Bryan County counsel outlines Westwind’s prior defaults, TEFRA bond request and launches investigation into contamination claims

Bryan County Board of Commissioners · February 11, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County counsel told commissioners Westwind (Project Patriot) has prior defaults, liens and pending litigation in Oklahoma and that the development authority earlier voted to cease negotiations; the county authorized an environmental investigation into allegations that the Caesarstone site is contaminated.

County counsel presented a detailed briefing to the Bryan County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 10 outlining Westwind (also called Project Patriot)’s prior development activity in Lawton, Oklahoma, pending litigation, and draft requests for tax-exempt (TEFRA) bond financing — then told the board the county has opened an environmental investigation into public claims about contamination at the Caesarstone property.

“Once I’ve completed my investigation and I determine the truth about what exists on that site or doesn’t exist on that site, I will make a very transparent report to this body, and I will make a very transparent report to the city of Richmond Hill,” County Counsel (identified in the meeting only as “Mister Kaffler”) told commissioners. He said the probe is in its first week and will take time to collect records, interview experts and review documents provided by involved companies.

Counsel summarized public records and earlier actions: Westwind’s pilot operation in Lawton, he said, drew a lien recorded against the property of roughly $1.5–$1.7 million and prompted notices of default in 2025 for alleged failures to complete the pilot facility and to meet promised employment thresholds. Counsel said Westwind’s SEC filing from Dec. 15, 2025, reported about $10.24 million raised from an initial offering; he noted Westwind’s town hall statements claiming much larger sums were not corroborated in that filing and that later raises were possible but not shown in the public filing.

The county attorney also discussed Westwind’s pending civil litigation with CVMR Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. He said 10 claims were initially filed, one was dismissed without prejudice and nine claims — including fraud allegations — remain pending.

Counsel explained TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) bond procedures and why they matter: draft bond documents distributed earlier that day by the Development Authority called for TEFRA bonds of up to $230 million and a DCA (Department of Community Affairs) cap allocation request. He said TEFRA hearings and a local finding of public benefit are required before private projects may receive federal tax-exempt bond treatment.

Importantly, counsel reported the Bryan County Development Authority voted unanimously at its meeting that morning — on a motion reported as made by a development-authority director — to cease negotiations with Westwind, rescind any pending incentive offers or bond allocations, and withdraw any pending requests for state bond cap. Counsel characterized that decision as the development authority’s formal action and not an approved county-commission contract with Westwind.

The board also authorized an earlier special-called meeting action (Feb. 3) to open an environmental investigation and, if necessary, pursue enforcement through a public-nuisance action. Counsel said he had notified Caesarstone — the operator previously on the site — of Westwind’s allegations and requested documentation about the property and operations; he said Caesarstone had not responded at the time of the Feb. 10 briefing.

Counsel outlined consequences should a public-nuisance action be filed: a recorded notice affecting title would likely preclude issuance of a clean title insurance policy and could make transfer of marketable title unlikely until remediation or legal resolution. He said that type of notice would be visible in property records and would inform purchasers and insurers.

Next steps, counsel said, are continued document review, interviews with technical experts and public reporting of findings to the county and Richmond Hill. He emphasized the investigation is fact-finding; no enforcement outcome has been determined.

This item prompted extensive public comment and follow-up questions from commissioners about the scope of local authority, the development authority’s role, and the timeline for reporting results. The county counsel said he would report back publicly when the investigation is complete.