the City doesn’t fall for it.

The transportation cartel, including all the engineering consultants, came to the City of Norman’s City Council Conference on August 11th to spew their propaganda (The stream cut out so there are two parts).

But isn’t it interesting that back in the Fall of 2024, when the City of Norman voted to unanimously to postpone their vote on the Resolution of Cooperation on the East-West Connector additional interchanges and service roads “indefinitely” until they could schedule a townhall with the OTA to discuss the city’s needs and have all the citizen questions answered, the OTA refused the meeting?

Director Joe Echelle let City Manager Darrel Pyle know that the OTA decided that they will not be participating in any Townhall or any more meetings in Norman to talk with the residents.

They didn’t want to come back and answer Norman’s questions then…..but now they want Norman’s cooperation.

Call to Action

We have been here before.

Norman residents already told the City Council that we do not want a partnership with the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. We do not need additional interchanges opening east Norman and the Lake Thunderbird watershed to more roads, more development pressure, more infrastructure obligations and more destruction of private property.

And if the OTA truly doesn’t need these interchanges, then there should be absolutely no reason for the City of Norman to cooperate in building them.

So let’s make this very simple: Vote NO.

Tomorrow night—Tuesday, August 25—we need to fill City Hall WEARING RED.

Please:

• Come to the City Council meeting.

• Sign up to speak on Item #29 and during Miscellaneous Comments.

• Email every City Council member and ask them to VOTE NO.

The OTA can try to build the turnpike it insists on building and take responsibility for it.

Norman does not have to help them do it.

We said NO before.

It’s time to say it again.

NO RESOLUTION OF COOPERATION WITH THE OTA.

City Council Members

Mayor - Stephen Tyyler Holman; mayor@normanok.gov or 405-876-9216

Ward 1 - David Gandesbery; ward1@normanok.gov or 405-876-9170

Ward 2 - Jacy Deck; ward2@normanok.gov or 405-876-9196

Ward 3 - Robert Bruce; ward3@normanok.gov or 405-876-3143

Ward 4 - Helen Grant; ward4@normanok.gov or 405-876-9237

Ward 5 - Trey Kirby; ward5@normanok.gov or 405-876-9239

Ward 6 - Kyle Steele; ward6@normanok.gov or 405-876-9262

Ward 7 - Kimberly Blodgett; ward7@normanok.gov or 405-876-9263

Ward 8 - Scott Dixon - ward8@normanok.gov or 405-876-9166

All City Council Members: city_council_members@normanok.gov

City Manager

Darrel Pyle - darrel.pyle@normanok.gov or 405-366-5402

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Amy Cerato in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

If you missed Episode 24 of the Right-of-Way Report Podcast on August 10, 2026, we talk about the political cheerleaders for additional interchanges along the proposed Southern Extension, problematic real-estate transactions along transportation corridors, the insane speed at which the OTA is attempting to obtain right-of-way in front of the pending litigation and obvious corruption at every level within our state.

Take a listen!

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

If you missed Episode 23 of the Right-of-Way Report Podcast on August 3, 2026, we talked about the July 30th decision of the Council for Bond Oversight. Here are the receipts.

We believe the Council for Bond Oversight (COBO) violated state law…possibly in more than one way… during their July 30th monthly board meeting when they conditionally approved the sale of up to $1.9 BILLION dollars in new revenue bonds for the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) ACCESS program and $1 billion in refunding bonds to refinance existing debt.

The first potential violation involves Oklahoma Title 90, Section 10-3-4(a)(3)(I), which states that the State Bond Advisor is required to review the following documents prior to final approval, including a “(I) Letter from issuer’s attorney or bond counsel stating that there is no litigation pending or threatened relating to outstanding or proposed obligations or the issuer’s authority to enter into any agreements necessary to complete the proposed transaction.”

The regulation is unequivocal. It does not distinguish between material and immaterial litigation, nor does it limit the requirement to litigation challenging the validity of the bonds themselves.

The OTA has been under threatened litigation since January 23, 2026, when a Notice of Intent to Sue was served regarding the proposed East-West Connector project. That threatened litigation became pending litigation when Case No. 5:26-cv-01526-D was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on June 23, 2026. A Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to halt the project was subsequently filed on July 14, 2026.

Because litigation relating to the proposed project and the associated financing is both threatened and pending, the OTA could not truthfully provide the letter required by OAC 90:10-3-4(a)(3)(I). Without compliance with this mandatory regulatory prerequisite, the application for final approval is deficient.

PIKE OFF OTA told COBO all of this and more in our objections in June and again in July.

But the State Bond Advisor read the law differently, with the help of the OTA’s counsel, Eric Lair.

Around minute 4:30 in the video that a member of PIKE OFF OTA had to take because COBO was not recording it, she said that

“OTA has represented that the expenditures of bond proceeds will be directed across ACCESS Program projects, and the modularity of the program allows for that to happen.”

I have more to say about the legality of the “modularity” of their program, but hold on.

She goes on to say that

“In the event that certain construction equipment is not available, the funds can be deployed, the bond proceeds can be deployed, to other projects as is necessary. That is what is happening right now across the ACCESS program.”

You see where this is going, right?

She continues,

“As council is aware, litigation has been filed in federal court challenging certain federal permitting decisions related to the East-West Connector. As of today, OTA continues to hold permits for that project and is proceeding with construction under those permits.”

And whether those permits themselves withstand judicial scrutiny is precisely one of the issues now before the federal court.

Just look at the video of their bridge construction impacting the South Canadian River AND the delineated wetlands.

Not to mention the raw sewage spewing in from the City of Moore.

Moving on…. (minute 6:00 in the video)

“However, should a court issue an order prohibiting further construction on the East-West Connector, or grant any requested injunctive relief, as outlined in the motion, OTA will be forced to comply. Should a court dismiss certain requests for relief that allow for the issuance of bonds by OTA, while granting relief in other matters related to the East-West Connector, the programmatic nature of the bond issue and of this application would simply result in expenditure of bond proceeds on other projects across the ACCESS Program.”

She finishes the discussion about the litigation by stating…..

“I will note that the current litigation does not challenge OTA’s statutory authority to issue revenue bonds for the ACCESS Oklahoma Program. That authority was upheld and that determination was made by the Oklahoma Supreme Court back in the validation proceedings that culminated in 2023.”

Please see my discussion on the contentious Oklahoma State Supreme Court split decision for both the East-West Connector and the Southern Extension.

And if there were any question about whether COBO understood the significance of the federal litigation, just look at the conditions they placed on the bond approval.

Share

COBO’s 12 Conditions for the Bond Sale

Since COBO would not give us the packet of information, a member of the press let us take a picture of the recommended conditions. We have since Open Record Requested (ORR) the packet, but we have been ghosted. Again.

So What Were COBO’s 12 “Conditions”?

COBO didn’t give OTA unconditional green light. Instead, it attached 12 conditions to the proposed $1.9 billion in new ACCESS bonds and $1 billion in refunding bonds.

That sounds reassuring.

Until you read them.

Some are legitimate financial safeguards. Others essentially amount to “give us another letter saying everything is okay.” And several rely upon representations or legal opinions coming from OTA itself or professionals being paid as part of the bond transaction.

Here’s what the 12 conditions actually mean in plain English:

1. Don’t raise more than $1.5 billion for ACCESS construction.
   OTA can issue approximately $1.9 billion in new bonds, but the amount actually deposited into the Construction Fund for ACCESS projects cannot exceed $1.5 billion, plus the other permitted amounts such as capitalized interest, reserves and issuance costs.

   Translation: COBO is putting a ceiling on how much new construction money OTA can actually generate from this particular bond sale.

2. The refinancing has to save money.
   For the $1 billion refunding portion, OTA must demonstrate net-present-value savings of at least 3% of the refunded principal.

   Translation: Don’t refinance old bonds just for the sake of refinancing them. The transaction has to produce a minimum level of financial savings.

3. Provide the Preliminary Official Statement before the bonds are priced.
   The POS is essentially the preliminary disclosure document given to potential investors describing OTA, the bonds, financial information, risks, litigation and other material information.

   Translation: COBO wants to see the investor disclosure document before the interest rates and price are finalized.

   But: Receiving a document is not the same thing as independently verifying everything in it.

4. Provide the Final Official Statement before closing.
   After pricing, OTA must provide the final version of the disclosure document before the transaction closes.

   Translation: Give COBO the final paperwork before the money changes hands.

   Again: receipt ≠ independent verification.

5. Tell investors about the lawsuit.
   OTA must disclose all “pertinent and material litigation,” specifically including PIKE OFF OTA v. OTA, in both the preliminary and final Official Statements. Kutak Rock, acting as Special Disclosure Counsel, must provide an opinion concerning those disclosures.

   Translation: The federal lawsuit isn’t stopping the bond sale. Instead, COBO is requiring OTA to tell the investors about it and obtain a legal opinion from the disclosure lawyer. COBO appears to be addressing the securities-disclosure consequences of litigation that everyone acknowledges exists.

6. Let the Deputy Treasurer sit in on the rating-agency meetings.
   The Deputy Treasurer for Debt Management must be included in relevant rating-agency meetings and presentations and receive written copies concerning legal matters, specifically including the PIKE OFF OTA litigation.

   Translation: Someone from the State Treasurer’s office gets a seat at the table when OTA talks to the rating agencies about these bonds.

   That’s more oversight. But again, observing what OTA tells rating agencies isn’t necessarily independently determining whether OTA is legally compliant.

7. Get an opinion from Bond Counsel.
   Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP, OTA’s Bond Counsel, must provide its proposed legal opinion before pricing and the executed opinions before closing.

   Translation: Get a lawyer’s letter saying the bond transaction satisfies the matters covered by that lawyer’s opinion.

   Stop and think about that for a minute. Who’s checking the checkers?

   A legal opinion is important in municipal finance, but it is not the same as COBO independently investigating every factual predicate underlying that opinion.

8. Get another opinion—from the underwriter’s lawyer.
   The Public Finance Law Group, acting as counsel to the underwriter, must provide its form of opinion before pricing and its executed opinion before closing.

   Translation: Get another lawyer’s letter.

   This lawyer represents the underwriter’s interests in the transaction. Again, that’s a normal transactional protection,but it shouldn’t be confused with independent governmental investigation of OTA’s statutory and Trust Agreement compliance.

9. Give COBO the Bond Purchase Agreement and make sure Jefferies accepts it.
   COBO must receive the proposed Bond Purchase Agreement before pricing and the executed agreement after pricing. Its terms must comply with, or otherwise be acceptable to, Jefferies, the underwriter, as evidenced by Jefferies executing it.

   Translation: The company buying/underwriting the bonds has to agree to the contract governing its purchase.

   This may be normal bond-closing mechanics, but as an “oversight condition,” it’s hardly earth-shattering. Jefferies signing an agreement acceptable to Jefferies primarily tells you that Jefferies agreed to the deal.

10. OTA must promise to obey the federal judge.
    OTA must provide a representation that it will comply with any preliminary, temporary or final order entered by the federal court in the PIKE OFF OTA litigation—including orders entered on appeal.

Translation: OTA must promise COBO that it will obey a federal court order.

A governmental entity doesn’t get to decide whether to obey a federal judge. If the court enters a binding order against OTA, OTA is already legally required to comply with it.

So the obvious question is: What additional protection does a written promise to obey a court order actually provide?

11. If the court stops the East-West Connector, OTA promises it can spend the money somewhere else.
    OTA must represent that if the bond proceeds cannot be used for the East-West Connector, it “reasonably expects” to spend the Series 2026 proceeds on other ACCESS projects within three years.

Translation: If PIKE OFF OTA wins an injunction affecting the East-West Connector, OTA says: Don’t worry—we have somewhere else to spend the money.

This is potentially one of the most consequential conditions because it embodies the State Bond Advisor’s “modularity” argument.

But it also raises the question from our Trust Agreement objection: Are those other projects independently eligible to receive these second-senior bond proceeds?

A representation that OTA expects to spend the money elsewhere doesn’t itself establish that the alternate expenditure complies with every applicable statute and provision of the Trust Agreement.

12. Submit the Fee Approval Form before closing.
    COBO must receive and approve the BO-8 Fee Approval Form.

Translation: Show COBO who is getting paid and how much before the deal closes.

That’s useful transparency—but it doesn’t resolve the substantive legal objections to the issuance itself.

The Bigger Problem

Read together, these conditions reveal something important about what COBO did on July 30.

COBO did not resolve any of the substantive objections we raised about whether OTA was already complying with Oklahoma law and its 1989 Trust Agreement.

Instead, many of its conditions concern what must happen later—before pricing or closing.

Send us the Preliminary Official Statement.

Send us the Final Official Statement.

Get an opinion from Special Disclosure Counsel.

Get an opinion from Bond Counsel.

Get an opinion from Underwriter Counsel.

Have OTA represent that it will obey the federal court.

Have OTA represent that it can spend the money somewhere else if the East-West Connector is stopped.

But who independently determines whether the underlying representations are actually true?

Who independently determines whether the alternate ACCESS projects are eligible for these bond proceeds under the Trust Agreement?

Who verifies that the required project-level financial tests have actually been performed?

Who reconciles the missing completion dates and financial projections identified in our objection?

Who determines whether OTA can truthfully certify that it is not in default under its Trust Agreement?

And perhaps most importantly:

Who at COBO independently determined that OTA was already in compliance with Oklahoma law before voting to authorize another $2.9 BILLION transaction?

Conditions 1 and 2 are genuine financial constraints; 3, 4, 9 and 12 are largely transaction/document-closing requirements; 5–8 involve disclosure and professional legal opinions; and 10–11 are the extraordinary litigation-related conditions created specifically because COBO knew the federal lawsuit existed.

COBO knew litigation existed—so much so that it created multiple special conditions specifically addressing that litigation while simultaneously allowing a transaction to proceed under a regulatory framework that we argue requires a letter stating there is no pending or threatened litigation.

But the litigation wasn't the only problem COBO had in front of it.

Subscribe now

COBO Had Another Problem: OTA’s Own Bond Documents

There was another elephant in the room on July 30.

Even if COBO somehow convinced itself that pending federal litigation wasn’t enough to stop this bond application, PIKE OFF OTA had provided COBO with another detailed objection identifying something much bigger:

Evidence that OTA may not be complying with Oklahoma statutes OR the very Trust Agreement that governs its ability to issue these bonds.

That matters because OTA’s 1989 Trust Agreement isn’t some dusty historical document sitting in a filing cabinet.

It is essentially the rulebook governing the relationship between OTA and its bondholders.

It establishes conditions OTA has agreed to satisfy before additional debt can be issued. Those conditions are designed to protect the financial integrity of the Turnpike System and the people investing billions of dollars in it.

Our objection identifies three alleged violations of Oklahoma statutes and nine areas of alleged noncompliance with that Trust Agreement.

(I talked about the OTA’s Trust Agreement and statutory violations in a previous substack as well).

Strip away the bond jargon and the problems are surprisingly easy to understand.

1. Did OTA actually prove these new turnpikes are financially feasible?

Oklahoma law requires the feasibility and economic soundness of Turnpike Projects and Improvements to be determined before revenue bonds are issued.

The ACCESS program is a conglomeration of many individual turnpike projects - and it isn’t the same program OTA announced in 2022 anymore. Projects have been added, removed or changed.

The Bixby toll bridge was added in 2026.

The Gilcrease Extension remains unresolved.

Our objection argues that requirement must be applied to the individual new turnpike projects—not simply ACCESS Oklahoma as one enormous program.

That’s important because you cannot meaningfully determine whether a project is economically sound if you don’t know exactly what you’re building, what it will cost, when it will open, how much traffic it will attract and how much revenue it will generate.

And the Trust Agreement goes even further.

For certain new turnpike projects, Section 715(a)(1) requires a financial test before second-senior bond proceeds can be used: projected revenues from that project must be sufficient to cover its operating expenses and required reserve-maintenance deposits after the first five years of service.

So this isn’t merely:

“Can the Turnpike System as a whole afford more debt?”

The objection argues there is also a project-level question:

“Is THIS new turnpike eligible to be built with THIS type of bond money?”

Because if the answer is no, calling ACCESS a “program” doesn't magically make the project eligible.

And according to the objection, approximately $4.9 billion of the $8.7 billion ACCESS program consists of projects subject to this eligibility requirement, which is about 56% of the program.

2. OTA’s “modularity” argument may actually expose the problem.

Remember what the State Bond Advisor told COBO?

If construction on one project is stopped, OTA can simply deploy the bond proceeds somewhere else in ACCESS.

That sounds reassuring until you read the Trust Agreement.

The objection argues that ACCESS cannot simply be treated as one giant, interchangeable bucket of projects. Certain new turnpikes must independently satisfy eligibility requirements before second-senior bond proceeds can be used for them. And the financing analysis depends upon when those projects are actually completed and how long the bonds financing them remain outstanding.

In other words:

“We’ll just spend the money somewhere else” may not answer the legal question at all.

Before moving bond proceeds to another project, shouldn’t someone first determine whether that project is legally and financially eligible to receive those particular bond proceeds?

That is exactly the type of question COBO should have been asking.

3. OTA appears to have changed what “Completion Date” means.

This may sound technical. It isn’t.

The Trust Agreement requires financial projections extending for years after a project is completed.

Why?

Because bondholders need to know what the Turnpike System looks like when the thing they’re financing is actually operating, not merely while it’s under construction.

Section 209(c), according to the objection, requires the Consulting Engineer to identify the individual projects, their costs, their estimated completion dates, and certify that bond proceeds plus other available funds will be sufficient to pay those costs.

But the objection says the 2023 and 2025 Consulting Engineer statements did not provide estimated completion dates for individual ACCESS projects and that the 2025 statement also failed to certify that the proceeds plus other funds would be sufficient to pay the projects’ costs.

Instead, OTA has treated ACCESS as a 15-year program.

That’s a huge distinction.

Finishing spending one round of bond money is not the same thing as finishing the individual turnpike that the money is supposed to build.

And if you move the definition of “completion,” you also move the period over which the required financial calculations are performed.

4. That leads directly to another problem: How far into the future did OTA actually run the numbers?

The Trust Agreement requires projected operating results after project completion. In plain English, this is basically a future cash-flow analysis: expected toll revenue, operating expenses, maintenance reserves, debt-related reserves and other financial obligations.

According to the objection, if the original ACCESS projects aren’t completed until 2036, the required analysis would need to extend at least through 2041; five complete bond years after completion. And the Gilcrease Extension doesn’t even have a defined completion date, making that calculation even more problematic.

Yet the objection says OTA’s financial projections for the 2023 bonds stopped at 2032, while projections for the 2025 bonds stopped at 2033.

That’s not a minor accounting detail.

If the Trust Agreement requires you to demonstrate financial performance for five years after the projects are completed, you can’t stop the spreadsheet years before the projects themselves are scheduled to be finished.

5. Then come the certifications.

This is where the rabbit hole gets even deeper.

The Trust Agreement doesn’t merely suggest that OTA perform these analyses.

Certain people are required to certify that requirements have been satisfied before the Trustee releases the bonds.

The objection identifies certifications from OTA’s executive directors in connection with the 2023 and 2025 bonds stating that OTA was not in default under the Trust Agreement.

And Section 209(g) requires OTA’s counsel to provide an opinion stating that the bonds were properly authorized and that all conditions precedent to delivery of the bonds have been fulfilled.

That creates an extraordinarily important question:

If the underlying requirements weren’t actually satisfied, how can the certifications saying OTA complied with them be accurate?

That’s the question COBO should have answered before approving another bond issue.

6. Then there is the Consulting Engineer itself.

There is one more issue raised in our objection that deserves a closer look: the independence of OTA’s Consulting Engineer.

Under the Trust Agreement, the Consulting Engineer has significant responsibilities related to evaluating projects, costs, completion dates, financial sufficiency and other matters that ultimately help protect the interests of bondholders.

OTA’s Consulting Engineer is Olsson.

But Olsson isn’t just evaluating and providing oversight of OTA’s system.

Olsson is also being paid by OTA to perform engineering and design work on ACCESS projects.

Our objection alleges that this dual role raises a conflict under Oklahoma law and, at a minimum, an obvious question about the independence of one of the professionals whose work is relied upon in the bond-financing process.

And this one deserves its own rabbit hole.

Subscribe now

Who Is Watching the Watchdog?

Olsson occupies two very different positions within the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’s financial and engineering structure.

On one hand, Olsson serves as OTA’s bond consulting engineer, a role that is supposed to represent the interests of the bondholders. In that capacity, Olsson conducts pavement condition evaluations and annual bridge inspections, helps establish OTA’s annual capital priority list, analyzes anticipated maintenance needs, recommends funding levels for maintenance and operations, attends bond meetings, and approves certain requisitions associated with bond-funded projects.

In other words, Olsson helps answer a very important question:

What work does the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority need to spend money on?

But Olsson also works on the other side of that equation.

The company is simultaneously a prime engineering vendor for ACCESS Oklahoma and performs engineering and design work on OTA capital projects.

Which raises an obvious question:

How independent can the company evaluating OTA’s infrastructure needs be when that same company can financially benefit from the engineering work generated by those evaluations?

I’m not suggesting that Olsson engineers are intentionally exaggerating pavement deterioration or recommending unnecessary bridge work. That’s not the point.

The problem is structural.

Imagine hiring someone to inspect your house and determine which repairs should receive priority and then allowing that same company to compete for millions of dollars in contracts to design those repairs.

Even if every recommendation is technically defensible, wouldn’t you want some separation between the person determining what needs to be fixed and the company that can make money designing the fix?

And this arrangement goes even further.

According to the State Auditor’s investigative audit, Olsson, in its role as consulting engineer, has review oversight over the work of OTA’s design engineers while simultaneously serving as one of the design and engineering consultants performing ACCESS work.

Read that again.

The firm providing independent engineering oversight can also be one of the firms whose engineering work exists within the very program it oversees.

Maybe there are internal firewalls, recusals, separate personnel, or contractual safeguards that adequately address those competing roles.

If so, show us.

Because when billions of dollars in bond proceeds are being authorized—and the consulting engineer is supposed to provide assurance to the people lending OTA that money—the public and the bondholders deserve to know exactly where independent oversight ends and paid engineering work begins.

And that brings us to another problem with COBO's July 30 decision—the public couldn't even see all of the information COBO was using to make it.

Subscribe now

Was this really an Open Meeting?

Council members weren’t making this $2.9 BILLION decision in a vacuum.

They had meeting materials in front of them.

The State Bond Advisor repeatedly referenced those materials during the presentation. They contained the staff analysis, recommendations and, critically, the conditions being proposed for OTA’s bond approval.

But the public didn’t have them.

We asked for them.

We were refused.

And yet, according to what we subsequently learned, those same materials were provided to members of the press.

Think about what that means.

Members of a governmental body were conducting public business, deliberating over a request involving up to $2.9 billion in public-authority debt, while relying upon documents the citizens sitting in the room could not see.

Those documents weren’t incidental. They contained information directly relevant to the action COBO was being asked to take including the conditions under which OTA would be permitted to move forward with the bond transaction.

How exactly is the public supposed to meaningfully observe its government conducting business when the government is discussing documents that it refuses to let the public see?

And if those documents could be handed to members of the press, what possible justification existed for refusing to provide them to citizens who were physically present at the meeting and specifically asked for them?

That raises a serious question under Oklahoma’s Open Meetings Act.

The purpose of an open meeting isn’t simply to allow citizens to occupy chairs in the same room while government officials make decisions - even though the first two rows of chairs were RESERVED for “STAKEHOLDERS” that apparently didn’t include the public.

The meeting has to actually be open.

And that brings us to something PIKE OFF OTA knows far too well: the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act…and COBO’s apparent failure to understand what meaningful government transparency requires.

Subscribe now

And Where Was the Attorney General’s Office?

There is one more person sitting at the COBO table who cannot be ignored.

Assistant Attorney General Jon Dutton.

Dutton isn’t simply an observer at these meetings. COBO’s own materials identify him as “Office of the Attorney General — Legal Counsel.” And Oklahoma law expressly provides that “The Attorney General shall provide legal counsel to the Council.”

That makes what happened on July 30 even harder to understand.

We didn’t walk into that meeting with a vague complaint that we didn’t like OTA’s bond issue. We provided COBO with the actual regulation requiring review of a letter stating that there is no pending or threatened litigation relating to the proposed obligations or the issuer’s authority to complete the transaction.

Everyone acknowledged that litigation existed.

In fact, COBO imposed multiple conditions specifically because that litigation exists.

So what legal advice did COBO receive from its Attorney General-appointed counsel before voting to conditionally approve this transaction?

Did counsel conclude that OAC 90:10-3-4(a)(3)(I) does not apply? If so, what is the legal basis for that interpretation?

Did counsel independently evaluate the alleged statutory and Trust Agreement violations presented to COBO? Did he advise the Council that those objections were legally insufficient? If so, why?

And when members of the public were denied access to the very materials COBO was using to conduct the meeting, what advice did the Council receive from its legal counsel about Oklahoma’s open-government laws?

These aren’t rhetorical technicalities.

The Attorney General describes itself as Oklahoma’s chief legal and law-enforcement office, responsible for advising state agencies and departments.

If the Council’s own attorney did not advise COBO to stop and resolve these legal questions before authorizing another multibillion-dollar transaction, the public deserves to know why.

And if he did raise those concerns and COBO proceeded anyway, the public deserves to know that too.

Either way, somebody needs to explain what happened at that table.

Subscribe now

So Who Is Overseeing the Council for Bond Oversight?

OTA’s consultants provide analyses. OTA’s professionals provide certifications. OTA’s attorneys provide opinions. The underwriter’s attorney provides another opinion. Special Disclosure Counsel provides another. OTA provides representations. COBO receives the documents.

But somewhere in that chain, somebody has to stop collecting assurances and actually verify whether the underlying requirements have been satisfied.

That’s what oversight is supposed to mean.

We didn’t ask COBO to believe PIKE OFF OTA.

We gave them the statutes.

We gave them the Trust Agreement.

We gave them the pending federal lawsuit.

We gave them detailed written objections.

We asked them to investigate.

Instead, they approved the transaction with conditions.

And sitting at the table while all of this happened was legal counsel from the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office.

So if OTA’s lawyers are checking OTA, COBO is checking OTA, and the Attorney General’s Office is advising COBO, who is independently checking whether any of them are actually following the law?

Just us?

We have raised the questions. We have provided the statutes, the Trust Agreement, the litigation and the documentation. But at some point, someone with the authority to enforce those requirements has to decide whether they were actually followed.

Ultimately, a court may have to answer the question COBO should have answered before approving another $2.9 billion in debt: Did OTA—and COBO itself—follow the law?

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

Get more from Amy Cerato in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

If you missed Episode 22 of the Right-of-Way Report Podcast on July 27, this is one worth going back to listen to.

We spent nearly two hours with attorney Rob Norman of Cheek & Falcone discussing the legal battles surrounding the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority; past, present, and still unfolding.

And we covered A LOT.

Mr. Norman walked us through some of the questions that are becoming increasingly important for property owners facing the threat of eminent domain, including homeowners’ rights during the acquisition and condemnation process, what to do after receiving a letter from OTA or its right-of-way agents, fair market value, appraisals, and OTA’s policies and procedures for property acquisition.

We also discussed the condemnation cases OTA has already filed in Cleveland County and what those cases may tell us about what property owners can expect as OTA continues pursuing right-of-way for its proposed ACCESS Oklahoma projects.

From there, we took a broader look at the legal landscape.

Mr. Norman discussed PIKE OFF OTA’s past and current legal fights, as well as several related battles involving the Oklahomans for Responsible Economic Development (ORED), including challenges surrounding the Rock Creek Entertainment District and the City of Norman TIF.

We even ventured into Oklahoma’s initiative-petition process and a lawsuit filed in the summer of 2025 challenging restrictions enacted through SB 1027. That lawsuit argues that the new requirements unlawfully burden Oklahomans’ constitutional right to propose laws and effectively sabotage the citizen initiative process.

There was an incredible amount of information packed into this conversation; far more than we can summarize here.

If you are a property owner in the path of one of OTA’s proposed turnpikes, are interested in the legal battles surrounding OTA, or simply want to better understand the tools Oklahoma citizens have to challenge government action, take the time to listen to this episode.

Nearly two hours is a commitment—but you may walk away with an important nugget of information you didn’t know before.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

During that podcast, Senator Mary Boren joined us to discuss a troubling development along the proposed turnpike corridors: the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) was calling upon the Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP) to accompany its private survey contractors onto properties where landowners had expressly objected to their entry.

One incident in late June at a 500-acre cattle ranch along the proposed Indian Hills corridor provides an extraordinary example of what that looks like and raises a much bigger question:

When did enforcing OTA’s claimed right to enter private property become a statutory duty of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol?

It Started With an Agreement About Access

In late June, the owner of a 500-acre cattle ranch along the proposed Indian Hills Turnpike corridor received notice that his property would be surveyed on behalf of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA).

Todd Humphreys, OTA’s Field Coordinator, communicated with the landowner about how the surveyors would access the property.

The rancher had legitimate biosecurity concerns. He did not want outside trucks or equipment entering areas used by his cattle because of the potential introduction of livestock pests, disease, invasive weeds, and other contaminants.

According to the property owner, Humphreys agreed that the surveyors would enter the property on foot and that trucks and other equipment would not be driven onto the ranch. The rancher understood that the two would work together to protect the cattle operation while allowing the surveying work to occur.

But according to the rancher, that is not what happened.

On Thursday, June 25, he discovered surveyors had entered the property without his knowledge. Trucks had been driven onto the land, and a gate to an area where cattle grazed had been left open.

The rancher believed the access arrangement he had reached with OTA had been violated.

So he withdrew his permission.

The Rancher Said No. Then OHP Arrived.

On Monday, June 29, the property owner called Humphreys and told him that OTA’s contracted surveyors no longer had his permission to enter the property.

According to the property owner, Humphreys responded that Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers were nearby to facilitate access to the property.

Shortly thereafter, two OHP troopers arrived at the ranch.

They were not investigating a crime.

They were not responding to a traffic accident.

According to the property owner and leaseholder, the troopers told them that the surveyors were permitted to enter the property and that OHP was there to ensure the surveyors were able to do so.

The surveyors proceeded onto the property. The rancher did not physically confront or hinder them.

When the troopers were asked whether they were on duty, they reportedly responded:

“We are here for this assignment.”

And the assignment apparently did not end when the surveyors left.

According to the property owner, OHP remained at the private property through Wednesday, July 1, including periods when the contractors were not there.

The rancher later described the experience as feeling like his property was “under siege.”

That raises a question that has still not been satisfactorily answered:

What statutory duty was OHP performing?

Oklahoma Law Says a Landowner Can Forbid Surveyors From Entering

OTA has been sending certified letters to property owners along proposed turnpike corridors telling them that OTA and its agents have statutory authority to enter private property for surveying and engineering purposes.

But Oklahoma law contains more than one statute addressing entry onto private property.

Under 21 O.S. § 1835(A)(3)(a), registered land surveyors and registered professional engineers engaged in land-surveying services may enter another person’s property, but the statute contains an important limitation.

They may do so:

“unless forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner or lawful occupier thereof.”

The Legislature expressly contemplated what happens when a surveyor wants to enter private property and the owner says no.

And in this case, the rancher did exactly that: he expressly told OTA that its contracted surveyors no longer had permission to enter his property.

But OTA relies upon a different statute.

OTA Says the Turnpike Act Gives Its Agents a Separate Right to Enter

OTA relies upon 69 O.S. § 1706(C).

That statute provides that OTA and its authorized agents and employees may enter lands, waters, and premises in Oklahoma to conduct surveys, soundings, drillings, and examinations necessary for the purposes of establishing, locating, relocating, constructing, or maintaining a turnpike.

The statute requires advance notice and provides that qualifying entry under the statute shall not be deemed a trespass.

Importantly, § 1706(C) isn’t limited to OTA employees. It includes OTA’s authorized agents.

OTA therefore has an argument that private survey contractors working on its behalf possess statutory authority to enter property independent of the ordinary surveyor provisions contained in Title 21.

But that leaves us with two statutes that must somehow operate together:

21 O.S. § 1835(A)(3)(a): Surveyors and engineers may enter property for surveying purposes unless the owner or lawful occupier forbids them.

69 O.S. § 1706(C): OTA and its authorized agents may enter property for specified turnpike investigations after satisfying the statutory requirements, and such entry shall not be deemed trespass.

So what happens when the landowner says no?

That is not a hypothetical question anymore.

It happened on this ranch.

And, as far as I have been able to determine, no published Oklahoma appellate decision or Attorney General opinion has squarely resolved whether an owner who expressly forbids entry under § 1835(A)(3)(a) may prevent an OTA-authorized surveyor from nevertheless entering pursuant to § 1706(C).

But even if OTA ultimately wins that statutory argument, another question remains.

And it may be the more important one.

A Right to Enter Is Not Necessarily a Police Power to Compel Entry

For the sake of argument, give OTA its strongest possible interpretation.

Assume that § 1706(C) gives its private survey contractors an independent statutory right to enter the ranch despite the owner’s objection.

Assume further that their entry therefore cannot constitute criminal trespass.

Where does OHP come into the equation?

Nothing we have found in § 1706(C) says:

“The Department of Public Safety shall enforce this right of entry.”

The statute does not expressly authorize OHP to compel a landowner to allow surveyors onto the property.

It does not create a criminal offense called “interfering with an OTA survey.”

It does not say OTA may enlist OHP to enforce its right of survey entry.

And it does not establish a process through which an OHP trooper standing in a rancher’s driveway determines that OTA has satisfied every prerequisite necessary to invoke § 1706(C).

There is an enormous legal distinction between saying:

“The surveyor has legal authority to enter and therefore is not committing trespass.”

and saying:

“The landowner must submit to that entry because armed state troopers are here to enforce it.”

The first proposition does not automatically establish the second.

So what law was OHP enforcing?

DPS Says the Troopers Were Performing Their “Statutory Duties”

During and after the incident, elected officials began asking questions of OTA, the Department of Public Safety, and the Attorney General.

An email was sent to DPS asking that the troopers stand down until the property owner and private surveying contractors could reach a written agreement concerning access to the ranch.

Major Lay of the Department of Public Service responded to that email with…

“The troopers will not be standing down and will continue to perform their statutory duties described by law.”

That makes the obvious next question:

Which statutory duty?

Under 47 O.S. § 2-117, Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers are state peace officers. Their statutory responsibilities include enforcing Oklahoma’s criminal and traffic laws, making arrests, investigating crimes and collisions, directing traffic, pursuing suspects, and performing other public-safety functions.

OHP can certainly respond to a disturbance on private property. Troopers can keep the peace, prevent violence, respond to threats, and enforce criminal laws.

But that is fundamentally different from using police authority to enforce another state agency’s disputed claim of a civil right to enter private property.

So DPS was asked to explain.

DPS Points to the Trespass Statute

On July 2, Major Lay offered an explanation.

He wrote:

“The statute cited in the first email [21 O.S. Section 1835] expressly states in A(1)(b) that trespass after being forbidden does not apply to federal, state, or local government employees engaged in the performance of their duties.”

There’s an immediate problem with relying exclusively on that provision.

The surveyors weren’t OHP troopers.

They weren’t OTA employees.

They were private contractors performing work for OTA.

But Major Lay also pointed to 69 O.S. § 1706(C), the separate Turnpike Act provision authorizing OTA and its authorized agents to enter property for specified surveying and investigative purposes.

That is OTA’s stronger argument.

So let’s assume for purposes of discussion that the private surveyors qualify as OTA’s authorized agents and 69 O.S. § 1706(C) gives them legal authority to enter.

That still doesn’t answer the OHP question.

Where does 69 O.S. § 1706(C) authorize the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to enforce that right against an objecting property owner?

Where does it authorize troopers to facilitate entry?

What criminal statute is OHP enforcing when a landowner simply says, “I do not consent to these private contractors entering my property”?

So far, DPS has identified statutes supporting OTA’s claimed right of entry.

It has not identified language expressly giving OHP police power to enforce that right.

Those are two different questions.

OTA Budgets Nearly $23 Million for OHP Services

There is another piece of context that matters.

OTA doesn’t technically employ these troopers; they remain Oklahoma Highway Patrol personnel. But the financial relationship is substantial. OTA’s own financial reports show that 95 OHP troopers were assigned to the turnpike system in 2024. Compared with OHP’s reported workforce of 753 members, that is roughly one out of every eight OHP troopers.

And OTA pays for those services. Its 2026 budget allocates $22.9 million to its Highway Patrol Division and expressly characterizes those expenses as contractual.

Rabbit hole detail: The financial relationship goes even further. For 2026, OTA budgeted $22.9 million for OHP services plus $2.1 million for vehicles and equipment. The budget runs about $3 million more than actual costs. In 2025, OTA budgeted $22.1 million for OHP services and another $8.5 million for the OHP Academy. In its investigative audit, however, the State Auditor questioned OTA’s payment of costs beyond its appropriate share. OTA and OHP subsequently reworked their agreement in early 2026.

None of this, by itself, establishes that OHP is acting improperly or that OTA can direct state troopers to enforce its interests. But it makes the questions of who requested these troopers, who authorized this assignment, and what statutory duty they were actually performing even more important.

OHP is a state law-enforcement agency; not OTA’s private security force.

There is another important distinction: OTA describes the OHP services it funds as law-enforcement activities “on the turnpike system.” This ranch isn’t on an existing turnpike. It is private property along a proposed turnpike corridor.

So when an OTA official tells a landowner that OHP troopers are nearby to “facilitate access,” and troopers then arrive and remain on private property while OTA’s private contractors perform surveying work over the landowner’s express objection, another question deserves an answer:

Were these troopers performing an independent OHP law-enforcement function, or were they carrying out an assignment requested by OTA….and, if so, who paid for that assignment?

Keeping the Peace or Enforcing OTA’s Claimed Right of Entry?

This distinction matters far beyond one ranch in Norman.

OHP has every right and every responsibility to keep the peace.

If someone threatens a surveyor, assaults a contractor, damages equipment, or otherwise commits a crime, OHP can enforce Oklahoma law.

But a disagreement over whether a private contractor possesses a statutory right to enter private property is fundamentally different.

A statute giving Person A legal authority to enter property does not necessarily give Person B police authority to force the property owner to cooperate.

And nothing we have found in 69 O.S. § 1706(C) appears to transform a landowner’s verbal objection into a criminal offense.

That leaves a question Oklahoma property owners deserve to have answered:

Was OHP there to keep the peace, or was OHP there to enforce OTA’s claimed right of entry?

Representative Annie Menz Asks the Attorney General to Answer

These questions are no longer being raised only by affected landowners.

Representative Annie Menz has formally requested an Attorney General Opinion pursuant to 74 O.S. § 18b(A)(5) in response to constituent concerns about documented instances in which Oklahoma Highway Patrol personnel have accompanied private survey crews performing work associated with proposed OTA projects.

The request seeks clarification of the statutory authority governing private surveyors’ entry onto property after an owner objects and OHP’s authority to become involved in facilitating that entry.

That opinion is needed.

Because regardless of how the Attorney General ultimately reconciles 21 O.S. § 1835(A)(3)(a) with 69 O.S. § 1706(C), there is a second question that deserves a clear answer:

When a private property owner expressly refuses access to an OTA survey crew, what legal authority, if any, allows the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to compel or facilitate that entry?

Oklahoma landowners should not have to resolve an unsettled question of statutory authority while two armed state troopers are sitting in their driveway.

Keeping the peace is one thing. Using the power and presence of law enforcement to enforce OTA’s disputed claim of entry onto private property is another.

Oklahoma landowners deserve to know where the law draws that line.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

This is important, because the NOI “threatened” a lawsuit, and before the OTA can be granted permission to sell revenue bonds by the Council of Bond Oversight (COBO), the State Bond Advisor must ensure that there is no “threatened or pending” litigation.

But in their June 2, 2026 application to the COBO for permission to sell $2.9 BILLION dollars in revenue bonds, the OTA failed to note that there was a “threatened” lawsuit. When PIKE OFF OTA filed their federal lawsuit on June 23rd, that “threatened” lawsuit turned into a “pending” lawsuit.

Oklahoma Title 90, Section 10-3-4(a)(3)(I) states that the State Bond Advisor is required to review the following documents prior to final approval, which include a “(I) Letter from issuer’s attorney or bond counsel stating that there is no litigation pending or threatened relating to outstanding or proposed obligations or the issuer’s authority to enter into any agreements necessary to complete the proposed transaction.”

The PIKE OFF OTA COBO Objection argued that, “the OTA cannot provide any kind of letter from its attorney or bond counsel which could truthfully make this required certification. Previous to the filing of the federal lawsuit, there was clearly threatened litigation relating to the OTA’s proposed bond issue. Now that the federal lawsuit has been filed, there is clearly pending litigation relating to the OTA’s proposed bond issue.”

The pending federal lawsuit was only one of several concerns surrounding the proposed bond sale.

PIKE OFF OTA believes the OTA has additional unresolved violations under its Trust Agreement and Oklahoma law that warrant careful review before any new debt is approved. However, those issues involve more nuanced legal and financial analysis.

The litigation issue, by contrast, is a straightforward threshold question governed by an objective standard: whether litigation relating to the proposed bond issue is threatened or pending. That made it the strongest and most direct basis for the official objection.

A few hours after the PIKE OFF OTA Objection was filed, the Council of Bond Oversight (COBO) cancelled their meeting citing “lack of a quorum.”

The Notice of Intent to Sue was never just a procedural formality. It was a federally required step that put the OTA and the responsible federal agencies on notice of alleged violations months before the lawsuit was filed. Once those violations were not corrected and construction continued, the threatened litigation became pending litigation.

Whether one agrees with PIKE OFF OTA’s legal arguments or not, every legal requirement governing the issuance of billions of dollars in debt should be satisfied before hundreds of Oklahoma property owners are forced to surrender their land through eminent domain and before toll users are committed to repaying billions of dollars in new debt. Transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law should not be optional—they should be the minimum standard for projects of this magnitude.

Help Us Hold the OTA Accountable

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has the ability to finance its projects—and its legal defense—through revenue bond proceeds and toll revenues. The federal agencies named in the lawsuit have the resources of the federal government behind them.

PIKE OFF OTA, by contrast, relies entirely on the generosity of citizens who believe government agencies should follow the law before taking private property and moving forward with major infrastructure projects.

Every motion filed, every expert consulted, every deposition taken, and every hearing attended is made possible because Oklahomans have chosen to stand together in defense of private property rights, environmental protections, and government accountability.

Thanks to your incredible support, we’ve already raised $50,000 toward our $250,000 goal, but there is still a long road ahead. If you believe public agencies should comply with the law before condemning hundreds of Oklahoma properties through eminent domain and before committing toll users to billions of dollars in additional debt, please consider making a donation to support our federal lawsuit and ongoing efforts to stop the turnpikes.

Every contribution—large or small—helps ensure that ordinary citizens have a voice in the courtroom and that the rule of law applies equally to everyone.

There are several ways you can support this fight. You may mail a check payable to PIKE OFF OTA or to Oklahomans for Responsible Transportation (ORT), our affiliated 501(c)(3) nonprofit, at P.O. Box 2091, Noble, OK 73068.

Donations made to ORT are 100% tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

If you prefer to donate online, visit https://pikeoffota.com/donate/, where you can choose to support either organization. The website also makes it easy to set up a recurring monthly donation or make a one-time contribution. Every dollar helps us continue defending private property rights, promoting government accountability, and ensuring that public agencies follow the law.

Federal Lawsuit Filing News Coverage

If you'd like to see how other organizations have reported on the lawsuit, we've included links to several news stories below. Each article provides a different perspective on the filing and helps explain why this case could have significant implications for the future of the East-West Connector project.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/environment/2026/06/27/oklahoma-ota-turnpike-lawsuit-pike-off/90712531007/

https://www.normantranscript.com/news/pike-off-ota-files-federal-ligitation-against-ota-federal-agencies/article_d0eaa74a-3b88-4a3c-a370-ddd135c3dbed.html

https://www.radiooklahomanews.com/post/oklahoma-turnpike-lawsuit-seeks-to-halt-east-west-connector-project

https://www.oudaily.com/news/pike-off-files-lawsuit-ota-halt-construction-toby-keith-expressway/article_9b3ca853-c387-435a-92df-aacb14fe4c7a.html

https://www.kgou.org/transportation/2026-06-30/state-federal-agencies-not-following-law-in-oklahoma-turnpike-expansion-lawsuit-alleges

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/state-federal-agencies-not-following-193216269.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pike-off-ota-sues-oklahoma-turnpike-authority-to-halt-east-west-connector-project/ar-AA26Q6Si

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

Please join us on Tuesday, June 30, for a special evening supporting State Representative Annie Menz.

Since taking office, Annie has been one of the Legislature’s strongest advocates for protecting Oklahoma property owners. She has worked closely with many of us to draft legislation that increases accountability at the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, strengthens oversight of eminent domain, and helps safeguard private property rights. She has consistently listened to citizens and has been willing to tackle difficult issues that matter to our communities.

This will be a great opportunity to thank Annie for her leadership, hear about her vision for the future, and enjoy a special performance by Billy Irwin & The Gambits.

Tuesday, June 30
5:30–7:00 PM (Remarks at 6:00 PM)
Royal Bavaria
3401 S. Sooner Rd.
Moore, OK 73165

Whether you’re able to contribute or simply attend, your presence will help show support for a public servant who has stood with Oklahoma families in the fight to protect property rights and promote responsible government.

We hope to see you there!

Best,
Amy Cerato

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

On June 23rd, Pike Off OTA filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Case No. 5:26-cv-01526-D) alleging the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) and several federal agencies failed to comply with federal environmental laws governing the East-West Connector project. The lawsuit seeks to halt further construction, and prevent additional bond funding until the required permits, environmental reviews, and agency consultations have been completed.

On June 24th, Pike Off OTA submitted a formal objection to the Oklahoma Council of Bond Oversight (COBO) opposing the OTA’s request to issue up to $2.9 billion in new revenue bonds. The objection requests the Council not approve additional financing for this project.

At 3:20 p.m. that afternoon, the Oklahoma State Treasurer’s Office notified interested parties that the June 25 COBO meeting had been canceled due to a lack of a quorum. The cancellation postpones, but does not eliminate, consideration of the proposed bond issuance. It is likely the OTA’s request will be placed on the agenda of a future COBO meeting.

A copy of the complaint and other pleadings in the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court can be found on our website (Case No. 5:26-cv-01526-D).

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

The objection argued that COBO has an independent statutory responsibility to review proposed bond issuances for compliance with applicable state and federal law before granting approval. It also pointed to longstanding Council precedent recognizing that pending or threatened litigation may affect approval of proposed revenue bond transactions.

Pike Off OTA’s position was straightforward: before approving billions of dollars in additional debt tied to the East-West Connector project, the Council should carefully evaluate whether all legal requirements have been satisfied. The objection emphasized that COBO’s role is to provide independent oversight—not simply approve bond requests placed before it.

Then, at 3:20 p.m. that afternoon, the Oklahoma State Treasurer’s Office notified interested parties that the June 25 COBO meeting had been canceled due to a lack of a quorum. As a result, the OTA’s request for bond approval will not be considered at this time.

The cancellation postpones, but does not eliminate, consideration of the proposed bond issuance. It is likely the OTA’s request will be placed on the agenda of a future COBO meeting.

Pike Off OTA will continue monitoring the bond approval process and will keep supporters informed as additional information becomes available.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

OTA to head to the Council of Bond Oversight this week

At the June 2nd OTA board meeting, the Board voted to authorize the issuance of another $1.5 BILLION in Series 2026A Revenue Bonds, which I discussed in a previous substack.

The OTA is now headed to the Council of Bond Oversight (COBO) on Thursday, June 25th at 10 am in the Oklahoma Capitol Room MP100 to ask for permission. COBO is a 5-member board consisting of one member appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, one member appointed by the House of Representatives, two members appointed by the Governor, and the State Treasurer. They serve four-year terms.

COBO is directed to determine whether the financing serves a proper public purpose, review compliance with applicable laws and review other relevant matters, including repayment sources and security for the bonds.

The agenda is out. And the OTA is asking for a cool $2.9 BILLION.

Did You Notice OTA Is Asking for Much More Than $1.5 Billion?

The resolution states that OTA wants to generate $1.5 billion for ACCESS Oklahoma construction projects. However, the bond issue must also cover capitalized interest, reserve requirements, costs of issuance, and other financing expenses. As a result, the financial analysis presented to the Board indicates the new-money bond issue could have a face amount approaching $1.9 billion.

In addition, OTA proposes issuing enough bonds to refund approximately $1 billion of existing debt from the 2017 through 2020 bond series. Combined, the total transaction could approach $2.9 billion in bonds, even though only $1.5 billion is intended to fund new construction.

The resolution also seeks bondholder approval to amend two important provisions of the Trust Agreement. First, OTA proposes allowing future second senior bonds to be secured by a separate reserve account or no reserve account, rather than requiring all second senior bonds to share a common reserve account. This would provide the Authority with greater flexibility in structuring future debt issuances. Second, OTA proposes extending the assumed amortization period used in debt calculations from 25 years to 35 years. This change makes it easier to demonstrate sufficient revenue capacity to support additional borrowing.

The long-term implications are significant. Extending amortization periods allows principal repayment to be pushed further into the future. The current issue is expected to include maturities extending 35 years, and Oklahoma law allows OTA to issue revenue bonds with maturities of up to 40 years. If future bond issues continue this trend, repayment obligations could stretch decades beyond the completion of the projects being financed.

The timing of these proposed amendments is also noteworthy. Before this transaction, approximately $2.9 billion of Oklahoma Turnpike System bonds were outstanding. The new financing transaction could add or refinance a similar amount at the same time OTA is seeking approval from bondholders to amend the governing Trust Agreement.

Section 1102 requires approval from holders of a majority of the outstanding principal amount of the affected classes of debt. Notably, the resolution specifically authorizes OTA to obtain consent not only from existing bondholders but also from future purchasers through disclosures contained in the bond documents.

Whether intentional or coincidental, the result could be a significant reshaping of the bondholder base at the same time OTA seeks approval for amendments that would increase its future borrowing flexibility.

Longtime observers may recall a similar episode in 2006, when OTA amended its Trust Agreement to authorize derivative instruments, variable-rate debt, and swap agreements. That amendment also required bondholder approval and substantially changed OTA’s financing structure. The current proposal raises similar questions about how major financing transactions can influence the voting dynamics used to amend the governing bond documents.

In practical terms, this resolution appears designed not only to finance current ACCESS Oklahoma projects, but also to create additional flexibility for future borrowing. If these amendments are approved, OTA could be positioned to carry substantial debt obligations well into the second half of this century, supported by toll revenues collected from future generations of Oklahoma drivers.

Summary of the Proposed Bond Changes

The 150% pricing provision may grab headlines, but the larger story is the Authority’s effort to increase its future borrowing flexibility. Through proposed amendments to the Trust Agreement, OTA is seeking greater discretion in how future bonds are structured while extending key debt calculations from 25 years to 35 years. These changes could make it easier to support additional borrowing and push repayment obligations further into the future.

For bondholders, these amendments may provide greater flexibility in managing the Authority’s debt portfolio. For Oklahoma drivers, however, they could mean more toll-backed financing, more debt carried over longer periods of time, and a greater share of future toll revenues dedicated to debt service rather than reducing existing obligations.

The upcoming bond issue is about more than financing current ACCESS Oklahoma projects. It may also establish the framework for how future turnpike projects are financed and repaid for decades to come.

If you would like to receive notice when bond applications are submitted to the Council of Bond Oversight (COBO), you can request to be added to the distribution list by emailing Alexandra Edwards at alexandra.edwards@treasurer.ok.gov. By law, COBO agendas must be publicly available at least 24 hours before a meeting.

We intend to file an objection to the approval of this bond issue and will continue monitoring the process closely. I have included several of our objections below.

Objections to OTA Issuance of up to $1.5 Billion 2026A Second Senior Revenue Bonds

First and foremost, the OTA has been under threatened litigation since January 23, 2026, when a Notice of Intent to Sue was served regarding the proposed East-West Connector project. That threatened litigation became pending litigation when Case No. 5:26-cv-01526-D was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on June 23, 2026.

Oklahoma Title 90, Section 10-3-4(a)(3)(I) states that the State Bond Advisor is required to review the following documents prior to final approval, which include a “(I) Letter from issuer’s attorney or bond counsel stating that there is no litigation pending or threatened relating to outstanding or proposed obligations or the issuer’s authority to enter into any agreements necessary to complete the proposed transaction.”

The OTA cannot truthfully do that. Therefore, the bonds must be denied until the litigation has concluded in the OTA’s favor.

With that in mind, PIKE OFF OTA filed an official COBO Objection that argued, “the OTA cannot provide any kind of letter from its attorney or bond counsel which could truthfully make this required certification. Previous to the filing of the federal lawsuit, there was clearly threatened litigation relating to the OTA’s proposed bond issue. Now that the federal lawsuit has been filed, there is clearly pending litigation relating to the OTA’s proposed bond issue.”

The pending federal lawsuit was only one of several concerns surrounding the proposed bond sale.

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has and continues to violate statutory provisions of the Turnpike Enabling Act;

a.) they do not comply with the 1989 Master Trust Agreement provisions related to funding Turnpike Projects and Improvements through the issuance of second senior revenue bonds;

b.) they do not comply with the provisions of their By-Laws;

c.) they are changing long-standing policy of the entity;

d.) they are proposing amendments to the Trust Agreement which will significantly impact bond holders and the users of the toll roads; and

e.) they continue to make changes to the ACCESS Program by adding projects.

Following is detailed information regarding many issues and concerns related to the Program.

1. OTA has not complied with and continues to ignore the 1989 Trust Agreement Section 715(a)(1) requirement, and if applicable the certification required by Section 209(e).

1989 Trust Agreement, Article 1: The term “Oklahoma Turnpike System” shall mean (1) the Existing Turnpike Projects, (2) the New Turnpike Projects, (3) all other Turnpike Projects (including additional Turnpike Projects extending any or all of the S.H. 33 Turnpike (U.S. 412), the I-35 to I-40 Turnpike (Ada to Davis Section), the Oklahoma City Outer Loop Expressway (I-35 to Portland Avenue Section) and the Tulsa South Bypass Expressway (U.S. 75 to Memorial Drive Section) which meet the requirements of Section 715(a)(1) and Improvements hereafter constructed by the Authority in accordance with the Enabling Act, and (4) any project reclassified from a General Fund turnpike project to a Turnpike Project in accordance with Section 715(b), subject in all cases to the Authority’s rights under Section 713 hereof.

1989 Trust Agreement, Article 1: The term “Turnpike Project” shall mean any turnpike (including any express highways, superhighways, or motorways), which meets the requirements of Section 715(a)(1) or 715(b), constructed under the provisions of the Enabling Act by the Authority, and shall embrace all bridges, tunnels, overpasses, underpasses, interchanges, entrance plazas, approaches, free access roads, bridges, and road construction, toll houses, service stations, and administration, storage and other buildings which the Authority may deem necessary for the operation of such turnpike.

It is certain that the writers of the 1989 Trust Agreement provided that any extensions to the OKC Outer Loop would be an eligible Turnpike Project to be constructed with proceeds from issuance of Second Senior Revenue Bonds, and would be identified as part of the Oklahoma Turnpike System, if and only if each of the Turnpike Project(s) satisfied the requirements of Section 715(a)(1). Thus, the extensions of the OKC Loop (a) the I-40 to Portland extension in 1998, (b) the Kickapoo and SWJKT extensions in 2017-2018 as part of the Driving Forward program, and (c) the Tri-City Connector and the East-West Connector as part of the ACCESS program, were required to satisfy the Section 715(a)(1) provision of the Trust Agreement. Likewise, other Turnpike Projects, the 1998 H.E. Bailey Spur, the ACCESS South Extension Turnpike, and the Toll Bridge at Bixby, by definition require compliance with Section 715(a)(1).

1989 Trust Agreement, SECTION 715. Requirements for New Turnpike Projects; Reclassification of General Fund Turnpike Projects. (a)(1) The Authority covenants that it will not incur any Second Senior Indebtedness under the provisions of Section 209 of this Agreement in respect of any Turnpike Project as to which the Authority has not previously issued Senior Indebtedness under the provisions of this Agreement or as to which the Authority has previously issued only junior obligations unless the Authority can, in addition to satisfying the conditions to the issuance of such Indebtedness contained in Section 209, and it will not otherwise include as part of the Oklahoma Turnpike System any Turnpike Project, unless the Authority can, estimate that the revenues of such Turnpike Project in the fifth complete bond year following the completion of construction or the acquisition of such Turnpike Project and in each bond year thereafter will be not less than the Current Expenses and the deposits to the Reserve Maintenance Fund for such Turnpike Project for each such bond year.

Section 715(a)(1) requires that the estimated revenues for the extensions to the OKC Outer Loop must be greater than the Current Expenses (basically the O&M costs) plus deposits to the Reserve Maintenance Fund for each of the extension projects, beginning in the fifth complete bond year following completion of the project and for each bond year thereafter. If the revenues are not greater than the O&M and deposits to Reserve Maintenance for such Turnpike Project, the project is not eligible to be constructed with proceeds of Second Senior Revenue Bonds. The Authority may opt to classify the project as a General Fund turnpike project and construct the project according to the provisions of Section 715(a)(2).

Once the determination is made that the Turnpike Project is eligible to be constructed with Second Senior Revenue Bond proceeds; then, the certification is required to be submitted to the Trustee as provided by Section 209-Second Senior Bonds, (e), as follows:

Section 209 (e) in the case of any second senior bonds proposed to be delivered in accordance with this Section in respect of any Turnpike Project for which senior bonds have not been previously issued under Sections 208 or 209 hereof, a certificate, signed by the Chief Executive Officer and approved by the Consulting Engineers, setting forth the Authority’s estimates in respect of such Turnpike Project of (1) the revenues and (2) the sum of the Current Expenses and deposits to the Reserve Maintenance Fund in the fifth complete bond year following the completion of construction or acquisition of such Turnpike Project and in each bond year thereafter for which the second senior bonds then proposed to be delivered shall be outstanding.

Paragraph 4 of Section 209 provides for the Authority to perform debt coverage computations and that the Trustee shall not deliver the proposed bonds until debt coverage computations are satisfied.

Except in the case of second senior bonds issued for completing payment of the cost of any Turnpike Project or Improvement described in the certificate mentioned in clause (c) above in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding five per centum (5%) of the original principal amount of second senior bonds previously issued pursuant to Section 209 to pay the cost of such Project or Improvement, the Trustee shall not deliver such bonds unless in respect of any bonds proposed to be issued and described in the certificate mentioned in clause (e) above, the amount shown in each bond year in item (1) of the certificate mentioned in said clause (e) shall be not less than the sum shown for the corresponding bond year in item (2) of the certificate mentioned in said clause (e) and for all additional senior bonds proposed to be issued pursuant to this Section

Thus, for all second senior revenue bond issues, including bonds proposed to be issued which meet the eligibility requirements of Section 715(a)(1), and to which the Authority certifies to the Trustee such eligibility as provided by Section 209(e); then, the Trust Agreement specifies that such bonds as well as all additional second senior bonds would be incorporated for computation of the required debt coverage percentages.

Why has the Authority disregarded Section 715(a)(1) and Section 209(e) since 1998? The authorizing resolutions for second senior bonds appear to answer the question. The Authority has continuously cited Section 209(i) in the preambles of the bond authorization resolutions in 1998, 2017, 2018, 2023, 2025, and 2026:

WHEREAS, Section 209 of the Trust Agreement authorizes the issuance by the Authority of its second senior revenue bonds to provide funds, together with other available funds, for the purpose of completing payment of the cost of Turnpike Projects and Improvements to the Oklahoma Turnpike System…”

The writers of the resolutions have failed to recognize the difference between Section 209(i) and (ii). The extensions of the OKC Outer Loop are additional segments of the authorized route; yet, by definition the extensions are additional Turnpike Projects.

SECTION 209. Second Senior Bonds. One or more Series of second senior bonds of the Authority may be issued under and secured by this Agreement, from time to time, subject to the conditions hereinafter provided in this Section, for the purpose of (i) completing payment of the cost of any of the New Turnpike Projects or other Turnpike Projects or Improvements for which second senior bonds pursuant to this Section 209 or Parity Indebtedness shall have been theretofore issued, (ii) paying all or any part of the cost of any additional Turnpike Project or Improvement...

Based on the definitions in the Trust Agreement, the 1998, 2017, and 2022 bond issues should have cited Section 209(ii) as the authorization for the OKC Outer Loop projects. Once the extension projects were determined to be eligible to be constructed with Second Senior Revenue bonds, any additional bond issues would then be completion bond issues for such projects and subsequent issuances would be completion bonds as provided by Section 209(i).

It appears that this lack of understanding of the language in the Trust Agreement as to the difference between bonds issued to begin construction of a new Turnpike Project and bonds issued to complete a Turnpike Project has led to significant violation of the provisions of the Trust Agreement.

69 O.S. §1705(e) requires the Authority to determine that turnpike projects be “feasible and economically sound” before they are constructed.

From 1950 through 1989, feasibility studies for the turnpike projects reflected cost and revenue analyses for the duration of the revenue bond issues.

It should be noted that since 1950 to the current time, the Traffic/Revenue Reports have always included estimated revenues for new turnpike projects for the duration of the anticipated revenue bond issues.

However, beginning in 1998, the Consulting Engineer Reports have changed significantly. The 1998 Consulting Engineer provided estimated costs and deposits to the Reserve Maintenance Fund for a period of 5 years after the estimated completion date of the project, which is a requirement of Section 209(d)(v); but, the 30 year costs and deposits to Reserve Maintenance were omitted for the remaining life of the bond issue.

The Authority had changed Consulting Engineers by the time of the Driving Forward program. The Driving Forward Consulting Engineer is still contracted with the Authority for the ACCESS program. Beginning with the Driving Forward program through the ACCESS program, the Consulting Engineer Reports no longer identify costs and deposits to Reserve Maintenance by project. The costs are identified for the programs as “O&M-expanded” on the Projected Operating Results schedules included in the bond documents; however individual project costs are not identified. Also, deposits to Reserve Maintenance are not separately identified for the program or for the individual projects.

This omission of data in the Consulting Engineer Reports prevents the Authority from performing computations required by Section 715(a)(1).

The writers of the Trust Agreement included provisions of Section 715(a)(1) to establish guardrails for the Authority. Turnpike Projects post 1989, must at least provide sufficient revenues to pay such turnpike project’s O&M and deposits to Reserve Maintenance even if the revenues are insufficient to pay the allocable debt service for such new turnpike project.

By ignoring these guardrails, the Authority is constructing economically disastrous routes which strain the financial viability of the Oklahoma Turnpike System as well as harm the security of the bond holders.

This Section 715(a)(1) violation was presented in an objection to COBO in December 2024. Mr. Todd Russ questioned Mr. Echelle regarding the objection during the COBO meeting for approving issuance of the 2025 bonds. Mr. Echelle stated to the Council that the Authority had many consultants and they were familiar with the Authority’s legal documents, and therefore, the Council should be assured that the Authority was in strict compliance with provisions of its legal documents.

Mr. Echelle stated that the Consulting Engineer provided financial data for the Oklahoma Turnpike System as a whole which met the Trust Agreement requirements.

This statement was erroneous.

We have established that all of the documentation that we presented to COBO in December 2024 as well as this document reflect the correct provisions of the Trust Agreement related to issuance of second senior revenue bonds.

It is not the responsibility of consultants to make the determination of compliance with legal documents especially since it is certain that those determinations have a financial benefit for the consultants.

Legal determinations are the Authority’s responsibility.

This brings us to the Authority’s legal counsel and the attorney representing the Attorney General’s office.

There is no ambiguity in the text of the 1989 Trust Agreement as to what constitutes a “Turnpike Project” and the financing provisions for such “Turnpike Project”. This objection citing violations of Sections 715(a)(1) and 209(e) should require a legal opinion for clarification as to why the Authority ignores these provisions of the 1989 Trust Agreement.

2. OTA has not complied with Section 209(d)(v) of the 1989 Trust Agreement.

Before any second senior revenue bonds are to be delivered by the Trustee, the Chief Executive Officer as approved by the Traffic Engineers are to certify to the Trustee that the requirements of Section 209(d)(v) of the 1989 Trust Agreement have been met. The certificate is required to contain specified financial information for a specified term.

In simplified language the schedule is basically an annual cash flow analysis which presents estimated revenues (adjusted to reflect tolls the Authority has covenanted to put in effect as projects are completed), deposits to the Turnpike Trust Fund, O&M costs, deposits to the Reserve Maintenance Fund, and deposits to Bond Reserve Accounts.

This information is required to be presented beginning in the first bond year immediately after the estimated completion date of Turnpike Projects or Improvements and in each bond year thereafter including the fifth complete bond year immediately after the completion date as estimated by the Consulting Engineer.

All of the projects of the ACCESS Program are currently scheduled to be completed by 2036, except for the Gilcrease as reflected on the ACCESS website.

The Gilcrease has a “To Be Determined” completion date.

If we ignore the Gilcrease; then, this means that the financial analysis as certified by the CEO and Traffic Engineer must be presented through 2041, which is the fifth complete bond year following the estimated completion date of the ACCESS projects. This financial information as identified in Section 209(d)(v) is needed to calculate the debt coverage percentages as required by Section 209(I)(C) and (D). This means that financial information regarding all bonds anticipated to be issued as part of the ACCESS Program, as well as estimated revenues and costs, through 2041 would need to be made available to perform the computations for debt coverage percentages. If the Gilcrease is taken into consideration, it is not possible to do the computation because the Authority has not provided an estimated completion date.

This computation becomes even more questionable since the Authority has now added another project to the ACCESS Program, the Toll Bridge at Bixby, as noted in #4 below, Additional Turnpike Projects.

The Authority has not provided the required computations for the issuance of the 2023 bonds, the 2025 bonds, and I am fairly certain that the Authority has not included this information for issuance of the 2026 bonds.

3. OTA Proposed Amendments to the 1989 Trust Agreement

I could not understand why Mr. Russ told the audience during the meeting for approving the 2023 COBO application, that the Council was only making a determination for approving the 2023 bonds, exclusive of the entire ACCESS Program. It is not rational to approve a portion of a 15 year capital financing program.

As an accountant and financial analyst, I would require supporting documentation for the complete financial plan of the ACCESS program, if in fact I was expected to approve portions of a plan over a period of time.

This becomes even more concerning now that the Authority is intending for the 2026 bonds have a 35 year maturity whereas in the past all bonds had a 30 year maturity. The Authority had adopted this 30 year bond maturity policy to be consistent with the useful life of the infrastructure (roads and bridges) for depreciation purposes.

Now there is a deviation.

What other deviations will develop over the next 10 years (2036-2026).

Not only is the Authority proposing lengthening the maturity life from 30 to 35 years for future second senior revenue bond issues, but the Authority is also proposing increasing the amortization period of Balloon Indebtedness from 25 to 35 years. This proposal impacts the debt coverage calculations required by Section 209(I)(C) and (D). The Authority has begun to back-load significant maturities of the ACCESS Program bond issues. Ninety-eight (98) percent of the $500 million 2023 bond issue is scheduled to mature in the in the issue’s final five years 2049 through 2053. Thirty-three (33) percent of the $1.1 billion 2025A bond issue is scheduled to mature in the issue’s final two years 2054 and 2055. The Authority has estimated the cost of the program is $8.2 billion; thus, this leaves another $6.6 billion of anticipated amount of bond issuances. Is the Authority anticipating issuing Balloon Indebtedness on this $6.6 billion and back-load significant amounts of bonded indebtedness?

What is the financial plan for the ACCESS Program as a whole?

Another proposed amendment to the 1989 Trust Agreement is the reduction or elimination of Bond Reserve Account requirements upon issuance of future second senior bond issues.

This is a significant change to the security provided to future bond holders.

All I can say about this provision is “LET THE BUYER BEWARE”, as this is a significant deviation from most revenue bond indenture provisions.

4. ADDITIONAL TURNPIKE PROJECTS

The Gilcrease Expressway Expansion

The 2022 list of Turnpike Projects and Improvements of the ACCESS Program included the Gilcrease Expressway Expansion at an estimated cost of $495,000,000. This project was also included in the August 13, 2023 application to COBO requesting the first approval of bonds for the ACCESS Program.

This project appears to be on hold and there is no estimated completion date for this project listed on the ACCESS website.

This project is a segment of the route authorized by 69 O.S. §1705(e)(35). The initial segment of this route was constructed as a non-system turnpike.

What are the issues with this project?

(i) The Authority has violated Section 209(c) which requires that the Consulting Engineer provide the description of the project, the estimate cost of the project, the estimated completion date of the project and a certification that the proceeds of such bonds required to finance the project together with other funds made or to be made available will be sufficient for paying such cost.

This requirement is violated because

(a) the Authority has not yet determined if the Gilcrease Expansion will be funded by revenue bonds or some other method as was the original segment of the Gilcrease,

(b) there is no estimated completion date but reflects “To Be Determined” on the ACCESS website, and

(c) the certification to the Trustee is incomplete.

The Section 209(c) certification dated October 23, 2023, actually does not list estimated completion dates for any of the ACCESS Program projects. The certification under this section of the Trust Agreement also requires the signature of the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority.

(ii) The feasibility of the project has not met the requirements of Section 715(a)(1) since the first segment of the route was not constructed using second senior revenue bonds and is a non-system turnpike, this second segment could only be funded with second senior bonds and become part of the Oklahoma Turnpike System if it meets the requirements of Section 715(a)(1).

(iii) The CDM Smith (Traffic/Revenue Consultant) Report dated December 9, 2024 does not have any forecasted revenues for the Gilcrease project. Without a revenue analysis, there can be no feasibility analysis as required by 69 O.S. 1705(e). Likewise, the Consulting Engineer has not provided the required financial data regarding the Gilcrease. The Authority clouts their right to determine the feasibility and economic soundness of a project; but, how can the Authority make that determination when there is no data provided to do an analysis?

RESULT: The Authority does not know how they intend to finance the Gilcrease and whether it will be part of the Oklahoma Turnpike System or a non-system turnpike; they don’t know when they will construct the project or when the estimated completion date will be; they did not update the estimated cost of the project when all other project costs were updated ($5 billion to $8.2 billion); and they don’t have the financial data to do a feasibility analysis; yet it is listed as an ACCESS Program project!

Additional Improvement Projects

On November 7, 2024, Mr. Echelle announced to the Authority Board that the staff intended to add three new projects to the ACCESS Program.

The projects added were:

a.) the Muskogee bridge rehab project on the Arkansas River,

b.) the Muskogee pavement reconstruction MP 12 to MP 19, and

c.) the H.E. Bailey pavement reconstruction from MP 20.2 to MP 30.5.

The Authority included these three projects on COBO’s application for approval of bonds form dated November 15, 2024, and listed the projects under “Interchange Improvement Projects.” These three projects had been part of the Authority’s capital plan until the Authority transferred them to the ACCESS program. These projects were not considered as part of the ACCESS Program in 2022 nor were they identified in any exhibits.

A Toll Bridge in Tulsa Crossing the Arkansas River in the Vicinity of Bixby

In May, 2026, the Legislature approved the above described turnpike project. On June 2, 2026, the Authority approved Agenda Item 1400, a reimbursement resolution related to projects identified as part of the ACCESS Program. The toll bridge was added to Exhibit A, a list of the ACCESS Program projects.

Again, the Authority has bypassed any feasibility analysis and merely added another project to the ACCESS Program. T

here has been no engineering analysis or traffic/revenue analysis for this project.

There is no preliminary environmental analysis.

There is no specific location!

How can this toll bridge become part of a capital program with absolutely no preliminary engineering or financial analysis!

5. THE OTA HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PAR FORMULA BOND PRICING REQUIREMENTS OF 69 O.S. § 1709.

69 O.S. 1709(D)(4) provides that turnpike bonds may bear interest at a rate or rates that may vary as permitted pursuant to a par formula and for such period or periods of time, all as may be determined by the Authority;

69 O.S. § 1709 (E)(2) defines “par formula” as follows:

“Par formula” means any provision or formula adopted by the Authority to provide for the adjustment, from time to time, of the interest rate or rates borne by any such bonds so that the purchase price of such bonds in the open market would be as close to par as possible.

Since 2017, the Authority’s bond authorization resolutions have provided that the purchase price of the bonds as a percentage of par has continued to increase dramatically. The positive cash flow from the premiums in 2011 and 2017 allowed the Authority to violate Section 518 of the Trust Agreement.

The Trust Agreement was amended in 2006 when the Authority issued variable rate debt and entered into 5 swap agreements in order to reduce the risk of the variable rate debt. The rating agencies required Section 518 be added as a measure to prevent the Authority from terminating the swap agreements early due to the significant cost to terminate. Section 518 required swap termination fees to be paid from the General Fund. The Authority refunded a portion of the 2006 bonds in 2011 and terminated 2 swap agreements at a cost of $52 million. The Authority did not pay the termination fee from the General Fund but issued the 2011 bonds at a premium thus using the premium to pay the cost of the 2 swap termination fees. In 2017, the Authority refunded the remaining 2006 bonds and terminated the remaining 3 swap agreements at a cost of $41 million. The Authority did not pay the termination fee from the General Fund but issued the 2017 bonds at a premium thus using the premium to pay the cost of the 3 swap termination fees. The Authority violated Section 518 of the Trust Agreement in 2011 and 2017. The following worksheet reflects the approval by the Authority’s Board of the authorizing resolutions setting the purchase price of the bonds at inflated percentages of par.

When construed together, the intent of 69 O.S. §1709 provisions is to place some guardrails on the Authority’s pricing of its bonds. The Authority clearly has some discretion in pricing, but the par formula requirement keeps the Authority from inflating pricing of its bonds.

Following is an example of maturity schedules of the 2011A bonds showing that bonds with same year maturities were issued at par and some at inflated rates. $465,655,000 of the $524,010,000 face amount of bonds was issued at inflated rates well above par. This is 89% of the issue. For every year that bonds mature at inflated rates, there are also bonds that mature at par. Thus, bonds can be priced at par!

The Authority has not justified how this much of a pricing markup over par would comply with the par formula requirements of 69 O.S. § 1709.

The By-Laws of the Authority, Article VI, Section 3, specifically states that “All trust indentures executed by the Authority upon the sale of bonds in accordance with provisions of the Enabling Act shall be strictly complied with.

The pricing mark-up over par is a clear violation of 69 O.S. §1709.

Subscribe now

Why This Matters

The issues surrounding this bond application extend far beyond a single $1.5 billion construction program. As outlined above, the June 25th COBO application involves a financing transaction approaching $2.9 billion, proposed amendments to the Trust Agreement that could increase OTA’s future borrowing flexibility, questions regarding compliance with long-standing bond covenants, and the continued expansion of the ACCESS Program through the addition of new projects.

At its core, this is a discussion about transparency, accountability, and the long-term financial obligations being placed on Oklahoma drivers and future generations. Decisions made today regarding debt structure, bondholder protections, amortization schedules, and project eligibility could influence Oklahoma’s toll road system for decades to come.

The Council of Bond Oversight exists to ensure that public financing serves a proper public purpose and complies with applicable laws. We believe these issues deserve careful review and open discussion before another multi-billion-dollar bond transaction moves forward.

In addition to these material objections, Title 90, Section 10-3-4(a)(3)(I) states that the State Bond Advisor, and staff to the COBO, Alexandra Edwards, is required to review the following documents prior to final approval, which include a “(I) Letter from issuer’s attorney or bond counsel stating that there is no litigation pending or threatened relating to outstanding or proposed obligations or the issuer’s authority to enter into any agreements necessary to complete the proposed transaction.”

Just as litigation helped stop the 2022 bond sale, a filed federal or state lawsuit challenging the legality of any part of the ACCESS program could once again prevent the OTA from obtaining final bond approval until the courts determine whether the project can legally move forward.

Please consider attending the COBO meeting on Thursday, June 25th at 10:00 a.m. in Room MP100 at the Oklahoma State Capitol and make it apparent that the public wants COBO to hold the OTA accountable. Your presence matters. Public oversight only works when the public shows up.

PIKE OFF OTA will be presenting objections to the proposed bond issuance and requesting that COBO fully examine the legal, financial, and policy issues raised in this article before granting approval. We will also make sure they are aware of their legal responsibility to halt a bond sale while litigation “relating to outstanding or proposed obligations,” is “pending or threatened.”

We hope you will join us and help ensure that these important decisions receive the scrutiny they deserve.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

EVENT DATE CHANGE: Sunday, June 14th 5-8 pm

Get ready for a night of fun at our 5th Annual Royal Bavaria Family Fun Night!

🍻🎶 Join us on June 14th as the biergarten opens at 5 PM with a delicious buffet dinner, followed by an evening packed with live music, games, raffles, and exclusive merchandise. It’s the perfect chance to relax, connect with friends, and hear the latest updates from the front lines of our work.

Bring your family, invite your friends, and come be part of an unforgettable night—we can’t wait to see you there!

OTA Board Greenlights Another $1.5B in Debt

At the June OTA board meeting, the Board voted to authorize the issuance of another $1.5 BILLION in Series 2026A Revenue Bonds to be “issued at one time or from time to time for the purposes of financing or refinancing capital costs of turnpike projects and improvements to the Oklahoma Turnpike System, refunding certain Oklahoma Turnpike System second senior revenue bonds of the authority, funding capitalized interest and certain reserves with bond proceeds and paying costs of issuance.”

According to Title 90, Section 10 and Title 62, Section 695.3(g) of the Oklahoma Statutes, the OTA is required to submit an application to the Council of Bond Oversight (COBO) for permission to sell revenue bonds.

Aside: The Legislature has made it “optional” to go to the Supreme Court for bond validation in Title 69, Section 1718.

We have been trying to make it mandatory for the past four years by crossing out “is authorized in its discretion to” and inserting “shall.”

Under our proposed amendment, the statute would read:

“The Authority is authorized in its discretion to SHALL 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.”

Whether that legal COBO review process is meaningful depends largely on the information provided to COBO and the staff responsible for evaluating bond applications.

The Office of the Oklahoma State Bond Advisor was established in 1987 through the Oklahoma Bond Oversight and Reform Act. In 2003 it became a stand-alone state agency. In 2017, the Oklahoma Legislature passed legislation that abolished the independent State Bond Advisor structure and transferred those functions into the State Treasurer's Office. As a result, the State Bond Advisor would thereafter be appointed by the Treasurer rather than operating as an independent office.

The Deputy Treasurer for Debt Management (currently Alexandra Edwards) performs many of the functions historically carried out by the State Bond Advisor and serves as staff to the Council of Bond Oversight.

This State Bond Advisor coordinates review and approval of bond proposals by the Council of Bond Oversight (COBO). COBO is a 5-member board consisting of one member appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, one member appointed by the House of Representatives, two members appointed by the Governor, and the State Treasurer. They serve four-year terms. The Attorney General provides legal counsel.

If you read through the Powers and Duties of the COBO in Title 62, Sections 695.8 and 695.9v1 and 695.9v2, COBO is directed to determine whether the financing serves a proper public purpose, review compliance with applicable laws and review other relevant matters, including repayment sources and security for the bonds.

In addition, Title 90, Section 10-3-4(a)(3)(I) states that the State Bond Advisor, and staff to the COBO, is required to review the following documents prior to final approval, which include a “(I) Letter from issuer's attorney or bond counsel stating that there is no litigation pending or threatened relating to outstanding or proposed obligations or the issuer's authority to enter into any agreements necessary to complete the proposed transaction.”

Just as litigation helped stop the 2022 bond sale, a lawsuit challenging the legality of the ACCESS program could once again prevent the OTA from obtaining final bond approval until the courts determine whether the project can legally move forward.

Stay tuned.

More Oklahoma Landowners Face OTA Takings

While the bond sale moves forward, the impacts on property owners continue. Another big item on the agenda was a resolution of necessity for the condemnation of certain real property interests along various corridors.

40 properties on the East-West Connector

15 properties on the Turner

Why have Oklahomans become comfortable allowing an unelected board of a public trust or other governmental instrumentality to take private property simply by adopting a “Resolution of Necessity”?

It is astonishing that we have been unable to convince the Legislature to enact a law requiring condemning authorities to go to court and prove necessity before they are granted the extraordinary power to take someone’s home, farm, business, or land.

If eminent domain is going to remain available for purposes beyond true public necessities such as national defense, then at a minimum we should have common-sense safeguards in place. No state agency, public trust, or private entity exercising delegated government power should be allowed to wield eminent domain without meaningful judicial review.

Today, the process is often little more than this: agency staff compile a list of parcel numbers, an unelected board adopts a resolution declaring the taking “necessary,” and suddenly the machinery of eminent domain is set in motion against property owners.

The burden should not be on citizens to prove the government is wrong after the fact. The burden should be on the government to prove necessity before it ever acquires the power to take private property.

That isn’t a radical idea. It’s basic due process and fundamental respect for private property rights.

Keep fighting folks. Don’t let them have your land without putting up a fight.

Research to do before the Primary

The primary election is coming up on Tuesday June 16th.

Here’s a voter guide to link you to all of the candidates so you can do your own research. https://oklahomavoice.com/voter-guides/2026-oklahoma-primary-election/

To get a copy of the ballot that you will be voting with on June 16, go to the Oklahoma voter portal and type in your name and birth date. Make sure you do this because depending on where you live, you are voting on not only state and federal level officials, but also county level positions.

The Republican Primary ballot is a long one, so please look at it and do your research before the 16th. If you want to know whether your Republican state representative stood with the voters or the establishment, check out The Oklahoma State Capital’s 2026 Capitol Conformity Tracker.

There are also several Democratic Primary races to vote in, so please show up to the polls and participate!

As you research candidates’ positions, backgrounds, and records of public service, take the time to review their campaign finance and ethics filings as well. The Oklahoma Ethics Commission’s Guardian system allows voters to see who is funding a candidate’s campaign, including contributions from lobbyists, PACs, and special interest groups. Spend a few minutes watching the podcast for a quick tutorial on how to navigate the system, then visit the Guardian website and look up the candidates for yourself. Transparency matters. Many of the candidates I support refuse lobbyist and PAC money altogether, believing that elected officials should answer to the people they represent—not to special interests.

In addition, everyone gets the chance to vote on SQ832. A substack on SQ832 popped across my feed last week that you may find interesting. I found another opinion piece here.

Beyond SQ832, many important races will appear on the ballot. During the past four years of fighting the turnpike expansion and advocating for government accountability, I have crossed paths with dozens of elected officials, candidates, activists, and public servants. Some I have worked with closely. Others I have observed through legislative hearings, public meetings, conferences, podcasts, and community events.

The following candidates are among those who have impressed me with their character, their willingness to engage with citizens, and their commitment to principled public service. While these observations are based on my own experiences, I encourage everyone to do their own research and reach their own conclusions.

Governor

Jake Merrick: https://jakemerrickforgovernor.com/

One of the most interesting candidates in the governor’s race is former State Senator Jake Merrick. Unlike most statewide candidates, Merrick is running a true grassroots campaign. He has publicly pledged not to accept PAC money or lobbyist money, choosing instead to rely on individual Oklahomans who believe government should answer to citizens rather than special interests.

That approach comes with challenges. In modern politics, it is far easier to build a campaign with the backing of wealthy donors, PACs, lobbyists, and political insiders. Running a people-powered campaign requires something different: conviction, persistence, and a willingness to stand on principle even when it is politically inconvenient.

Jake served in the Oklahoma Senate from 2021 to 2022 before losing a re-election bid to a heavily funded challenger. During and after his time in office, he developed a reputation for speaking openly about the influence of money in politics and the need for elected officials to remain accountable to the people who sent them there.

Every election cycle, voters hear the same argument: don’t vote for the underdog because you’ll be taking votes away from someone else. But that mindset guarantees that the same political class, the same donor networks, and the same special interests continue to dominate our government.

Perhaps the better question is this: What if we voted for the person we genuinely believe will do what they say they will do?

Whether you agree with Jake Merrick on every issue is beside the point. What stands out is that he has built his campaign around a simple proposition—that principles matter, that ethics matter, and that elected officials should be more concerned with keeping their word than keeping their donors happy. His campaign slogan, “Principle Over Politics,” reflects a theme that has been consistent throughout his public life.

In a political environment where voters are constantly told to settle for the “electable” choice, there is something refreshing about a candidate willing to bet that honesty, transparency, and keeping one’s promises still matter. Regardless of the outcome, campaigns like his remind us that meaningful change rarely begins with the establishment—it begins with citizens willing to support leaders whose actions match their words.

And he’s the only candidate that wants to abolish the OTA. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Uoq8Pm3Sj/

Lieutenant Governor

J.J. Humphrey: https://jj4ltgov.com/

I first met J.J. Humphrey in 2022, shortly after the turnpike fight began, and he has been a consistent ally of Oklahoma citizens ever since. Long before eminent domain reform became a popular talking point, J.J. was speaking out about government overreach, private property rights, and the need for greater accountability from public agencies. Throughout the turnpike battle, he has never wavered in his support for the citizens whose homes, farms, and businesses were threatened by government action.

J.J. was also a close friend of our attorney, Stan Ward, and shares Stan’s belief that government exists to serve the people—not the other way around. That principle has guided his public service and explains why citizens across Oklahoma continue to trust him.

What I appreciate most about J.J. is that his word means something. In a political environment where promises are often forgotten after Election Day, he has consistently done what he said he would do, even when it was unpopular with leadership or powerful interests. While other candidates in this race have taken actions that directly harmed the citizens we have fought alongside, J.J. Humphrey has remained firmly on the side of the people.

You may not agree with him on every issue, but you will always know where he stands—and that’s a rare quality in politics today. J.J. is a man of principle, and Oklahoma could use more leaders who put citizens ahead of politics.

State Treasurer

Cindy Byrd: https://www.cindybyrd.com/

I first met Cindy Byrd in 2022 when citizens across Oklahoma were demanding answers about the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and pushing for an independent audit of its operations. From our very first conversation, it was obvious that Cindy is exceptionally sharp. She understands government, she understands finance, and perhaps most importantly, she understands how power operates behind the scenes.

As State Auditor, she led the first investigative audit of the OTA in its history. While the audit’s scope was limited, conducted at the request of the Attorney General, it nevertheless identified concerns with contracting practices, consultant oversight, documentation, and internal controls, and recommended several reforms to improve transparency and accountability.

What impressed me most was Cindy’s willingness to ask difficult questions and follow the facts wherever they led. She understands that accountability is not about protecting agencies or political interests—it’s about protecting the public.

Now she is running for State Treasurer, a position that includes oversight responsibilities related to Oklahoma’s bond issuance process through the Council of Bond Oversight (COBO). Before 2017, Oklahoma’s bond oversight staff operated independently through the State Bond Advisor’s Office. Today those functions are housed within the Treasurer’s Office, making the Treasurer’s approach to debt oversight more consequential than many voters realize. The Treasurer no longer just safeguards state cash; the office now houses the debt management staff that review financing requests and support COBO's oversight process.

Few candidates are better equipped to understand the complexities of public debt, bond financing, and the importance of ensuring that agencies provide complete and accurate information when seeking approval for major financial commitments.

Throughout the turnpike fight, many citizens have felt that legitimate concerns were ignored or dismissed. Cindy Byrd listened. She took the time to understand the issues, study the details, and engage with the facts. Whether discussing audits, public finance, or government accountability, she brings a level of knowledge and seriousness that is increasingly rare in public life.

At a time when trust in government is low, Oklahoma needs public officials who are willing to ask hard questions, follow the money, and remember that their ultimate responsibility is to the citizens—not the institutions they oversee. Cindy Byrd has demonstrated those qualities throughout her career, and I am hopeful she would bring that same commitment to transparency and accountability to the Treasurer’s office.

Cleveland County Commissioner District 3

Michael Nash: https://nashforclevelandcounty.com/

Dr. Michael Nash founded PIKE OFF OTA and served as its first President before going on to represent Ward 5 as a Council Member. Having been deeply involved in the fight against the ACCESS Oklahoma turnpike expansion from the beginning, he understands firsthand the concerns of property owners, taxpayers, and local communities affected by these projects.

By contrast, incumbent Rusty Grissom voted in Spring 2025 to approve a Resolution of Cooperation that opened the door for OTA projects in Cleveland County before citizens were given an opportunity to publicly weigh in on the decision. Voters will have to decide for themselves whether that reflected the kind of representation they expect from their elected officials.

For those interested in the events leading up to that vote, including communications between the County Commissioners, the OTA, and the City of Norman, additional information can be found here.

HD3

Rick West: https://rickwestfordistrict3.com/

Rick West has a sign on his office door that reads, “I do not accept lobbyist money.” The first time I visited his office in 2022, I didn’t have an appointment. He welcomed me in anyway, sat down to talk, and showed me the binder of legislation he was working through before floor debate.

During that conversation, he told me something that has stuck with me ever since: if he doesn’t understand a bill, or if leadership hasn’t given legislators enough time to read it, he votes no. That’s a philosophy he actually lives by. In fact, he is one of only a handful of legislators who votes no nearly half the time.

For the past three legislative sessions, Rick has agreed to carry a citizen-written bill to protect the rights of landowners whose property abuts turnpike corridors. He sat through countless contentious meetings on our behalf and never wavered in his support. More than once, he warned us that leadership would likely kill the bill—not because it was flawed, but because it strengthened protections for citizens against government overreach. Even knowing the odds, he continued to advocate for the legislation and challenge leadership to do the right thing.

Rick West remains one of the few legislators willing to stand up to leadership when he believes citizens’ rights are at stake. Whether the issue is property rights, government accountability, or legislative transparency, he has consistently demonstrated a willingness to put principle ahead of politics.

HD8

Tom Gann: https://gannforhouse.com/

I’ve always liked Representative Tom Gann. He is a man of principle who takes his responsibilities as a legislator seriously. One of the things that sets him apart is that he reads every bill. In an era of massive omnibus legislation and rushed votes, that shouldn’t be remarkable—but it is.

Tom is also one of the few legislators willing to vote no when he believes a bill is flawed, unnecessary, or has not been adequately vetted. In fact, he votes no more than 50% of the time. He asks thoughtful, probing questions and isn’t afraid to challenge assumptions simply because “that’s how things have always been done.” Throughout the turnpike fight, he met with me on several occasions to discuss private property rights, eminent domain reform, and ways to increase accountability at the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.

His willingness to challenge House leadership has often come at a political cost, but Tom has remained committed to representing the people who elected him rather than the interests of the Capitol establishment. He consistently puts principle ahead of politics and is willing to stand alone when he believes it is the right thing to do.

That same independent streak led him to develop the "Gann Plan," a proposal to restore legislative self-governance and return the People's House to the people it was intended to serve. He presented the plan at the Liberty Conference in February 2026 and laid out a vision for reducing the concentration of power within legislative leadership and giving rank-and-file legislators a stronger voice in the process.

I agree with Tom that the rules at the Capitol need serious reform. Leadership should not have the power to quietly prevent bills from ever being heard, regardless of their merit. Few legislators are as willing to challenge the internal power structure of the Capitol as Tom Gann, and Oklahoma's citizens are better served when independent voices like his are willing to speak up.

HD11

Wendi Stearman: https://www.stearmanforhouse.vote/

I worked with Wendi Stearman long before the turnpike fight ever landed in my lap. In 2020, she and I participated in a House interim study on medical freedom, and I came away impressed by her willingness to listen to citizens, ask thoughtful questions, and stand up for individual rights. Those qualities are just as important today as they were then.

Wendi has built a reputation for putting principle ahead of politics. She refused lobbyist money while serving in office and has consistently been a strong supporter of rural Oklahoma, private property rights, and limited government. Whether you agree with her on every issue or not, she has demonstrated a willingness to represent her constituents rather than special interests.

After serving one term, Wendi was defeated by John Kane, a heavily funded challenger backed by interests far different from the grassroots citizens who supported her. Since taking office in 2022, Kane has not been an ally of the PIKE OFF OTA community. He has voted with House leadership the overwhelming majority of the time and, in his role on the Appropriations and Budget Committee, helped prevent several of our property rights and accountability bills from receiving a hearing.

I am hopeful that Wendi Stearman will have the opportunity to return to the People’s House. Oklahoma benefits from legislators who are willing to think independently, listen to citizens, and stand firm in their convictions, and Wendi has demonstrated those qualities throughout her public service.

HD20

Jonathan Wilk: https://wilkhd20.com/

I first met Jonathan Wilk last summer as he was finishing up his first year in the People’s House. From the outset, he was firmly opposed to the turnpike project—a position that only strengthened after watching the PIKE OFF OTA documentary. He was eager to explore legislative solutions and frequently discussed ideas for bills that might survive the leadership gauntlet and gain traction at the Capitol.

Although he ultimately did not author legislation focused specifically on private property rights or turnpike accountability, Jonathan remained actively engaged throughout the session. He stayed in regular contact, providing updates on committee maneuvering, legislative developments, and even OTA talking points being distributed to lawmakers. That information allowed us to respond quickly, correct misinformation, and keep citizens informed about what was happening behind the scenes.

Even without carrying a specific OTA bill, Jonathan demonstrated something I value in a legislator: a willingness to stay engaged, ask questions, and keep citizens informed about what was happening inside the Capitol.

HD27

Danny Sterling: https://www.facebook.com/danny.sterling.969

I have worked with Danny Sterling for more than four years and have seen firsthand his commitment to protecting private property rights and holding government accountable. Danny was the legislator who successfully guided our first bill, HB 2263, through the legislative process and into law. That bill reformed the appointment structure of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority Board, replacing a system in which all members were appointed by the Governor with one that distributes appointments among the House, Senate, and Executive Branch.

Since then, Danny has consistently stood with the citizens affected by the turnpike project. After watching the PIKE OFF OTA documentary and hearing directly from impacted landowners, he became an even stronger advocate for reform. Session after session, he has been willing to carry legislation aimed at protecting private property rights, increasing transparency, and improving accountability at the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. Whether or not those bills ultimately advanced, Danny never stopped giving citizens a voice at the Capitol. Danny understands that reform is often incremental, but he has consistently shown up to fight for it.

HD29

Brian Jackson: https://www.brianjacksontakesaction.com/

Not every race features a candidate I have worked with personally. In some districts, my observations are based more on legislative leadership, voting records, and the direction of the institution itself. I have not worked with or personally met Brian Jackson. Nevertheless, he is running against incumbent Kyle Hilbert, the youngest Speaker of the House in Oklahoma history and one of the most influential politicians in the state. While I cannot speak firsthand about Jackson, I can speak to my concerns with the direction of legislative leadership under Speaker Hilbert, which I believe has too often prioritized government and special interests over citizens. You can read more about those concerns and why I believe change is needed here. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DZHgbhHEX/

And subscribe to the Oklahoma State Capital substack. He does an excellent job examining the relationships and power structures that influence Oklahoma politics and explaining why many voters believe change is needed.

The Oklahoma State Capital

When the House Fears a Farewell Speech

Politicians are crafty people. They will do whatever they can to convince voters that they are one of the few good guys in the process, even while admitting that the process itself is corrupt…

Read more

4 months ago · 9 likes · 1 comment · Jason W. Murphey

HD31

Karmin Grider: https://www.votekarmingrider.com/

I first met Karmin Grider in May 2022 when we were both speaking at a gubernatorial campaign event in Norman. At the time, she was running for office herself, and I was immediately impressed by her energy, preparation, and willingness to challenge the political status quo.

Since then, I have followed her research on Oklahoma politics, government accountability, and judicial elections. What stands out about Karmin is the amount of work she puts into understanding the issues before she speaks about them. She doesn’t rely on talking points or political slogans—she digs into campaign finance reports, voting records, public documents, and the relationships that shape policy decisions behind the scenes.

If you visit her website, you’ll find detailed reports examining campaign contributions and political influence involving elected officials seeking higher office. Whether you agree with all of her conclusions or not, it’s clear that Karmin does her homework and is committed to helping citizens better understand how government really works.

Karmin is running against an incumbent who currently serves as Assistant Floor Leader and votes with House leadership the overwhelming majority of the time. By contrast, Karmin has pledged not to accept lobbyist or PAC money and is building her campaign around transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement.

If you’re looking for a candidate who is willing to ask difficult questions, challenge entrenched interests, and put in the work necessary to understand the issues, Karmin Grider is worth a closer look.

HD32

Jim Shaw: https://www.facebook.com/ShawForOK/

Jim Shaw unseated a well-funded establishment incumbent in 2024, and I have been impressed with him ever since. His opponent spent more than $730,000 trying to hold onto a legislative seat that pays less than $50,000 a year, while consistently carrying water for the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and working to silence the voices of concerned citizens.

Jim Shaw has taken a very different approach.

He meets with citizens.

He listens to citizens.

He asks thoughtful questions and genuinely seeks to understand different perspectives before making decisions.

After watching the PIKE OFF OTA documentary, Jim immediately wanted to know what he could do to help. He asked whether there were legislative solutions he could pursue to better protect property owners from eminent domain abuse and government overreach. He later launched the Save Oklahoma Plan, which includes a commitment to “End Perpetual Toll Roads & Expose the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority” as one of its core principles.

I have met with Jim several times, and one of the things that stands out most is how accessible he remains to the people he represents. He regularly communicates with constituents through videos, blogs, and direct outreach. Throughout the legislative session, he frequently contacted me with questions about proposed legislation and how it would affect Oklahoma citizens.

Jim is not a go-along-to-get-along politician, and that independence has not always endeared him to legislative leadership. Many of his proposals never receive a hearing, not because they lack merit, but because challenging the status quo often comes with consequences. Whether you agree with him on every issue or not, Jim Shaw has demonstrated a willingness to ask difficult questions, challenge entrenched interests, and put the concerns of his constituents first.

HD36

Jenni White: https://www.jenniwhiteforhd36.com/

I first became familiar with Jenni White about four years ago when a friend introduced me to her Rope Report podcast. That led me to her research on dark money and government influence, and before long I found myself diving into her work and following her efforts to bring greater transparency and accountability to Oklahoma politics. Over the years, I appeared on her podcast several times to discuss the turnpike controversy, and she came to the PIKE OFF OTA Documentary last June. But it wasn’t until the Liberty Conference this past February that I finally got to spend some time with her in person. The conference brought together people from across Oklahoma who share a common belief: government works best when citizens are informed, engaged, and empowered.

Jenni is a force to be reckoned with. She is thoughtful, well-researched, and completely unafraid to challenge prevailing narratives when the facts lead her in a different direction.

Throughout her career, she has consistently stepped forward when she believed Oklahomans were being poorly served by their government. She was a leader in the effort to repeal Common Core, served as Mayor of Luther from 2017 to 2021, and has been a vocal advocate on election integrity issues. Following her public advocacy, she was removed from her position with the Oklahoma County Election Board and is currently pursuing legal action challenging that termination (Federal Case 5:24-cv-00631-J).

Today, she is challenging an establishment incumbent in House District 36. As voters evaluate that race, they should look beyond campaign slogans and examine voting records (he voted yes 98.5% of the time), campaign finance reports, and who is funding each candidate. Those details often reveal far more than mailers and advertisements ever will. Jenni has pledged to take no PAC or lobbyist money - and she’s running her grass-roots campaign from her kitchen table. Check her out!

Whether you agree with her on every issue or not, Jenni White brings something increasingly rare to public life: independence, conviction, and a willingness to challenge powerful interests. She is energetic, persistent, and deeply committed to citizen engagement. Oklahoma could benefit from more elected officials who are willing to ask difficult questions and put the interests of their constituents ahead of political convenience.

HD45

Annie Menz: https://www.facebook.com/alicia.menz

Annie Menz is my State Representative, and from the very beginning of this fight she has been a steadfast advocate for her constituents. She has consistently been willing to author and support legislation aimed at strengthening private property rights, increasing transparency in government, and holding the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority accountable.

Just as importantly, Annie has kept citizens informed. Time and again, she has alerted us to OTA-related developments, legislative maneuvering, and behind-the-scenes activity, giving us the opportunity to respond, educate the public, and engage in the process when it mattered most.

Having a representative like Annie Menz is critical to our mission. Protecting citizens’ rights requires more than good ideas—it requires elected officials who are willing to stand with their constituents and help navigate a system that too often favors powerful interests over ordinary Oklahomans. In the end, it's not about party labels; it's about who is willing to stand up for the people they serve.

SD24

Heather Boss: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558205607667

I first learned about Heather Boss while watching a Rope Report podcast with Jenni White. What immediately stood out was her ability to communicate complex issues in a way that was both clear and relatable. She has a natural talent for connecting policy discussions to the real-world concerns of ordinary Oklahomans.

After that, I began following Heather’s work more closely and was impressed by both her public speaking ability and her long history of community service and ministry. She brings an authentic, servant-leader mindset to public life and understands that leadership is ultimately about helping people, not building political power.

Heather is also one of a growing number of candidates who has chosen to run a truly grassroots campaign. She is not accepting lobbyist money or PAC money, choosing instead to rely on individual supporters who believe government should remain accountable to the people it serves.

If you’re looking for a candidate who combines strong communication skills, a heart for service, and a commitment to independence from special interests, Heather Boss is worth taking the time to learn more about.

The common thread running through all of these issues—from eminent domain to government transparency to campaign finance—is accountability.

Regardless of which candidates earn your vote, I encourage everyone to do their own research, ask hard questions, and participate in the process. The fight for property rights, government accountability, and responsible transportation is far from over, but neither is our determination. Every conversation, every meeting, every vote, and every citizen who chooses to get involved helps move the needle. Thank you for being part of this effort. We hope you'll join us at Royal Bavaria on June 14th, stay informed on the issues, and make your voice heard at the ballot box on June 16th. Together, we are proving that informed and engaged citizens can make a difference.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

Get more from Amy Cerato in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Due to impending rainy weather forecasted for this weekend, we pushed our event a week!

Get ready for a night of fun at our 5th Annual Royal Bavaria Family Fun Night!

🍻🎶 Join us on June 14th as the biergarten opens at 5 PM with a delicious buffet dinner, followed by an evening packed with live music, games, raffles, and exclusive merchandise. It’s the perfect chance to relax, connect with friends, and hear the latest updates from the front lines of our work.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

I heard about the Capitol Action Project on the ROPE REPORT last week. It’s a tool to help citizens understand the legislative process and it is great!

You can find it here https://linktr.ee/capitolactionproject and if you want Christy Taylor to walk you through it, watch the ROPE REPORT Episode on your favorite platform.

Rumble: https://rumble.com/v78ryv0-christy-taylor-how-to-citizen-lobby-your-legislature.html

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CMzxZvnYC/

The Capitol Action Project’s Citizen Action Hub isn’t just another site telling people what bills to care about…it’s a blueprint for how Oklahomans can take ownership of the legislative process themselves.

Instead of acting like a centralized bill tracker, the Hub shows citizens how to track legislation on their own...how to follow a bill from filing to committee to floor, how to read what’s actually in it, and how to recognize when something meaningful (or problematic) is about to happen. It pulls back the curtain on a process that too often feels opaque by design.

What it does especially well is connect timing with action. The platform provides alerts and guidance so people understand not just what is happening, but when their engagement matters…because calling a legislator after a vote is already over doesn’t move the needle. Knowing when a bill is being heard, amended, or quietly stalled is where citizen influence actually lives.

It also serves as a practical training ground. This isn’t theoretical civics, it’s applied strategy. The Hub walks people through how the Oklahoma Legislature functions in reality: committee gatekeeping, leadership control of agendas, and the procedural choke points where good bills die and bad ones slip through. More importantly, it gives citizens the tools to engage that system effectively, whether that’s contacting legislators, showing up at hearings, or coordinating with others.

And that’s really the point: it shifts people from passive consumers of political information to active participants who understand the mechanics. Not just reacting to headlines but knowing how to navigate the process, anticipate outcomes, and intervene where it counts.

We all know that the Legislature doesn’t reliably follow its own rules—and there’s no internal mechanism that forces them to. That leaves one line of defense: an informed public that knows exactly when those rules are being broken. If citizens don’t understand the process, they can’t call it out—and that’s when anything goes.

And in an election year, calling it out isn’t just noise…it’s leverage. When we see it, document it, and say it publicly, we create accountability where none exists inside the building. And if that accountability still falls flat, we have another tool: the ballot box. We can choose legislators who actually respect the rules of the people’s house or replace the ones who don’t.

This Hub exists to make that possible.

Check it out and share widely!

If you found the Capitol Action Project helpful and want more of Christy Taylor’s perspective, you can subscribe (for free) to her GenXpletives Substack, here:

GenXpletives

Decoding Oklahoma's legislative process and tracking current political developments so everyday Oklahomans can understand how their government actually works and when their voice matters most.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

What would you do if you were asked to give up your home today—for a project that may not even be built for another decade?

That’s the situation many Oklahoma families are facing right now. With letters of intent going out, land agents knocking, and pressure mounting to sell, the timeline being presented to homeowners doesn’t match the reality of when—or if—these projects will actually move forward.

From our June 7th 5th Annual Royal Bavaria Family Fun Night, to Letters of Intent on the Southern Extension, to houses purchased by the OTA on the EWC, to Senate Bill 80, and some required reading this week, we’ve got you covered.

5th Annual Royal Bavaria Family Fun Night

Get ready for a night of fun at our 5th Annual Royal Bavaria Family Fun Night!

🍻🎶 Join us on June 7th as the biergarten opens at 5 PM with a delicious buffet dinner, followed by an evening packed with live music, games, raffles, and exclusive merchandise. It’s the perfect chance to relax, connect with friends, and hear the latest updates from the front lines of our work.

Bring your family, invite your friends, and come be part of an unforgettable night—we can’t wait to see you there!

Subscribe now

Notice of Interest from the OTA

If you have gotten a notice of interest from the OTA, take a pause.

A long pause.

According to the ACCESS Letting Schedule posted through 2031, the Southern Extension is not listed.

In fact, the OTA don’t plan on starting construction on an interchange along the Southern Extension at SH77 and 60th Ave SE until 2034.

It is currently 2026. So what’s the RUSH to buy your property?

Let’s not pretend we don’t know what the rush is.

At its March and April board meetings, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority approved a series of contracts for on-demand right-of-way acquisition services—effectively mobilizing teams to start buying up land now, even for projects they don’t plan to build until 2034.

Here’s who they hired:

• Paladin Land Services — $1.7 million (not to exceed $2 million)

• Terra Resources, LLC — $1.26 million (not to exceed $2 million)

• Western Land Services, Inc. — $1.26 million (not to exceed $2 million)

• Coates Field Services — contract modification up to $1.12 million

• POE & Associates, Inc. — $2 million (not to exceed $2 million)

• WSB, LLC — $2 million (not to exceed $2 million)

• Pinnacle Consulting — $1 million (not to exceed $3 million)

• Encompass Services, LLC — $1 million (not to exceed $3 million)

This isn’t planning—it’s a land grab.

And we’ve all seen what “not to exceed” means to the OTA in practice.

So why are property owners being pressured to negotiate under duress today for projects that may not break ground for another decade? By the time construction even begins, the transportation landscape could look entirely different—and likely far less dependent on toll roads.

Technology isn’t standing still. In fact, it’s accelerating past the assumptions this entire program is built on. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA are already advancing programs in Advanced Air Mobility, including electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft—systems designed to move people without adding more pavement across our land.

The question isn’t just whether these turnpikes are needed now. It’s whether they’ll be obsolete before they’re ever built—and whether it makes any sense to take people’s homes today for infrastructure that may not even be relevant tomorrow.

Listen carefully:

DO NOT SELL.

If what I believe is about to happen this summer unfolds, the Southern Extension may never even be built.

Hold the line.

Share

Houses Purchased along the East-West Connector

Unfortunately, many of the East–West Connector households have not held firm. After only one or two rounds of negotiation, properties are being sold—often with agreements allowing residents to remain rent-free until August 1st, after which the OTA moves quickly to demolish the homes and clear the land.

And once the land is gone, so is the leverage.

It becomes exponentially harder to stop a turnpike when the condemning authority already controls the right-of-way.

So I have to ask—why aren’t more property owners pressing this to condemnation and forcing the process into open court?

I raise this question because, from the offers I’ve seen, homeowners aren’t being made whole. The OTA’s numbers fall well short of what it actually costs to stay in the same community. Comparable properties within a 5–10 mile radius are significantly more expensive than what’s being offered.

I know this firsthand.

My property sits directly in the path of the first iteration of the southern extension—10 acres in the Cross Timbers, with good water, just seven miles from the center of Norman. It’s not just land; it’s a fully built-out, functional homestead designed around our family’s needs.

So I started looking for something comparable.

I can’t find one.
Not even close.
Not for any amount of money.

The nearest properties with similar acreage and a comparable home are farther from town—and still don’t come close to what we have. They lack the greenhouse, the established garden, the chicken coop, fencing, pool, and the extensive treehouse built into the canopy—something you could genuinely live in. They don’t have an acre of irrigated native perennial beds or a functioning monarch habitat.

All of those features didn’t appear overnight. They represent years of investment—time, labor, and money. Replacing them would add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of any new property.

And even then, it wouldn’t truly be the same.

Realistically, the cost to purchase and rebuild something comparable is easily two to three times what the OTA would offer. Just constructing a house like ours today would run at least $250 per square foot (range for Norman, OK in 2026 = $185-$340/sq foot) and that doesn’t include the outbuildings, infrastructure, or land improvements.

So I don’t understand how anyone looks at these offers and thinks they’re getting a fair deal.

Maybe some people are simply exhausted—willing to take the loss, move farther out, downsize, and start over. That’s their choice. But let’s be honest about what it is: it’s not a fair exchange.

It’s a forced trade-down.

And that’s what makes this so frustrating. The OTA’s approach strips away generational wealth—pushing families into accepting compensation that undervalues not just their property, but their entire way of life.

Every early sale makes it harder for the community to push back. It weakens collective resistance and accelerates a project that many don’t want.

At the same time, the OTA continues to pay contractors and developers without hesitation—approving contracts and change orders with little restraint.

That imbalance is hard to ignore.

Public infrastructure should create opportunity—not dismantle the wealth and stability that Oklahoma families have spent generations building.

And this is exactly why Oklahoma needs stronger eminent domain protections.

Right now, the system is tilted heavily in favor of the condemning authority. Property owners are often forced into quick decisions because the alternative—drawn-out legal battles while the state moves forward—is overwhelming. Worse, under current law, agencies can take possession of a home and demolish it in as little as 90 days. Even if a homeowner ultimately prevails in court, the damage is already done—the home, the land improvements, the life built there is gone.

That’s not justice. That’s leverage.

We’ve been working on solutions at the Legislature to restore balance. Proposals like requiring compensation at 150% of fair market value—or basing it on true replacement cost within the same community—are not excessive. They are necessary to make families whole. Likewise, requiring a full trial on “necessity” before possession is granted would ensure that projects are truly justified before people are displaced—not after.

Because once the house is gone, no court ruling can give it back.

Until laws like these are in place, property owners will continue to face a system that pressures them to settle early, accept less, and walk away from everything they’ve built. And that’s not how eminent domain is supposed to work.

It’s supposed to protect the public—without sacrificing the people.

Share

SB80 - Waiting for a House Floor Schedule and Amendments

I covered the latest on SB80 in recent podcasts—if you haven’t watched those clips of the committee and floor discussions, go back and take a look. They’re something else.

As it stands now, the bill is waiting to be scheduled for a House floor vote. When that happens, several representatives are prepared to file amendments to strip out the problematic language. If those amendments are adopted, the bill goes back to Senator Standridge, who can then decide whether to move it forward or shut it down.

If the amendments fail, Senator Standridge has indicated she will kill the bill.

But the bigger issue here is how we got to this point.

Why was a sweeping, unfriendly amendment filed just 17 minutes before the committee hearing?

That’s not transparency. That’s not good governance. That’s a process designed to avoid scrutiny—plain and simple.

And it raises an even more troubling question:

Where was everyone else?

Why didn’t more members demand time to review the amendment?
Why weren’t there objections?
Why weren’t there “no” votes?

At a minimum, legislators have a duty to understand what they’re voting on—especially when the language fundamentally rewrites a bill. Rushing through major changes without review isn’t just bad process—it’s a failure of responsibility.

Oklahomans deserve better than last-minute rewrites and rubber-stamp votes. They deserve elected officials who are willing to slow things down, ask hard questions, and push back when something doesn’t pass the smell test.

Because if no one is willing to challenge the process, the outcome is already decided.

Aside: This is where the connections matter.

Rep. Brian Hill—the committee chair—filed a sweeping amendment just 17 minutes before the hearing. That’s not a minor procedural move. That’s a deliberate way to limit review and avoid meaningful pushback.

Actions like that serve the interests of the very agencies this legislation is supposed to hold accountable.

And when an elected official is on the way out—already looking toward higher office, in this case, the Lt. Governor position—it raises a legitimate question: who are they really answering to in that moment?

Because it certainly doesn’t look like it’s the public.

And that brings us to a broader concern about leadership and accountability.

Take T.W. Shannon, for example—widely viewed as a front runner for Lt. Governor. Many will remember that when the turnpike expansion was announced in 2022, he was supposed to represent District 3 on the Oklahoma Transportation Commission. Yet when constituents needed engagement—questions, advocacy, even basic communication—he was notably absent.

No meetings. No responses. No representation when it mattered most.

That history matters.

Because if we’re not asking who is showing up for Oklahomans—and who isn’t—then we shouldn’t be surprised when decisions continue to be made without us.

Vote accordingly.

Not Shannon. Not Hill. Who else do we have in the Republican primaries?

Share Amy’s Substack

Book to Read

I recently came across a book on water, infrastructure, and the politics of Norman. I picked it up and, about 50 pages in, I’m already struck by how relevant it is.

It was written by a University of Oklahoma anthropology professor—someone whose early work focused on African studies, cultural anthropology, and international development. But after arriving in Norman, his attention shifted. He became fascinated with something much closer to home: the city’s urban creeks, shaped not by grand rivers, but by rainfall and runoff—and the infrastructure and decisions that quietly control them.

In Nourishing Growth and Suffocating Life, Daniel Mains argues that what is often framed as “growth” through infrastructure, especially water systems, is frequently self-destructive. Using Norman, Oklahoma as a case study, he shows how large-scale projects (like reservoirs, stormwater systems, and urban expansion) are built to support economic and population growth, but end up degrading the very systems they depend on; polluting water, eroding land, and creating long-term costs for communities.

The deeper point is political: infrastructure decisions are not neutral. They reflect power, priorities, and who gets to benefit versus who bears the cost. Growth is often subsidized and accelerated, while the environmental damage and social displacement are pushed onto residents, especially those with the least leverage.

What Mains describes with water infrastructure is almost a one-to-one match with what’s happening in the turnpike fight:

• Growth at all costs
  Just like water infrastructure in Norman was built to fuel expansion, the turnpike system is being pushed as “necessary growth” regardless of whether it’s actually needed or sustainable long-term.

• Displacement justified as progress
  Lake Thunderbird displaced entire communities to enable growth. Today, the turnpike does the same through eminent domain; removing families to make way for infrastructure framed as “public benefit.”

• Self-destructive infrastructure
  Mains shows how growth degrades water systems. The turnpike does something similar; fragmenting land, increasing runoff, damaging watersheds, and creating long-term environmental liabilities.

• Costs shifted to citizens
  In the book, residents deal with degraded creeks, higher water costs, and infrastructure failures. In the turnpike fight, homeowners absorb the loss; undervalued buyouts, loss of generational property, and reduced quality of life, while agencies and contractors move forward.

• Politics over people
  Mains emphasizes that infrastructure decisions are shaped by political priorities, not just technical need. That’s exactly what you’re seeing: decisions driven by institutional momentum, financing structures, and agency power, not by community consent.

What Mains shows is that “growth” infrastructure often nourishes expansion on paper while suffocating the very communities and environments it claims to serve.

I’m not done with the book yet, but I’d love it if our community gave it a read and we could get together and talk about it.

Share Amy’s Substack

At the end of the day, this isn’t just about a turnpike; it’s about what we’re willing to accept as Oklahomans. A system that pressures families to sell early, rewrites legislation at the last minute, and calls it “progress” while eroding communities and generational wealth is not working in the public’s interest. We can either continue down this path, where decisions are made for us. Or we can demand better: better laws, better leadership, and a process that actually respects the people it impacts. The window to push back is still open, but it won’t stay that way for long. What happens next depends on whether enough people are willing to hold the line.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

Our legislature is a mess, and I don’t know how to fix it.

On this week’s Right-of-Way Report, we broke down what actually happened to SB80 as it moved through the Commerce and Economic Development Oversight Committee on Thursday, April 16. Just a week earlier, the bill’s original language had already taken a beating from a trio of legislators more focused on whether it “helped the state” than whether it protected Oklahomans. If you haven’t watched that hearing, go back and do it—it sets the stage for everything that followed this week.

Then came the latest twist: an unfriendly, full rewrite filed by Committee Chairman Rep. Brian Hill just 17 minutes before SB80 was heard.

This discussion of the bill and its amendments lasted less than two-minutes, which was mind blowing since the amendment was a complete deletion of the original language.

Rep. Staires explained the amendment as “SB80 is a clean-up bill, simply removing a handful of turnpikes that have been on the books for the last 30, 40, 50 years, that have been deemed unnecessary at this time.”

Then Chairman Rep. Brian Hill asked Rep. Staires “Would you agree that this bill does not make anyone completely happy but does make sure that everyone did get something, thus a good consensus was made.”

Rep. Staires replied, “Yes, this bill has gone through a number of revisions getting to where we are today and those revisions have been painful, but everybody is at a spot where they are going ‘this is a very good step forward’ and we’ll take it from here.”

This is a lie. The rewrite of the bill was egregious in many regards, but the citizens got the shortest end of the stick possible when they stripped the language that would sunset the location authorizations after 5 years if design contracts had not been signed.

In addition to removing the sunset language, they struck out a segment of Section 1705f that constrained the OTA to building any part of the outer loop. This strike out is one of the only citizen protective statements in the entire turnpike statute because it requires the OTA to build the outer loop (Location Authorization #20) under one bond indenture and issue - a clause put in by Henry Bellmon in the late 80s.

The OTA struck the following language from Title 69, Section 1705f:

That single clause was the foundation of our argument in the OTA’s 2022 Bond Validation Case (O-120619): the East-West Connector could not be legally built on its own. Yet when we raised this point and showed all the evidence that the legislative intent was clear, the judiciary bent over backwards to protect the OTA instead of enforcing the legislature’s plain words.

“(f) To issue turnpike revenue bonds of the Authority, payable solely from revenues, including the revenues accruing to the trust fund created by Sections 1701 through 1734 of this title, for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of any one or more turnpike projects. Provided that any bonds issued for the construction of the proposed turnpike referred to in subparagraphs (10), (20), (21) and (22) of paragraph (e) of this section shall be issued as one issue for all four of the proposed turnpikes and shall be financed, constructed and operated under one bond indenture.”

The second sentence of § 1705(f) strictly limits the OTA’s bonding and building authority in the case of the four turnpikes (part of the Chickasaw (10), part of the Cherokee (22), part of the Creek (21), and part of the Oklahoma City Outer Loop (20)) enumerated in 69 O.S. § 1705(e).

The Supreme Court dissenting minority (3 intellectually honest justices), agreed with our interpretation of the legislative intent - that the OTA could NOT get additional bonds to build the roadway. They had the following to say about the clause that ever since 1987, the OTA has been TRYING to get out of statute.

Rep. Hill and Rep. Staires were used as the OTA’s useful idiots to jam this amendment through and they seemingly legitimately thought it was “all good.”

Interestingly enough, the useful legislative idiots also allowed certain location authorizations to stay in statute. Specifically, they allowed #14, #27, #29 and #30 to stay, split #10 out into separate locations (because they are), even though the OTA has repeatedly stated that those specific authorizations are “infeasible.”

In addition, he allowed them to add a turnpike authorization that is similar to #27, but includes a bridge crossing the Red River between Hugo, Oklahoma and the Oklahoma-Arkansas border.

WOWSERS! Talk about a meaty amendment for the bad guys.

These so-called “compromises”—or more accurately, capitulations to the dark side—didn’t come out of nowhere. They were born in last week’s Transportation Committee hearing, where Reps. Cantrell, Dempsey, and Grego openly questioned why Oklahoma should remove decades-old, 60-year-old turnpike location authorizations from statute at all.

If you didn’t catch that transportation committee debate, it’s worth going back and listening. The questions and framing from those Representatives made it abundantly clear who—and what—they’re really trying to protect.

But, less than two minutes to talk about a major amendment?

How many of those Representatives actually READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE AMENDMENT filed 17 minutes before the committee meeting started?

NONE.

Watch how fast Chairman Hill asks for further questions, then, waits less than a second, then asks for a Do Pass motion and a second, which happens in LESS THAN 5 SECONDS!!!!!!

And then, without taking a breath, asks for discussion or debate and then a vote in LESS THAN 5 SECONDS!!!!!!

Less than 30 minutes AFTER the amendment was filed, a vote was taken to approve the completely rewritten bill, 11-0

They rammed that amendment through the same way the OTA builds turnpikes—fast, aggressive, and with zero regard for the people in the way.

Not like any of the Representatives had read or understood the amendment anyway.

What ever happened to the 24 hour rule, where any changes to a bill had to be out for review for at least twenty four hours prior to any sort of vote? Is that not a real thing anymore?

Share

When I asked Rep. Staires about why he allowed this amendment to go through not only which such awful language, but with so little time for the committee members to truly understand what was going on and with less than 2 minutes of discussion about the amendment in committee, he replied,

“It was this or a dead bill. There are more players involved in the legislative process than just you and the OTA. The final amendments didn’t come from the OTA, they came from Chairman Hill. Senator Standridge worked out the language with him without the OTA in the room. This is politics. There are bills that get run and bills that get passed. This just got passed 9-0 and will get passed off the floor. Last week this bill was dead because Chairman Hill refused to hear it. You just got 10 of the 18 turnpikes you wanted taken out of statute. You can be grateful [for] that or you can be exceptionally disappointed in what you didn’t get.” - Rep. Clay Staires, text, April 16

Dude.

You just don’t get it.

I’d rather a dead bill than a bad bill.

You clearly don’t understand the language and the ramifications of what you just did.

First of all, regarding the statement that I “just got 10 of the 18 turnpikes [I] wanted taken out of statute.”

This is completely a moot point because there is no sunset language anymore and ALL of these “turnpikes” were listed as infeasible by the OTA. It doesn’t matter if they stay or if they go if the sunset language provision is stripped.

In addition, the majority of what “I got” was removal of tollgates or interchanges, and while I don’t have a legal ruling whether or not tollgate/interchange locations are necessary in statute, in practice, it doesn’t seem to matter. The OTA builds them wherever they want.

Once the OTA builds a road, that is supposedly authorized, they do whatever they want on the road. But apparently over the years, legislators didn’t really understand that point and continued to put various interchanges and on-off ramp locations in statute.

What I’m saying is that this amendment was POSTURING to the citizens, in the hopes that we plebes would think that the legislators were doing something noble.

But they weren’t.

The location authorizations that were stricken in this amendment included 7 new turnpikes or extensions of existing turnpikes and 10 interchanges, on-off ramps or tollgates, for a total of 17 of the existing 35 location authorizations to be removed. You can see the location of the turnpikes on the map above. The tollgates are not shown.

#7 Extension of the Muskogee Turnpike

#8 A bunch of tollgates on the Turner

#9 A tollgate on the Will Rogers

#11 A turnpike in the vicinity of Ponca City

#12 OKC Toll expressway system

#13 A turnpike running the length of the state from Kansas to Texas within 30 miles of the Arkansas border

#15 A turnpike near Watonga

#16 A tollgate on Will Rogers

#17 A tollgate on the Muskogee Turnpike

#18 A tollgate on the Turner Turnpike

#19 A tollgate on the Muskogee Turnpike

#24 An extension of the Muskogee Turnpike

#25 A turnpike NW of Tulsa

#26 An interchange on the Indian Nation Turnpike

#31 An on-off ramp near Fletcher on I-44 and State Highway 277

#33 An exit ramp on eastbound lane of Turner Turnpike

#34 An on-off ramp on the Cimarron Turnpike.

Should I feel happy about this? I don’t think so.

Subscribe now

Let’s be clear—this wasn’t compromise. It was capitulation.

A bill that once had meaningful guardrails was stripped down, rewritten, and pushed through so quickly that even the people voting on it couldn’t possibly have understood what they were approving. And somehow, we’re supposed to be grateful for what’s left?

No.

A bad bill doesn’t become good just because parts of it look familiar. And removing language that actually constrained the OTA while leaving behind meaningless “wins” for optics isn’t progress—it’s posturing.

If this is what “getting something done” looks like at the Capitol, then we should all be paying very close attention.

Because today it’s SB80. Tomorrow it’s something else.

And the only thing moving faster than these bills is the erosion of accountability.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

Get more from Amy Cerato in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

It was another revealing week at the Capitol.

Between OTA land acquisition ramping up years ahead of construction, and legislative committees twisting themselves into knots over bills they barely understand, the pattern is becoming impossible to ignore. Decisions that impact thousands of Oklahomans are being made quickly, quietly, and often without meaningful debate.

And if you needed proof of how this system actually works, look no further than what happened in the Transportation Committee this week.

The good news? There may finally be a way to push back.

Notice of Interest from the OTA

If you have gotten a notice of interest from the OTA, take a pause.

A long pause.

According to the ACCESS Letting Schedule posted through 2031, the Southern Extension is not listed.

In fact, the OTA don’t plan on starting construction on an interchange along the Southern Extension at SH77 and 60th Ave SE until 2034.

It is currently 2026. So what’s the RUSH to buy your property?

They want to get so far in front of the opposition that no one will stop them.

And I’m not convinced yet that the Southern Extension will ever be built.

Be patient. I have more on this in a later substack coming out in a few days.

SB 80 Shenanigans in the Transportation Committee on April 8th

Representative Staires is the house author on Senate Bill 80, authored by Senator Lisa Standridge. This bill updates Title 69, Section 1705e in the Oklahoma Statutes.

When he brought this bill to the transportation committee, they discussed it for 22 minutes.

I want you to watch the exchange to understand different elected officials perceptions and misperceptions of how the OTA works and how bad laws get passed every year.

Just this one exchange details how our laws become so convoluted, ambiguous and purposely vague, regardless of the fact that they are never upheld anyway when the protection of the citizens is in question.

A bunch of legislators posturing for the public and accomplishing amazing feats of legal power for their state agencies and instrumentalities.

Staires explains the bill to the committee like this to start……

“SB80 is a turnpike bill, that does some clean up, doing some updates on the language, getting rid of some tollbooths, as well as eliminating some of the unneeded roads at this point, and then codifies communication between the OTA and the landowners and the communities moving forward. This has been a work in progress over the past couple of months, there has been a lot of back and forth going on between the entity that brought the bill and the OTA to make sure we can get to a working conclusion. At this point, we are at a spot where nobody is really happy with it, but everyone is really agreeable with this right now.”

Then he yields for questions from Rep. Grego.

Holy smokes.

Rep. Grego insinuated that Staires and “had a good conversation” prior to this committee meeting, but that “you just threw something in there that I don’t see nowhere in the bill. You said about removing tollbooths, and I was under the impression that they was all gone. So is this going to remove more or are there still some out there?”

Nice English.

Yes, the OTA has removed “tollbooths” from their existing infrastructure. But there are still “tollbooth” locations in statute that need to be removed because they are unnecessary.

Grego didn’t understand that while the OTA took out the PHYSICAL TOLL BOOTHS along their tollroads, they didn’t REMOVE THEM FROM STATUTE.

It is unclear why some interchange locations are called out in statute (e.g.,#8, #9, #16, #17, #18, #19, #26, #31, #33, #34), while other new interchanges being proposed to be constructed within the ACCESS program along the HE Bailey and Indian Nation Turnpikes are not specifically authorized in statute.

Is it required by statute to call out each individual interchange location along an existing turnpike?

I don’t know what the legislative intent was at the time these tollgates were placed in statute, but we all know the OTA or the Oklahoma State Supreme Court doesn’t care about legislative intent anyway.

Is it legal to build a new interchange without first seeking legislative authorization?

I don’t know and no one has filed a lawsuit to find out. In our current judicial climate, I would say the Oklahoma State Supreme Court would let them do whatever the heck they wanted.

Has the presence (or absence) of interchange locations in statute been enforced previously?

Surely you jest. Of course not.

So, my point is, why have tollgate and interchange locations in statute that clutter up the statute, especially when the OTA has stated repeatedly that they will not build them?

This bill proposed to take out TEN tollgate and interchange locations as follows:

#8 A bunch of tollgates on the Turner

#9 A tollgate on the Will Rogers

#16 A tollgate on Will Rogers

#17 A tollgate on the Muskogee Turnpike

#18 A tollgate on the Turner Turnpike

#19 A tollgate on the Muskogee Turnpike

#26 An interchange on the Indian Nation Turnpike

#31 An on-off ramp near Fletcher on I-44 and State Highway 277

#33 An exit ramp on eastbound lane of Turner Turnpike

#34 An on-off ramp on the Cimarron Turnpike.

So whatever “entity” wrote this bill (not PIKE OFF OTA), wanted these tollbooth locations taken out of statute to clean it up.

Staires tries to explain that it is quite clear in statute that there are still tollgates on the books, and then the Chairman Ronnie Johns jumps in and says that we have a map that shows which location authorizations would be eliminated.

This map only shows the TOLLROADS that would be eliminated - not the TOLLGATES OR INTERCHANGES.

So Chairman Ronnie Johns confuses the issue.

But then Chairman Johns allowed the OTA to hand out these maps.

Staires tried to explain that these tollroads would be taken out of statute, but if they wanted to be put back into statute at a later date, they could. “In the future, if people found they did need those roads, we could easily come back and put those back into the plan and walk though the process of communicating with the communities….with the constituents… just as we have been doing.”

Grego laughs…..and asks a question… and follow up. Watch this 2-minute interchange and see how slimy you feel.

Grego: “You just keep throwing stuff out there, that you know, we talked about my concerns, you just made the statement that if we remove these, they can be easily be put back in. Can you go into detail about how easy it is to make notice that you wish to construct a turnpike anywhere?”

I don’t know Grego. Why don’t you ask Rep. Tedford and Sen. Blair, who in less than THREE MONTHS had a shell bill (HB2123) transformed with new language that included a new turnpike authorization location for a “bridge over the Arkansas River in the vicinity of Bixby,” through the house and senate and on the Governor’s desk to sign into law.

It’s really that easy when the state legislature is compensated well by the transportation cabal.

Grego: “But my point is, these roads are already in, so how much easier could it get to leave the road in , then to remove it and have to come back at a later date and put it back in?”

Again Grego: “For my final question. What will the STATE GAIN?”

Grego doesn’t care about the citizens. He wants to know WHAT THE STATE GAINS by removing these turnpikes that have been in statute for 30-60 years.

Who can we find to run against this guy, because he represents everything that is totally wrong with our state government.

Then Rep. Cantrell takes concerns with location authorization #27. “After these are removed and if we want to put them back in, your telling us that this authorization to put this turnpike back in will go away after 5 years if an approved design contract isn’t signed and put back into place. Coming from road construction, both in private and public sector, these are massive undertakings. Do you believe that we can actually put together an actual design project contract plan within 5 years of the time we have to go start the authorization from everybody involved?”

After a follow up question, Rep. Staires asks the Chairman if he can have Joe Echelle, the Director of the OTA to respond the the question of the 5-year sunset. It is very rare to allow anyone else but the elected officials to speak. Where was the opposing voice?

Director Echelle acknowledges that the OTA did a study and came up with a list of turnpikes that they would not likely build. I already addressed that in a previous substack. He says that ODOT has already addressed many of the locations that former legislators had added to statute and some areas had just not gone through the kind of development that legislators thought would happen 60 or 70 years ago.

In other words, he AGREES WITH REMOVING THOSE INFEASIBLE TURNPIKE LOCATIONS - or so he says publicly.

Then Rep. Crosswhite Hader asks the now famous certified mail question again! She wanted to make absolutely sure that the OTA was NOT required to use certified mail to contact the constituents. Y’all remember that debacle on the house floor for HB1939 back in March! If you have not watched those clips from the House Floor, go back right now and watch it!

Now comes Rep. Dempsey. He rambles a bit, but in general claims that turnpikes are halfway decent and safer than two-lane rural roads without shoulders. He says that 60-80% of his fatalities in his district are on rural highways.

Statistically speaking he is correct.

But in his area, he doesn’t have a lot of highways.

He wants to know if the authorizations are removed, will they ever get put back in statute. With ODOT, we have an 8-year plan, can we get that fixed?

Rep. Demsey. “Until you live down there, how things disappear on those 8-year plans. When I see something go away in our part of the world, it don’t come back.”

Now comes Grego again - even though he claimed he had asked his last question.

Grego: “Would you agree or disagree if this bill becomes law, that it will slow down every turnpike project?”

Staires: “OTA agrees that it doesn’t seem to be a major hurdle.”

Grego: “We have these turnpikes ….. in his [Dempsey’s] area, we have millions of people coming up out of Texas. They need these turnpikes. They’d pay alot of tolls to drive on them roads. I just feel like they could be money makers. I’d hate to see these fall off the list. They need to be preceded quickly…… It’s needed today. It was needed 5 years ago. And we are passing legislation that just gonna drop that…… to me that seems like a step backward, am I wrong for feeling that way?”

Staires: “I don’t think that your feelings are wrong, at all Mr. Grego, but again, talking with OTA, they evidently don’t share your feelings that these are highly important and they should do them right now, or they would not be in conversations in allowing these to drop off. Again, if they do become important and through the eyes of the OTA, and I think it would be a simple step for legislators to bring it back up.”

Did you catch that all you proletariat?

“they [the OTA] would not be in conversations in allowing these [location authorizations] to drop off.”

You get how this game works right? Our bills only make it through if the OTA agrees.

Let that sink in.

Then Cantrell comes in again…….and asks “I need to understand why we feel the need to simply remove these from the map. We are not doing them right now. Some of them probably may or may not ever get built. What’s the harm of leaving them inside the statute right now so we know where the plan is and where these items are done and we don’t have to go all the way through the process of putting them back inside of statute. To repeal something from statute just to know that we are eventually going to have to put it back in statute. Is this to make someone feel better? Why are we doing this?

Staires could have shut this down RIGHT now, but he didn’t.

Because he doesn’t really understand that transportation policy cannot be completed from a plan concocted 60 years ago. That social constructs and towns and municipalities have changed drastically in 60 years and that roadways should be planned and constructed in CURRENT conditions.

In addition, he could have mentioned that the OTA themselves have told EVERYONE that they will not build turnpikes in those specific areas.

We know they won’t build in those areas because the revenue stream wouldn’t be enough to justify it and because they aren’t developable. The OTA doesn’t build turnpikes because of transportation or safety needs anymore.

They build turnpikes where the most economic development will occur - at the Chamber’s bidding - to help developers out… and it’s more lucrative to build urban turnpikes then it is to build turnpikes in rural areas to help with “safety” because no one lives there, including road contractors and developers.

We just lived, in real time, how easy it was for an elected official to get a location authorization passed through to law this session. No hiccups whatsoever.

Menz, Crosswhite Hader and Cantrell asked other questions.

Crosswhite Hader and Cantrell need a lesson in what cleaning up statute even means.

The vote was called, and no shocker - Cantrell, Grego and Crosswhite Hader voted NO on the bill.

Wait to you see what happens later this week when the bill goes to the Commerce and Economic Development Oversight Committee on Thursday, April 16th.

State Question 840

State Question 840 is a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at fixing a problem many Oklahomans have now seen firsthand: good bills never getting a hearing. If you’d like to learn more about the measure—or find out how to sign the petition, help collect signatures, or get involved—visit the SQ840 website and sign up for updates.

Under this measure, every legislator would be guaranteed the right to have a minimum number of their own bills heard—at least three per year (or six per full session)—if they formally request it. If a bill passes committee and the author wants to proceed, it must be scheduled for a vote on the floor.

That may sound simple, but it’s a significant shift. Right now, legislative leadership—committee chairs and floor leaders—can effectively kill a bill without debate simply by refusing to hear it. State Question 840 would ensure that elected representatives can actually represent their constituents by getting their ideas considered in the open.

And importantly, this measure doesn’t guarantee passage of any bill—it guarantees a hearing and a vote. The outcome still rests with the full Legislature.

Where this proposal becomes more forceful is in enforcement.

If a legislator blocks another member’s bill in violation of these rules, they face a $10,000 fine for the first offense, and automatic expulsion for a second confirmed violation—without requiring a two-thirds vote.

The Oklahoma Ethics Commission would oversee complaints and determine whether a violation occurred.

That level of accountability is intentional. Without consequences, the current system continues—where bills can be quietly buried, leadership operates without transparency, and constituents are left wondering why their issues never even get a hearing.

State Question 840 doesn’t eliminate leadership or legislative process—but it does put guardrails around it. It ensures that no single person or small group can completely shut down the legislative process for everyone else.

At its core, this measure is about restoring representation.

Because if your elected official can’t even get a bill heard, then your voice isn’t making it into the process at all.

In Oklahoma, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 15% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2026 ballot is 172,993 valid signatures. This initiative constitutional amendment has 90 days to gather signatures after it was approved to circulate on July 18th. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

Let’s go!

When you step back and look at all of this—the rushed land acquisitions, the confusion (or willful ignorance) in committee hearings, the quiet burial of bills that don’t serve the right interests—it all points to the same underlying problem: a system that prioritizes control over representation.

That’s why State Question 840 matters.

It doesn’t fix everything, but it does something fundamental—it forces the process into the open. It ensures that elected officials can’t quietly kill legislation behind closed doors, and that the people’s business actually gets heard.

Because right now, too many decisions are being made without us.

And whether it’s your land, your community, or your voice in the Legislature—once it’s gone, it’s a whole lot harder to get back.

The question is: are we going to keep accepting how this works… or are we finally going to demand something better?

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

It was a quieter week on the surface—but underneath, things are moving.

We’re starting to see exactly what we expected: letters going out to property owners along the proposed turnpike routes, contracts being lined up for right-of-way acquisition, and the early stages of a process that many families have never had to navigate before.

If you’ve received a Notice of Interest from the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, take a breath.

This is not a rushed process—no matter how much it feels like one.

These letters are designed to get you to act quickly. They encourage you to call, to engage, to start the process. And while the people you’ll speak with are often kind, professional, and empathetic, it’s important to remember: they work for the OTA, not for you.

This is a negotiation.

And like any negotiation, it comes with strategy.

We’re already seeing patterns from landowners who have gone through this. Deadlines that aren’t real. Pressure that doesn’t match actual timelines. Conversations that happen verbally but never make it into writing. These are not accidents—they’re part of the process.

So here’s the advice:

Slow down.
Document everything.
Follow up every conversation in writing.
And don’t go through it alone.

Bring someone with you. Talk to your neighbors. Compare notes. The more connected you are as a community, the harder it is for anyone to divide and pressure individuals into quick decisions.

Because once the land is gone, the leverage is gone.

At the same time, there are real developments happening on the policy side.

Bills like SB80 and HB3453 are still moving—imperfect, but meaningful steps toward more transparency and requiring agencies to prove necessity before taking land. They’re not everything we want, but they’re movement in the right direction.

And that only happens when people stay engaged.

Locally, this week also matters.

Ward 5 in Norman has an election, and turnout will likely be low—as it always is. But these are the elections that directly impact your daily life. City council members and county commissioners often have more influence over what happens in your community than anyone at the state or federal level.

If you want change, it starts there.

And finally, the OTA meets again this week.

If you’ve never attended one of these meetings, consider going. Not to protest. Not to disrupt. Just to be present.

Because right now, to them, most of us are just lines on a map.

And the more they see us as people—with homes, families, and lives attached to those lines—the harder it becomes to treat this like just another project.

There’s a lot happening right now.

Some of it is quiet.
Some of it is complicated.
But all of it matters.

Stay informed. Stay connected. And most importantly—don’t let urgency make the decision for you.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

Get more from Amy Cerato in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Between the Legislature racing to meet its March 26 floor deadline and city leadership making decisions that will have long-term consequences for residents, it was nearly impossible for most people to track what actually mattered.

That’s exactly why we spent almost two hours breaking it all down on the podcast—and why I’ve pulled together the key moments, video clips, and takeaways here.

You’ll notice I didn’t dive into the City of Norman situation here—even though it was a big part of this week. That wasn’t an oversight. We covered it in detail on the podcast, and honestly, it’s something you need to hear play out in real time to fully appreciate what happened.

Because most people don’t have time to sit through hours of floor debate or late-night council meetings. But those conversations matter. They reveal how decisions are made, who is being prioritized, and—if you’re paying attention—who is actually representing you.

And when people tell you who they are, you should listen.

Legislative Reform

HB3453 Requiring Condemning Agencies to Prove Necessity to Use Eminent Domain

HB3453, with authors Rep. Staires, Wilk, Menz and Senator Reinhardt, made it off the house floor and to the Senate.

🎤 Floor Discussion

Rep. Staires presented the bill on the house floor on Wednesday March 25th.

Here’s the 8-minute clip.

He explains that his amendments are to make exemptions for oil and gas and utilities and natural gas and talks about how this is his tenth version of the bill, after speaking to multiple entities, and that this has been one of his favorite bills to run so far because “of all of the conversations that I’ve had and all of the entities are now on board.”

He thinks the bill “is a real good compromise because not everybody is fully happy.”

Translation: welcome to the Legislature.

🤔 “Who is this helping?”

He got a question from Rep. Marilyn Stark (R-Bethany), who asks the most straightforward question of the day.

Her question was “Who is this helping?”

I laughed out loud when I heard this question—because somewhere between when I drafted this bill in December 2025 and its tenth iteration, the Legislature had quietly carved out a large portion of the state’s eminent domain users.

Staires responds with a clear explanation of the intent: this bill is about requiring condemning authorities to actually prove necessity before using eminent domain (for those still covered under the bill).

But then comes the moment that perfectly captures the tension here.

Rep. Stark’s follow up was

“You you carved out all of the utilities, one by one. So this is just for private landowners. Would you find it surprising that I kinda wish you would just do away with eminent domain? - Rep. Stark (R-Bethany).

Cue applause from the gallery.

Rep. Staires laughs and responds. “That would not pass.”

Cue laughter.

That laughter tells you everything.

Because everyone in that room understands the same thing: the Legislature will never vote to take away the government’s power to seize private property—or even seriously limit it.

Not now. Not ever.

Even if that’s exactly what the people they represent would choose.

He’s not wrong. But it lays bare the truth: the version that can pass is the version that preserves government power—not the one that fully protects citizens.

✂️ The Carve-Out Conversation

To get this bill heard, oil and gas companies, utilities, and natural gas providers were carved out of the requirement to prove public use before exercising eminent domain.

Why?

Because without those carve-outs, their lobbyists would have ensured the bill never made it to the floor.

Which means the bill still improves things—but not for some of the most frequent users of eminent domain authority.

That’s the tradeoff that got this bill across the house floor.

🙃 Clarifying Questions… and Then Some

Now for the part of the floor discussion where the line between representing constituents and carrying water for condemning authorities starts to blur—though in this case, it’s not particularly subtle.

Rep. Grego, R - District 17 (SE Oklahoma - term limit 2030) asked “You may have touched on this, but oil and gas. What is its effect on oil and gas, eminent domain?”

Rep. Staires: “That was in the amendment to the amendment which carves out oil and gas specifically. So they would not be involved in this.”

Rep. Grego follow up: “You stated while this thing is proven the need, so if we get into a fight with the landowner, will the project will be stopped, while we are trying to sort out whether this project is a legitimate project or not, or will they do like they’ve always done, run over the landowner, put in the project, say we’ll settle it in court at some other date.”

Rep. Staires. “That specific issue is not addressed in this piece of legislation.”

And just like that, the priorities are laid bare.

Not the landowner. Not due process. The project.

“If WE get into a fight with the landowner?”

Who is WE, sir?

Buried in that exchange is a glaring truth though: in Oklahoma, a home can be seized, demolished, and replaced with a project before a court ever decides whether the taking was justified. Even if the homeowner wins, the damage is already done—permanently. That’s not due process. That’s not justice. Yet somehow, it’s become the “Oklahoma Standard.” And it’s exactly what these reforms must confront.

🏛️ The Question Everyone Was Waiting For

Ah… here we go.

Rep. Grego follow up. “Where is ODOT and OTA at in this bill? Have they endorsed this, or do they not like it?

Staires: “They have not endorsed this. They are one of the parties that is not fully happy with this, but they are not against it. This was all part of the conversation coming to the 10th different version of this to find something that all parties could accept even though they are not all happy with it.”

In other words: they can live with it.

And that’s often the real test—not whether it protects citizens, but whether it preserves the system.

My sense is that Tom Gann, Rick West, and Justin Humphrey voted no because the bill carves out a significant share of condemning authorities—undermining the kind of consistent, across-the-board property rights protections they’ve long advocated for.

As for Jim Grego, it’s difficult to identify a coherent policy position in his comments. At best, the line of questioning suggests a reflexive deference to condemning authorities; at worst, it reflects a willingness to accept a system where projects can move forward before citizens have a meaningful chance to be heard. Either way, it raises serious concerns about whose interests are actually being prioritized.

🧭 Where That Leaves Us

So here’s the takeaway from the floor:

• This bill is a step forward, not a final solution

• It reflects compromise after extensive negotiation

• It leaves key gaps that will need to be addressed in future reforms

Not glamorous. Not perfect. But movement.

And in this building, movement matters.

This bill is currently scheduled for the Senate ……. but we aren’t sure what committee yet. Probably Judiciary, chaired by Senator Howard. I am hopeful he will hear this bill.

Subscribe now

HB 1939 5-year sunset on new turnpike authorizations, requiring real public notice and engagement, mandating Supreme court bond validation

HB1939, authored by Sterling, Staires, Menz, Manger and Senator Standridge, made it off the House floor Thursday, March 26th. I’ve pulled a 10-minute clip from the floor debate—and it’s worth your time. To really understand how discussion gets redirected, diluted, and sometimes completely derailed, you need to watch it play out.

This bill was run last session but we pulled it because the OTA put in language that we were not comfortable with and we couldn’t find a way forward. We resurrected it last minute with two important amendments - but it still wouldn’t move forward with leadership unless we agreed to let the OTA take out one key sentence in the bill:

“The Authority shall collaborate with elected officials of cities and counties where the new route will be located.”

Why doesn’t the OTA want to “COLLABORATE WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS?”

When people tell you who they are, LISTEN, and then ACT.

Let me show you what Joe Echelle, the Director of the OTA, thinks about this collaboration statement in the bill.

In a discussion/email/exchange with Rep. Tedford about using this HB1939 to insert language allowing a location authorization for a bridge over the Arkansas River in the vicinity of Bixby, Joe Echelle said the following:

“The issue this bill has, for me, is in the collaborate with local elected officials. This would mean that any future project would need the support of the cities and counties. Historically, this would stop all turnpike projects because there has always been some city or county that didn’t support the project.” - Director Joe Echelle

Cities and counties should HAVE A SAY IN THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND HOW THEY WANT THEIR CITIES TO LOOK AND FEEL.

The legislative leadership sided with the OTA and told Rep. Sterling that if he didn’t amend the bill to remove the collaboration statement, they wouldn’t hear it. So that was Amendment #3.

Of course, because the OTA wanted it, Amendment #3 was the FIRST amendment discussed on the floor and the first amendment adopted and so, as of right now, that municipality cooperation is removed from the bill.

But no one actually TALKED about the substance of the amendment.

When Rep. Sterling was asked to introduce amendment #3 he said “This is just some tweaking that we need to do to the bill.”

Rep. Grego and Rep. Dempsey ignored the amendment and went off the rails on the bill’s additional OTA requirement to “use its best efforts to provide notice to all known property owners within one (1) mile on each side of the new route, considering the number and types of property interests of such owners, by methods including, but not limited to, first class mail and targeted advertisements which shall include the utilization of certified mail to give notice to affected property owners.”

Grego said “Certified mail. Are you putting that back in that they must use certified mail to notify the people?”

Sterling: “Yes, we plan to leave that in at this point in time, simply because I think anytime you are dealing with peoples property that is going to be affected by being taken over by the turnpike authority, we need to exhaust all options in making sure everyone affected should be contacted.”

Grego: “As a 23 year postal employee, I don’t trust certified mail. Do you trust certified mail?”

Sterling: “I’ve never had a reason not to.”

Grego: “Can I give you an example sir?” And then he goes on to give an example of why certified mail is AWFUL.

The Speaker interrupts and says “this line of questioning is not on the amendment.”

So then Dempsey is recognized and says “So, you trust the postal service?”

I can’t with these guys.

The Speaker interrupts again and says “Still not on the amendment.”

And just like that, the conversation derailed—from a substantive amendment about local collaboration… to a full-blown debate on the reliability of certified mail.

It would almost be funny if it weren’t so effective.

Because while everyone was arguing about envelopes and tracking numbers, no one was actually talking about the amendment.

But somehow, without even discussing what the amendment was actually about, the amendment passes.

Then Sterling said he needed to take up Amendment #1.

Amendment 1 was to make it mandatory that the OTA go to the Supreme Court for Bond Validation. Right now, it is optional.

But when asked to explain the amendment, Rep. Sterling said that “Yes, this amendment basically was language that was originally in the bill, we are just reinstating it, it was oversight.”

But this explanation was for Amendment #2 - the poison pill that the OTA had placed in our bill last session, forcing us to kill it.

Rep. Sterling had confused Amendment #1 and #2. But it was still ok, because regardless of the incorrect explanation, Amendment #1 was successfully adopted on the floor without any discussion. This was a great win for the citizens of the state, if we can keep the language in across the finish line.

But then when the Speaker asked Sterling if he requested any further explanation of his duly amended bill, Rep. Sterling replied “Not at this time,” and yielded to questions on the floor.

At that point, you might expect the conversation to shift to the substance of the bill—what had just been amended, what it means, and why it matters.

Instead, we went right back to certified mail.

Are they paid by FedEx and UPS to disparage the USPS? I don’t fully understand their hang-up with notifying affected homeowners.

You need to watch it.

It’s wild.

Because the requirement to notify homeowners that their property may be taken isn’t controversial—it’s common sense. ODOT already does it. The OTA agreed to it last year. And yet, instead of debating whether citizens deserve clear notice, we spent floor time debating the reliability of the postal service.

But let’s talk more about the most important amendment that would restore a huge constraint on the OTA that Henry Bellmon, the 18th (1963-1967) and 23rd (1987-1991) Oklahoma Governor, instated back in 1987 that the OTA desperately wants to go away.

Amendment 2 was to restore stricken language that the OTA wanted taken out to protect them in future Supreme Court challenges on additional segments of their “outer-loop” which is currently location authorization #20. The Majority Supreme Court Opinion in 2023 was wrong - and the OTA knows it.

The OTA struck the following language from Title 69m, Section 1705f:

That single clause was the foundation of our argument in the OTA’s 2022 Bond Validation Case (O-120619): the East-West Connector could not be legally built on its own. Yet when we raised this point and showed all the evidence that the legislative intent was clear, the judiciary bent over backwards to protect the OTA instead of enforcing the legislature’s plain words.

“(f) To issue turnpike revenue bonds of the Authority, payable solely from revenues, including the revenues accruing to the trust fund created by Sections 1701 through 1734 of this title, for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of any one or more turnpike projects. Provided that any bonds issued for the construction of the proposed turnpike referred to in subparagraphs (10), (20), (21) and (22) of paragraph (e) of this section shall be issued as one issue for all four of the proposed turnpikes and shall be financed, constructed and operated under one bond indenture.”

The second sentence of § 1705(f) strictly limits the OTA’s bonding and building authority in the case of the four turnpikes (part of the Chickasaw (10), part of the Cherokee (22), part of the Creek (21), and part of the Oklahoma City Outer Loop (20)) enumerated in 69 O.S. § 1705(e).

The Supreme Court dissenting minority (3 intellectually honest justices), agreed with our interpretation of the legislative intent - that the OTA could NOT get additional bonds to build the roadway. They had the following to say about the clause that ever since 1987, the OTA has been TRYING to get out of statute.

The OTA is trying to protect themselves in future attempts to build more segments of the outer loop by removing that one sentence from statute. We can’t allow that to happen. And now that Chevron is dead, maybe the Oklahoma Supreme Court will adjudicate law as written - not give agencies broad deference.

If you didn’t know, the Chevron doctrine gave the OTA the ammunition to tell the court to defer to THEM and THEIR INTERPRETATION of the law because THEY KNEW BEST.

So what is the Chevron Doctrine?

“The Chevron doctrine was a legal fiction created entirely by the SCOTUS in it’s ruling in 1984 on Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron case was related to a question of statutory interpretation and the Court decided that when a statute is ambiguous a court should defer to an agency’s interpretation of that law. This was a clear abdication of the duties of the court as laid out in the Constitution and APA (Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706) in my opinion and has lead to administrative agencies being able to do anything they want without any opportunity for people to challenge the legality of their actions.” ~ Tom Renz

Judge Winchester (Oklahoma State Supreme Court Justice) used this Chevron doctrine out loud several times to justify his opinion on why the OTA should be allowed to build the turnpikes.

The practical reality of Chevron was that any challenge to an agency or agency action was going to be decided based on an individual judges feelings towards the action rather than objective law. This is not how the courts were intended to work under the Constitution and the SCOTUS majority finally fixed this issue - but they didn’t do it until 2024, and the opinion in our case was levied in August of 2023.

Amendment #2 was never meaningfully discussed on the floor—lost in confusion and the chaotic way the House runs debate. Listen to the clip; it speaks for itself.

As it stands, the stricken language remains in the bill.

That has to change—or we will kill the bill again.

It now moves to the Senate Aeronautics and Transportation Committee, chaired by Senator Jech. I do not expect it to advance. Most likely, it will either be denied a hearing or conditioned on further concessions we are not willing to make.

🧭 Where That Leaves Us

So here’s the takeaway from the floor:

• This bill had the potential to be one of the strongest guardrails on the OTA

• Key accountability language was stripped to get it heard

• Critical protections are still in play—but not guaranteed

HB 1939 contains real reforms—sunsetting dormant turnpike authorizations, requiring Supreme Court bond validation, and improving notice to affected landowners. Those are meaningful steps.

But the removal of the local collaboration requirement tells you everything you need to know about the pressure behind the scenes. When given the choice between empowering communities or appeasing the agency, leadership made their decision.

And then, to make matters worse, one of the most important remaining provisions—the restoration of statutory limits on how these projects are financed—was never even discussed clearly on the floor.

That’s not just frustrating—it’s a problem.

Because when legislators don’t fully understand what’s in a bill, or when amendments aren’t clearly explained, accountability breaks down.

So where does that leave us?

This bill is still technically alive—but it’s probably done for the session, especially since it is assigned to the Aeronautics and Transportation Committee, chaired by Jech, who blocked EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR BILLS so far this session.

Share

SB80: The Appearance of Reform

SB80, authored by Senator Standridge, is is often presented as a companion to HB1939—but it is not its equal.

While it includes some of the same concepts, the overall structure and language are noticeably weaker. And that’s what makes this bill concerning. In my experience, the bills that survive are often the ones that look like reform, without actually changing much of anything.

To be clear: we did not write this bill. We have been working for over a year to strengthen this language, and those efforts were unsuccessful. The co-authors are Senators Bergstrom, Jett, and Sacchieri, and Representatives Staires and Menz.

This bill was presented on the Senate Floor on Monday, March 23rd around 4:30 pm in the afternoon.

I am not a fan of a majority of the language, because it is posturing - pretending to do something, while allowing bad behavior to continue, with no consequences.

Let me break this down into what actually matters—and what doesn’t.

What Actually Matters

Sunsetting Location Authorizations

SB80 strikes all unbuilt and infeasible existing location authorizations and sunsets any new location authorizations within 5 years if construction has not started, which mirrors HB1939 and it’s strong.

This is the one provision in the bill with real teeth.

If it stays intact, it prevents the OTA from sitting on decades-old authorizations and using them as justification for projects that communities never agreed to.

Everything else in this bill? Not so much.

What Sounds Good But Changes Nothing

The rest of the bill falls into a different category: things that sound like accountability, but don’t actually change behavior.

The bill requires public notice in a newspaper “in the vicinity of” a project, posted for four weeks. We already know how the OTA interprets “in the vicinity of…”—and it’s not in a way that meaningfully informs affected residents.

It requires approval of design contracts in an open meeting. That sounds nice, until you remember that the OTA board is largely a rubber stamp and the real decisions are made long before those meetings occur.

It requires reporting to the Governor, Legislature, and local officials within 90 days of those meetings.

Too little. Too late. No consequence.

It requires public meetings within 180 days, where citizens can provide comments—along with an online portal for feedback.

We’ve seen this movie before.

The OTA’s sham “townhalls” over the past four years consisted of tables staffed by consultants saying, “I don’t have the answer to that,” while citizens filled out comment cards and marked up maps.

But did any of that change their minds?

No.

Even when opposition reached 97%, the reporting was spun to say otherwise.

So what exactly does this language fix?

Nothing.

This isn’t reform. It’s posturing.

Where It Breaks Down

The most concerning part of the bill is how it handles notice to affected property owners.

SB80 requires the OTA to make a “good-faith effort” to notify property owners within half a mile of a proposed route—but then gives the agency full discretion to decide how to do it.

“publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the new route is to be located…… in addition, the Authority shall make a good-faith effort to provide notice to all known property owners within 1/2 mile on each side of the new route. The Authority shall use its discretion in selecting the method to provide the notice to property owners, considering the number and types of property interests of such owners.”

Let that sink in.

We are no longer in a world where agencies get deference to interpret vague statutes in their favor. Chevron is DEAD.

We don’t give “DEFERENCE” to state agencies anymore.

We the People are supposed to define the rules clearly.

Instead, this bill hands that discretion right back to the agency.

No standards. No enforcement. No accountability.

And then it adds a requirement that if a route changes based on public input, the OTA must report that change.

Can we be honest?

That has never happened in the history of the OTA.

They do not change course based on public input. And nothing in this bill forces them to.

And Then There’s the Blair Amendment

In addition to all this language to wade through, there was an amendment to this bill from Senator Blair.

Do you know what this amendment means?

Neither did 95% of the Senators reading it. Well, that’s assuming any Senator DID attempt to read it.

That’s not an accident—it’s part of the process.

The way amendments are written and presented on the floor is intentionally confusing, so only the people “in the club” fully understand what’s happening.

Here’s what it actually does.

It modifies an existing location authorization for a bridge in Tulsa County.

Originally, the statute specified:

#32: A new bridge crossing the Arkansas River between South Delaware Avenue and Memorial Drive in Tulsa County. This project shall commence upon a determination by the Oklahoma Transportation Authority that such bridge shall be self-sufficient at the some point over a thirty-year time period from the toll charges associated with the bridge project.

The amendment changes that to:

#13: A new bridge crossing the Arkansas River in the vicinity of Bixby.

There we go with “in the vicinity of….” again.

And it removes the requirement that the bridge be financially self-sufficient.

So now we have:

• No clear location

• No financial constraint

• No meaningful public input

Has the community been asked if they want this bridge? Where they want it? Whether they’re okay with being tolled indefinitely?

There’s no evidence of community engagement.

And yet, the authorization moves forward.

A quick aside: His partner in crime, Rep. Tedford, tried to take over our HB1939, but ended up taking HB2123, originally a shell bill, and turning it into a bill to authorize the same bridge of the Arkansas River.

It went from a shell bill on February 10, 2026 to being heard in the first committee on February 11th, to being heard in the second committee on February 26th, to being heard on the House floor on March 16th, to being sent to the Senate on March 17th.

WOW!

Our legislative system works really fast when the agencies are in agreement with the bills that give them more power and money.

The Bigger Picture

That being said, I believe a community has the right to decide on their infrastructure needs. I am not part of the Bixby community, so I will refrain from commenting on the necessity of a bridge over the Arkansas River “in the vicinity of Bixby.”

However, I don’t believe that the community was properly asked about this with enough detail to create a legislative authorization.

I also existentially disagree with the legislature giving the OTA any more authorizations to build additional infrastructure unless we get the legislature to enact meaningful oversight.

I especially disagree with giving the OTA any more authorizations that say “in the vicinity of……”

“In the vicinity of…” has already been used to justify projects miles—sometimes tens of miles—away from what anyone would reasonably consider the original location.

We’ve seen it in Cleveland County and the City of Norman with the currently proposed 19-mile southern extension that was erroneously greenlighted by a controversial Oklahoma Supreme Court split decision in August 2023 when the majority failed to adjudicate true legislative intent.

Even the OTA admitted that they didn’t have authorization to build it in an email to the governor back in the summer of 2022. The location authorization the OTA argued in Court (Section 1705(e) #28) actually describes the H.E.Bailey Spur, SH9 and SH4.

I don’t like vague.

I like specifics—especially when dealing with agencies that have the power to take property, issue billions in bonds, and move projects forward regardless of public opposition.

At a minimum, the Legislature should be holding them to that.

The bill passed 39-3.

So after all of that language, all of those requirements, all of those proposed “guardrails,” the real question is:

What Actually Changes?

SB80 is the perfect example of how weak reform survives.

• One provision actually matters

• The rest is political cover

• And the system stays exactly as it is

Yes—the 5-year sunset on unused turnpike authorizations is strong. That piece has real teeth and should absolutely stay.

But everything else?

It’s performative.

It creates the appearance of transparency without enforcing it. It requires “notice” without defining it. It mandates “public meetings” that we already know don’t influence outcomes. And it allows the OTA to continue operating with broad discretion—because the Legislature chose not to close those gaps.

That’s not reform. That’s insulation.

And the danger here is bigger than this one bill.

Because bills like SB80 are the ones that pass. They give legislators something to point to. They give agencies something to comply with—on paper. And they give the public the impression that something has been fixed… when nothing fundamental has changed.

So where does that leave us?

If the sunset provision holds, SB80 does one important thing.

If the rest of the bill stays as written, it does something just as important for the OTA—it gives them cover.

And that’s the tension.

Real reform versus the appearance of it.

Right now, SB80 leans heavily toward the latter. This bill is headed to the Transportation Committee in the House, chaired by Ronnie Johns and the Commerce and Economic Development Oversight, chaired by Brian Hill, with Vice Chair Mark Tedford, of HB2123 fame.

This one might make it through committee just because it is relatively weak, performative reform, with that extra location authorization of a bridge over the Arkansas River “in the vicinity of Bixby” that Tedford wants.

Subscribe now

Movement Isn’t the Same as Reform

Three bills moved forward. On paper, that sounds like progress—and in some ways, it is. There are real improvements in pieces of this legislation, and the effort it took to get even this far shouldn’t be discounted.

But let’s be honest about what we’re looking at.

These bills reflect what can pass—not what fully protects Oklahomans.

They are shaped by carve-outs, softened by compromise, and in some cases, padded with language that creates the appearance of accountability without actually delivering it.

That’s the game.

And if this session has made anything clear, it’s that meaningful reform isn’t going to come from one bill, one vote, or one week at the Capitol. It’s going to take sustained pressure, informed citizens, and a willingness to keep showing up—even when the process is frustrating, confusing, or intentionally opaque.

Because the other side is counting on you not paying attention.

So watch the clips. Share them. Talk to your neighbors. Ask your legislators hard questions.

And most importantly—remember what you saw.

Because election season is coming.

And now you know exactly who is representing you—and who isn’t.

I’m curious where you land on this:

Do you think these bills represent real reform—or the appearance of it?

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack

At first glance, this may look like a routine legislative update—but by the end of this post you may see why some people at the Capitol would prefer these bills never reach a vote.

Despite Legislative Leadership Edict, PIKE OFF OTA advances FIVE BILLS

A few weeks back, the legislative leadership told its committee chairs to not hear any more eminent domain bills. Our bill authors relayed this edict to us and sent us a link to a Petroleum Alliance article as an explanation.

Except both our bill authors and we were confused because the article had nothing to do with eminent domain - it had to do with the Petroleum Industry being upset with the Legislature over the raising of production taxes back in 2015-2018, which they blame for the recent loss of Expand Energy and Devon Energy HQs.

You should read the full letter from Brooks Simmons to the legislature. The Petroleum industry takes umbrage with the Legislature for increasing the production tax to one of the highest in the nation; essentially doubling their taxes in 2018, and blames this tax increase for the exodus of almost a dozen oil and gas companies to other states.

The Legislature at the time justified this tax increase by promising huge educational improvements - and yet Oklahoma still ranks near the bottom of the nation in educational metrics. So the Petroleum industry now wants to know where that money went and what it actually accomplished.

Brooks ended his letter by asking the lawmakers to reverse those policies to invite the oil and gas economic drivers back to our state.

Lawmakers have the authority and responsibility to reverse
policies that have made our state less attractive to capital, talent, and long-term investment, and to replace them with reforms that restore certainty, fairness, and competitiveness. - Brooks Simmons, President, Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma

Tell me again how this letter justifies not hearing any bills on eminent domain reform?

When citizens started asking why their property-rights bills suddenly stopped moving through the Legislature, the official explanation didn’t make much sense. The petroleum industry’s letter focused on production taxes and economic policy — not eminent domain. So the obvious question became: if the letter wasn’t really about property rights, what actually caused leadership to quietly shut down debate on eminent domain reform?

Apparently, the current legislative leadership doesn’t want to draw any more ire from the industry by instating transparency and accountability in the eminent domain laws.

But obviously, the legislative leadership doesn’t truly understand the use (or lack thereof) of eminent domain in the oil and gas industry.

Oil and gas companies have mineral rights. They can horizontally drill. They do not use eminent domain.

Name one oil and gas company in the last twenty years to use eminent domain in the state of Oklahoma.

Midstream and pipeline companies might - although, they typically utilize easements and access agreements with landowners.

But oil and gas companies DON’T.

In fact, it seems like oil and gas companies would generally be in favor of making our eminent domain laws more protective of landowners because large infrastructure projects, like a highway, could result in the loss of a well or reserves (at least two wells that I know of will be paved over on the east side of the South Canadian River).

So what is going on?

Subscribe now

The Capitol is Run By Lobbyists - Not Elected Officials

Who is the lobbyist for the Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance, representing the independent oil and natural gas sector in Oklahoma, focusing on preserving wells and protecting the industry’s interests?

Who is also the lobbyist for the Oklahoma Association of General Contractors?

Who used to represent the Municipal Power Authority Board?

Who owns Capitol Gains, LLC., a major Oklahoma lobbying firm that represents numerous industry clients before the Legislature?

Who used to lobby for Epic Charter Schools?

The answer to these questions is the same person.

“You are who you hang out with”

Bobby Stem, best known to the NO MORE TURNPIKES movement as the lobbyist for the Association of Oklahoma General Contractors (AOGC), previously served on the governing board of Epic Charter Schools and later worked as a lobbyist representing Epic interests at the Oklahoma Capitol.

Screenshot from the Oklahoma Ethics Commission 2014 list of Registered Lobbyists.

Epic’s founders, Ben Harris and David Chaney, were later charged by state prosecutors in a racketeering and embezzlement case involving the diversion of millions in public education funds. Their former chief financial officer (CFO), Josh Brock, plead guilty and testified against Harris and Chaney as part of a plea agreement, admitting to creating false invoices. As part of a plea deal to testify against co-founders Harris and Chaney, Brock agreed to 15 years of probation for his role, which included using the “Learning Fund” for personal expenses and issuing himself $1.1 million in illegal overpayments.

These articles detail that the co-founders of Epic established a private company, Epic Youth Services (EYS), that collected millions of dollars in management fees between 2013 and 2020 when the audit came out.

During that timeframe, Mr. Stem was the lobbyist for EYS.

Wow.

At last week’s press conference where lobbyist Bobby Stem called PIKE OFF OTA “domestic terrorists,” he warned legislators that “you are who you hang out with.”

That’s interesting advice coming from Mr. Stem, who previously served on the board of Epic Charter Schools and later became their lobbyist—advocating for the organization before its founders were ultimately charged with racketeering, embezzlement of state funds, conspiracy to commit a felony, and multiple other criminal counts.

So perhaps Mr. Stem’s advice is worth considering.

Because if legislators are judged by who they associate with, the public may reasonably ask the same question about the lobbyists attempting to influence them—particularly when those lobbyists are telling lawmakers that ordinary Oklahoma citizens opposing a turnpike should be treated as “terrorists.”

I’m not done with this topic. Stay tuned.

And if you are so inclined in the meantime, you may wish to review Oklahoma Ethics Commission lobbying rules 5.27, 5.28, and 5.29 (pp. 336–338) and consider whether the conduct described here raises questions worth bringing to the Commission’s attention.

But while the public was being told that homeowners are “terrorists,” something far more interesting was happening quietly behind the scenes at the Capitol.

Share Amy’s Substack

$45 Breakfast to Guarantee no Eminent Domain Reform Bills be Heard

When lobbyists start calling ordinary citizens “terrorists,” it’s usually worth asking what policy fight they’re trying to distract from.

Remember the Petroleum Alliance article I mentioned earlier? The one complaining about production taxes and blaming the Legislature for driving oil and gas companies out of Oklahoma?

Legislative leadership pointed to that article as the reason committee chairs were told to stop hearing eminent domain reform bills this session.

Except the article had nothing to do with eminent domain.

Oil and gas companies don’t use eminent domain to drill wells, and the letter never even mentioned property-rights legislation.

So the explanation never really made sense.

And maybe it wasn’t supposed to.

Because sometimes the real story isn’t found in a policy letter—it’s found in places as mundane as a Capitol breakfast meeting.

Which lobbyist happened to take key members of Senate Transportation and Judiciary Committee leadership to breakfast the day before the Petroleum Alliance article conveniently dropped?

Coincidence?

Maybe.

But the timing raises obvious questions.

According to the Ethics Commission expenditure reports, the total cost of that breakfast was $45.

Apparently in Oklahoma, $45 worth of breakfast is enough to stop citizen protective eminent domain reform bills from even getting a hearing.

Lobbyists don’t spend money on breakfast for the pancakes.

So maybe the real question isn’t why citizens are suddenly being called “terrorists.”

Maybe the real question is who benefits when these bills never receive a vote.

The answer isn’t hard to find.

Major state condemning agencies, like ODOT and OTA.

And if you want to understand the network of interests involved, the Oklahoma Ethics Commission’s Guardian Electronic Reporting System provides a useful window.

There you can see the current lobbying principals represented by Capitol Gains, LLC — the lobbying firm run by Mr. Stem.

The disclosures also show something else worth noting.

The filings show that the Associated Oklahoma General Contractors (AOGC) is registered to lobby agencies such as ODOT, the OTA, ODEQ, the Legislature, and the Governor’s office.

What the filings do not say is that AOGC is authorized to lobby on behalf of those agencies.

Yet that is exactly what appeared to happen during the March 3 press conference held at the ODOT building immediately following the OTA board meeting.

Which raises an important question about how state agencies and outside lobbyists are interacting in the first place.

Because if lobbyists are speaking for state agencies, the public deserves to know who authorized it.

Taken together—the Capitol breakfast with committee leadership, the sudden justification for halting eminent domain reform, and a press conference inside a state agency building labeling citizens “terrorists”—the sequence of events begins to look less like coincidence and more like a coordinated effort to shut down debate.

An interesting aside.

In 2019, Gov. Stitt issued Executive Order 2019-29 stating that it is “not a proper use of state funds for any state agency, board, or commission to expend taxpayers’ money on the hiring of outside lobbyists to lobby the State’s legislators on behalf of any state agency, board, or commission.”

Sounds good right?

But then Gov. Stitt gave the state agencies an out…… He went on to “prohibit all “state agencies,” …. from entering into an new or renewing any existing, contract or any other agreement with a Lobbyist for the purpose of Lobbying without first securing the express, written approval of the appropriate Cabinet Secretary.”

In other words, the practice wasn’t really prohibited—it just required permission.

So what was presented as a reform still allowed the same behavior to continue legally with a bureaucratic rubber stamp.

But I digress.

At the time, Mr. Stem publicly praised the order and offered his own thoughts on the proper role of lobbying in state government.

“I actually commend the governor for this action. Although it’s against my self-interest, I believe that his intentions are pure,” Stem said. “The best lobbyist for any agency is the director because, in all honesty, every agency should simply be providing information, not influencing policy.” - Bobby Stem, Lobbyist

In other words, according to Mr. Stem himself, agencies should be providing information — not influencing policy.

That standard seems especially relevant now.

To be clear, lobbyists are expected to advocate for the interests of their clients. If Mr. Stem’s principal is the Associated Oklahoma General Contractors (AOGC), it is entirely appropriate for him to defend the industry’s policy positions.

But the March 3 press conference raised a different question.

Was this a lobbyist advocating for his client, or a lobbyist appearing to speak on behalf of the very state agencies his client is registered to lobby?

The event was held inside the ODOT building immediately following the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority board meeting, and the remarks focused heavily on defending the agencies’ actions while attacking citizens opposing the project.

When a private lobbyist appears to deliver a policy defense from inside a state agency building immediately after that agency’s official meeting, it naturally raises questions about coordination and the proper use of government facilities.

Share

Five Eminent Domain Reform Bills Cleared the Legislature’s Committees — Now Leadership Must Let Them Be Heard

Despite a directive from legislative leadership to stop hearing eminent domain reform bills, five major property-rights bills have successfully cleared every committee hurdle this session. Each bill addresses a different weakness in Oklahoma’s current eminent domain framework—burden of proof, the definition of public use, landowner rights, transparency in the turnpike process, and relief for families displaced by government takings. These bills now stand at the final gate: a floor hearing. If legislative leadership places them on the agenda, the full House and Senate will finally have the opportunity to debate and vote on reforms that thousands of Oklahoma landowners have been asking for.

📢 Ask Legislative Leadership to Place These Bills on the Floor Agenda

🏛️ OKLAHOMA HOUSE

📌 Contact:

House Floor Leader Josh West
📧 josh.west@okhouse.gov
📞 405-557-7415

🗣 Ask him to place on the House Floor Agenda:

HB 3453 (Reps. Staires/Wilk and Sen. Reinhardt)

Ensures the burden of proof always remains on the condemning authority and makes clear that a boilerplate Resolution of Necessity is not conclusive—while allowing attorney fee recovery for prevailing landowners so ordinary citizens can realistically challenge unlawful or unnecessary takings.

HB 3968 (Reps. Menz/K.West/Staires and Sen. Standridge)

Provides a clear statutory definition of “public use,” explicitly prohibiting takings for economic development and preventing local governments from expanding eminent domain powers without express legislative authorization. This bill restores constitutional guardrails and ensures condemnations occur only for truly public purposes.

🏛️ OKLAHOMA SENATE

📌 Contact:

Senate Floor Leader Julie Daniels
📧 julie.daniels@oksenate.gov
📞 405-521-5634

🗣 Ask her to place on the Senate Floor Agenda:

• SB80 (Standridge/Bergstrom/Sacchieri) – OTA Accountability - SB 80 restores transparency and legislative oversight to the turnpike process. It requires explicit legislative authorization for new routes, mandates meaningful public notice and local public meetings, and ensures full disclosure of project maps, reports, and details to state and local leaders. The bill also strengthens public records accountability, prevents self-dealing by OTA officials, and includes a five-year sunset so new route authorizations expire if real design work does not begin.

One HUGE breakthrough for this bill came when the March 4th audit was released. We now have “official” leverage to get this bill heard. The Auditor wrote on page five of the report that “OTA management noted that they do not anticipate most of the remaining authorized projects every being built, and THEY WOULD LIKE TO UPDATE THE STATUTE TO REFLECT THIS.”

The Legislature asked for evidence.

The State Auditor just provided it.

So what are we waiting for?

Let’s do this.

At this point, the only thing standing between this bill and passage is the Legislature’s willingness to act.

• SB2001 (Standridge and Rep. Blair) – Ad Valorem Tax Relief for Displaced Homeowners - SB 2001 as currently written, provides a three-year ad valorem (property) tax exemption for those property owners displaced specifically by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority through the eminent domain process.

• SB1945 (Standridge/Boren/Bullard and Rep. Menz) - Strengthens the Landowner’s Bill of Rights by requiring clear, plain-language notice at the earliest stage of condemnation, clarifying what constitutes a bona fide good-faith negotiation, and ensuring landowners understand their rights before property is taken. This improves transparency and fairness without impeding legitimate public projects.

These five bills simply ask government agencies to do something very basic: show their work.

Show that the land is truly needed.
Show that the project serves a real public use.
Show that landowners are treated fairly.
Show that the public can see how decisions are made.

If those things can be proven, these bills should not be controversial.

But if they can’t, then perhaps that explains why some lobbyists would rather call homeowners “terrorists” than allow these bills to reach the floor.

Subscribe now

The Long-Awaited Investigative Audit is Released

On Wednesday, March 4th the Auditor and Inspector General, Cindy Byrd, released a 43 page report discussing findings of a limited-scope, 2-year long audit of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA).

The scope was limited arbitrarily to the public-facing timeline of the ACCESS Oklahoma program (2022-2025), and detailed six specific topical areas deemed to be “assessed as higher risk or identified through preliminary procedures, discussion with the AG, and stakeholders’ concerns.”

Remember that the original call for the Audit came from the Attorney General’s (AG’s) office in March of 2023, but the Auditor was so busy with other audits, that her office did not start this until sometime in 2024.

I encourage you to read through the Audit and in the coming weeks I will give you an overview of what I thought about it.

But I will say this.

The headlines may say “no wrongdoing,” but the footnotes tell a very different story.

There was one location where the Auditor said the OTA was out of compliance with the Statute 708.2G.

So doesn’t “out of compliance with the law” mean they BROKE THE LAW?

Technically YES.

So why did the auditor include this headline in her audit?

“We did not find instances of egregious wrongdoing or significant statutory non-compliance.”

Hmmmm…

Then, there were two other areas where the auditor said the OTA could not DEMONSTRATE compliance. That means that the agency cannot prove the law was followed.

Then she went on to say that there was “potential” noncompliance with inter-agency contract laws because she could not independently verify whether services paid for were actually provided.

Well, then who will independently verify that? Isn’t that the point of an investigative audit?

It seems like the OTA was given a pass because they couldn’t provide the correct paperwork.

Regular citizens aren’t given that pass. Why was an “instrumentality” of the state with no debt ceiling and the state’s sovereign power of eminent domain given a pass?

Then there were several other findings (non-statutory violations), like conflicts-of-interest between the program manager and consultant roles, weak internal controls, poor invoice oversight, consultant cost escalation and surplus land sale transparency. These were framed as “governance risks, not violations.”

An agency that holds the power to issue billions in debt and take private land should be held to the highest standard of transparency and accountability — not the lowest.

For now, I’ll leave it there. But in the coming weeks we’ll take a closer look at what this audit actually says… and what it doesn’t.

I’m interested to hear your take on it.

Sometimes the biggest policy decisions in Oklahoma aren’t made on the House or Senate floor — they’re made over breakfast before the public even knows what’s on the menu.

Have a great Spring Break and don’t forget to contact your legislators!

Subscribe now

Share

Share Amy’s Substack