City of Broken Arrow v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, L.L.C., 2011 OK 1

Stone Wood Hills BP leased property to Bass Pro for a Bass Pro store in Broken Arrow, funded by a $20.3 million construction loan from Bank of America.
City of Broken Arrow approved Resolution No. 379, accepting the lease assignment, debt assumption, and property transfer for the Bass Pro project.
Sales Tax Pledge Agreement pledged city sales tax revenues to Bank of America for debt service, renewals auto-renewed year-to-year on July 1 each year.
Taxpayer filed a qui tam demand alleging Open Meeting Act violations, Competitive Bidding Act violations, anti-fraud statutes, and fraud in connection with the project.
City sought declaratory judgment that its actions were lawful, arguing no constitutional violations and compliance with statutes.
Taxpayer sought intervention; trial court denied intervention and granted summary judgment for the City; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taxpayer may intervene in the declaratory judgment action	Taxpayer alleges City failed to present a justiciable controversy and actions were unlawful.	City contends it fairly presented the controversy and intervention is unwarranted.	Intervention denied; City fairly presented claims and controversy.
Whether the City diligently presented the controversy for adjudication	Taxpayer argues insufficient factual grounds and concealment undermine diligence.	City provided agendas, affidavits, and exhibits supporting lawfulness.	City fairly presented the claims; diligence satisfied.
Whether the qui tam allegations raised a justiciable constitutional/statutory claim	Taxpayer contends Open Meeting Act, Competitive Bidding Act, and constitutional provisions were violated.	City argues compliance and that arguments are conclusory or unfounded.	Justiciable issues presented; nonetheless intervention affirmed denial.
Effect of statutory defenses and limitations on intervention	Taxpayer challenges timeliness and applicability of limitations to intervention.	City argues limitations bar merits; City moved for summary judgment on lawfulness.	Limitations issue not reversed; intervention denial stands.

State ex rel. Wright v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 170 P.3d 1024 (2007 OK 73) (diligence in presenting facts; intervene when petition insufficient)
Tal v. City of Oklahoma City (Tal I), 988 P.2d 901 (1999 OK 71) (distinguishes conclusory vs. material facts for intervention)
State ex rel. Moshe Tal v. City of Oklahoma City (Tal IV), 61 P.3d 234 (2002 OK 97) (intervention standards in public controversy)
McPherson v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 232 P.3d 458 (2010 OK 31) (good faith and diligence in presenting the controversy)
Wyatt-Doyle & Butler Engineers, Inc. v. City of Eufaula, 13 P.3d 474 (2000 OK 74) (Art. 10, § 26 and fiscal year limitations on obligations)
In re Application of the Oklahoma Development Finance Authority, 94 P.3d 87 (2004 OK 51) (multiyear financing obligations and year-to-year pledges)