Norman City Council Postpones OTA Partnership resolution "indefinitely" until townhall can be held

While the cartel watches the Council Meeting on YouTube and tells their minions they won't be participating in any townhall or any more meetings in Norman

This past Tuesday we showed up at City Hall in force. Wearing red. Speaking clearly and loudly that we wanted NO part in a partnership resolution with the OTA.

Photo Credit: Rachel Nichols/ OU Daily

AGAIN.

Yes… just 8 weeks after we spoke out to convince the council members to vote DOWN the partnership resolution with the OTA, we were back in the council chambers doing the same exact thing.

City Council Decision

The City Council ended up voting unanimously to postpone their vote “indefinitely” until they could schedule a townhall with the OTA to discuss the city’s needs and have all the citizen questions answered.

Some of the council members seemed convinced that the OTA would come and do a townhall and honestly answer all of our questions so that the City could get the best deal with the turnpike slashing through our city.

The citizens who spoke in the comment period tried to persuade the Council that it was pointless to hear from the OTA again because it would be all propaganda and lies and that what the City should demand is a legally enforceable contract… NOTHING LESS.

They obviously don’t know the OTA as well as we do. There was no way that the OTA was going to show up in a room full of exceptionally bright, passionate and perceptive citizens who have been diligently compiling research on their business practices over the past 2.5 years. Citizens who have mounds of data detailing the level of serial unethical and potentially illegal behavior.

And seriously. It’s a bit to late, wouldn’t you say? The OTA already told the Oklahoma State Senate back in 2022 that the reason the City did not know about the turnpikes before the public announcement was that that they never involve cities in their planning process because that’s not their role. Listen yourself.

But then in September of 2024, Mr. Echelle told the American Council of Engineering Consultants (ACEC) that they have been working with the City of Norman for several years to find out what they wanted the turnpikes to look like.

Applying logic when trying to understand the Oklahoma Turnpike will drive you batty.

2 + 2 = 6 ok? That’s just the way it is… but tomorrow, 2 + 2 is gonna equal 9. STOP USING LOGIC to try and combat the OTA. Thank me later.

So… if it is not the City’s role to have anything to do with having a say in whether or not they want a turnpike or where that turnpike should traverse their city, then WHY DOES THE OTA NOW WANT THE CITY’S INPUT IN THE DESIGN OF THE TURNPIKE?

---

The citizens were right, yet again.

Shortly after the Council Meeting, OTA declined the City’s offer to come to Norman and take part in a townhall.

In this text string from Darrel Pyle to Council Members, you can read that the OTA decided that they cannot wait anymore and will be moving forward without frontage roads and access points in Norman.

I would like to point out that this text string from Darrel Pyle is blatantly misleading the Council Members because, if the OTA builds this E-W Connector, there WILL BE FIVE ACCESS POINTS IN NORMAN; just not at the “extra” intersections that Darrel Pyle and Larry Heikkila wanted.

Even Home Creations is getting an interchange without a resolution giving away any negotiating power the City of Norman might possess.

Also note how Mr. Echelle tries to downplay their “lost revenue” through Mr. Pyle by saying that they will save $200 million in construction costs, so their turnpike will still be revenue positive without the “extra” access points. Here comes the propaganda spin. If he says it enough times, it’ll be true, right?

But what is the deal with the OTA thanking the City Council and City Staff for their efforts and planning to make an announcement to that effect at the next November 7th OTA Board meeting?

Efforts to do what? Screw the City of Norman and give consent to the OTA to come in and blow an unwanted turnpike through our City?

The OTA can stick their thanks you know where and do us a solid and entice Mr. Pyle to resign his City Manager position and quickly Golden Parachute into a cushy private consulting gig. We don’t want him here anymore.

We’d also like Larry to ride off into the sunset. Norman voters, can we make that happen in February?

Between now and then, we’d like the City of Norman to hold the line and keep saying NO RESOLUTION! And that’s where we need all of your help.

---

Next Moves

Theoretically, the resolution should be dead since the OTA is refusing a town hall and the motion voted on was to postpone the vote on the resolution indefinitely until after the townhall has been held.

And the OTA has said that they are done waiting on the City of Norman to make a decision.

The OTA also said this about our request for a legally binding agreement.

Where in Statute or any other written policy does it say that a resolution must come from the local government BEFORE they can negotiate a contract?

Why are they calling it a “project agreement” and then adding in a contract?

WHY DO THEY NEED A RESOLUTION first?

The OTA has NEVER completed ANYTHING it said it would for a municipality in a RESOLUTION.

In fact, the Oklahoma County Commissioners still haven’t received ANY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY that the OTA purchased for their “service roads” along the Kickapoo. Why hasn’t the property been transferred to OK County? Why haven’t those service roads been built yet? It was in the “RESOLUTION,” that they would be.

After this 2015 resolution, the OTA wrote a 2020 “AGREEMENT” with the Oklahoma County Commissioners, but they acted in bad faith and did nothing that the Oklahoma County Commissioners asked for. It took FOUR years for the OTA to bring an actual agrement to them. But by then, their roads were damaged to the tune of $4 million but the OTA would only pony up $1.8 million, and still hasn’t turned over any of the right-of-way they purchased on the County’s behalf for service roads.

Who owns that land now? Their developer friends?

So, we have very good reason to be skeptical of the OTA’s motives behind wanting a “RESOLUTION,” and not a “LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.”

And if resolutions are so important to the OTA, then why didn’t they write one outlining the items THEY might be willing to “offer?” Why did they waste our time letting the City of Norman put together a wishlist that they had no intention of honoring?

Something is really weird here.

---

It’s not over

Unfortunately, we just got a text from a reliable source that said

“I just heard the Mayor is already trying to whip votes for another resolution. I think they’re trying to jam it through before the next election.”

What in the absolute HECK is going on with our mayor and his refusal to let this go? Did he not hear the OTA say they were moving forward without frontage roads?

Or is the OTA public statement just a cover for what they are trying to make happen in Norman?

Or is it the developers who want service roads on BOTH sides of the turnpike to turn Norman into Kilpatrick 2.0?

Or is it a full court press from BOTH?

Let’s hope this is all theatrics and doesn’t necessitate us showing up AGAIN at a study session and then a council meeting to say the same thing over again.

NO RESOLUTION.

Please contact your Council Members and thank them again for voting NO on the resolution in August and encourage to keep any new resolution resurrected for the SECOND TIME off of the agenda.

And if it does get dug up out of the dirt again by our unscrupulous Mayor and his captured City Manager, remind the Council to VOTE NO!

---