OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – The Oklahoma Supreme Court heard arguments Monday over the Access Oklahoma turnpike expansion plan between Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and Pike Off, a group that opposes the project.
OTA wants the Supreme Court to approve a $5 billion, 15-year-long turnpike expansion.
In their argument today, the attorney for OTA said the legislature gave the authority broad discretion when building toll roads.
“This authority is the sole entity to construct turnpikes at such locations and along such routes as it deems to be feasible and economically sound,” said the lawyer, to the Supreme Court justices.
All nine justices were present to hear the arguments.
They interacted with each attorney by asking them questions, challenging their positions.
Robert Norman, the lawyer for Pike Off, said there is no way to read the tea leaves after today’s hearing.
“Some of the justices asked questions where maybe one question you’re going, hurrah, they’re with us,” said Norman. “And then the next question, you’re going, well, maybe not.”
Norman disagreed with the OTA attorney when it came to financing and where the turnpike can be built.
He argued that a 1989 law bound the four major turnpikes to one bond, meaning this new bond proposal is not legally allowed.
“They have to bundle all four of these turnpikes together,” said Norman. “And the OTA has tried to backtrack and say, ‘well, we only had to do that the first time.’ But the statute doesn’t say we only had to do that the first time.”
At one point, one of the justices asked if Norman’s argument was correct, what would that mean for the 2016 bond that was approved for an OKC metro expansion to the Kilpatrick Turnpike.
Norman said that it is too late because the bonds have been issued and the roads have been laid.
“Once the court makes the judgment that the bonds are validated and those bonds are going out, you can’t go back and retrieve the bonds or try to say that we revoke the bonds or something like that,” said Norman.
As for this new expansion project, the area in question is near Norman, and direction of where the expansion is allowed was another major argument.
OTA’s attorney said that the law allows for “easterly” expansion. It argues that “easterly” can mean building the turnpike from Tuttle to Purcell and then up into Norman.
The lawyer for Pike Off said the legislature made specific language for a reason and disagrees that Purcell, in the context of OTA’s proposed expansion, cannot be considered “easterly.” He said that the law will need to be amended.
The Supreme Court does not have a date scheduled for when a decision will be made.