Thank you for the minutes, I realize not everyone is going to spend time going over them. To facilitate discussion on the issue, I went through and summarized the meeting minutes. I tried to withhold comment and tried to put in all pertinent parts, cut and paste so everything is a quote unless it is underlined, then it is a summary. Bold is all my emphasis added. By extension, a bold underlined is just an emphasized summary (want to make sure I'm not putting words in the Authority's mouth). Color is obviously my super emphasis.
The formatting got wonky, sorry, but I already invested too much time on this (thought it would be "over lunch"). I have withheld commentary until everyone gets a chance to review and give their own thoughts.
*****7/25/2013
Request for a proposal at 71st and Riverside released12. Approval to release Request for Proposal to obtain detailed proposals for developing the site at 71st and Riverside with emphasis on retail/recreation venues. (Clay Bird) Mr. Bird and Ms. Fate presented this item. They explained the recommendations of TPFA have now been added to the proposal. Ms. MacLeod inquired about the impact of the project on traffic in the area. Ms. Fate explained that there is a provision in the proposal stating that depending on the project there may be a deceleration lane or other traffic control devices required. Mr. Bird also noted there will be a review committee established for the project which will include up to two people from TPFA. Motion: Twombly moved approval to release Request for Proposal to obtain detailed proposals for developing the site at 71st and Riverside with emphasis on retail/recreation venues. Second: MacLeod Vote: The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Twombly, Sartain, MacLeod, Cremin Nay: None
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2013-07-July-25-TPFA-Regular-Minutes-Approved.pdf*****11/7/2013
Clarify RFP is for retail/recreation5. Discussion of Request for Proposal to obtain detailed proposals for developing the site at 71st and Riverside with emphasis on retail/recreation venues. (Clay Bird) Mr. Bird presented this item explaining that, to everyone’s surprise, there was only one response received and it was ultimately considered to be non-responsive. There was follow-up to try to determine why there was no response. A major deterrent was that it was felt it would be difficult to obtain funding for developing a leased property. Mr. Bird stated that he would provide information to TPFA regarding how the requests were solicited.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2013-11-Nov-7-Special-Minutes.pdf*****7/24/2014
First executive session on the subject. The language is always the same, I will hereinafter just say EXECUTIVE SESSION unless there is a notable difference. The language is always nearly identical, no need repeating it over and over.6. Consider a motion and vote to enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S. Section 307(C)(10) to discuss a development proposal for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside and which includes a determination that public disclosure of the matter would violate the confidentiality of the business (Clay Bird, City of Tulsa). After hearing items 8 and 9, the Chairman took up item 6 and asked for the advice of Counsel. Ms. Hinchee explained that the item on the agenda is appropriate for executive session if public disclosure would impair the confidenitality
[sic] of the business Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes of Meeting July 24, 2014 3 of 4 to be discussed. She added the both she and Mr. Bird have seen information from the proposer that would support that need. Motion: Sartain moved to enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S. Section 307(C)(10) to discuss a development proposal for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside and which includes a determination that public disclosure of the matter would violate the confidentiality of the business. Second: Blue Vote:
The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Blue, Cremin, MacLeod, Sartain, and Twombly Nay: None
After the motion, in addition to the Trustees and officers present, only the following people remained for the discussion: Clay Bird, Roger Acebo, Crystal Keller, and Ellen Hinchee.
7. Leave Executive Session on discussion of a development proposal for 71st & Riverside for the purpose of taking any appropriate related action. Upon conclusion of the Executive Session held for item 6, the meeting was opened to the public. Motion: Blue moved that the members of TPFA affirm that the information presented did support the need for an executive session, that nothing other than the development proposal for 71st & Riverside was discussed, and that the members leave executive session. Second: MacLeod Vote: The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Blue, Cremin, MacLeod, Sartain, and Twombly Nay: None Motion: Twombly moved that Clay Bird be hereby directed to proceed with initiating negotiations pursuant to the instructions given during executive session and to report back to TPFA not later than its next meeting. Second: Sartain Vote: The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Blue, Cremin, MacLeod, Sartain, and Twombly Nay: None Mr. Bird inquired and the members clarified that the instructions to initiate negotiations was not meant to be exclusive to a particular party.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-07-Jul-24-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****8/8/2014
EXECUTIVE SESSION, only thing worth noting is a letter of intent and discussion of having to move the volleyball courtsTwombly moved that we agree to the letter of intent with an expiration date of June 1, 2015, that Clay Bird be directed to proceed with discussions and to report back on a regular basis. Second: Blue Vote: The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Blue, Cremin, MacLeod, and Twombly Nay: None Mr. Bird stated that in addition to providing an update on the letter of intent and discussions that he will provide an update regarding the volleyball courts.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-08-Aug-28-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****10/23/2014
EXECUTIVE SESSION, nothing was discussed publicly regarding the site, just boilerplate to move in and out of executive session http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-10-Oct-23-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****12/18/2014
EXECUTIVE SESSION, nothing was discussed publicly regarding the site, just boilerplate to move in and out of executive session http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-12-Dec-18-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****1/2/2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION, only thing worth noting is they amended the letter of intent (no word on what they amended it for or what the original LOI saidExecutive Session on discussion of an amendment to the existing Letter of Intent for 71 st & Riverside for the purpose of taking any appropriate related action. Upon conclusion of the discussion, the meeting was opened to the public
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.01.22-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****3/5/2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION, nothing was discussed publicly regarding the site, just boilerplate to move in and out of executive session http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.03.05-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf*****3/24/2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION, only thing worth noting is they amended the letter of intent (no word on what they amended it for or what the original LOI said And no, I;m not accidentally repeating myself.http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.03.24-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf*****5/28/2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION, Letter of intent amended for 30 days and they were to "CONSIDER A GROUND LEASE for land owned by the TPFA," but that item was dropped from the agenda. However, important to note the agenda reflects they were discussing a lease. 10. Consider a motion and vote to enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S. Section 307(C)(10) to consider a Ground Lease for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at....11. Leave Executive Session on discussion of a Ground Lease for 7151 & Riverside for the purpose of taking any appropriate related action. Per item 10 this item was dropped from the agenda.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.05.28-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****6/25/2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION, extend LOI by 60 days. First mention of SALE of the land and drafting a contract for sale.11. Leave Executive Session on discussion of the possible sale of land at 71 st & Riverside for the purpose of taking any appropriate related action, including but not limited to authorizing the negotiation of terms and drafting of a contract for sale of the property or approving a contract for sale of the property.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.06.25-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****7/29/2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION, first time the mayor shows up. First meeting after it was made public that they were considering selling the land. In and out of executive session. Not business as usual. so I included more of the meeting as there was a lot of non boilerplate: Tried to move for executive session, then. . . . The Trustees discussed Mr. Brannin's concerns with him. Mr. Blue noted that they
had received no previous interest on the subject from the citizens. Mr. Brannin also expressed that un-named officials within the City and INCOG do not believe that
their input within the process was heard or taken into account. Mr. Bird spoke to the design, compliance requirements, and developer's communications with staff and
Elected Officials.
They then entered executive session anyway. . . .
Trustees requested that the developers speak to their obligations surrounding the bike path and the 1031 exchange language within the contract, the design and
landscaping of the property facing the bike path and river, and process surrounding the covenants. . . .
Blue moved to re-enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S.
Section 307(C)(10) to consider a Purchase and Sale Contract for land
owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71 st and Riverside and
which includes a determination that public disclosure of the matter
would violate the confidentiality of the business.
. . .
Macleod moved table any decision on a Purchase and Sale Contract
pending the resolution of certain questions brought up by Authority
Members and to have those answered and another vote on this contract
for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71 st and Riverside
by August 1 ih
Sartain
The motion carried with the following votes:
Aye: Macleod, Sartain, Cremin, Blue, Twombly
Nay: None
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.07.29-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf*****8/11/2015
First meeting without an executive session. First actual public comments. Full minute below.2. Public Comments on the purchase and sale of land owned by Tulsa Public
Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside
Mr. Cremin set the parameters for the public comment period and opened the floor
for public comments. Speaking on behalf of the developers, Don Bouvier and Greg
McGahey, presented the site plan for the project with details on their intended
landscaping plan. They answered questions from the Trustees, including how the
site plan compares to "big box" stores, the scope of the parking and how they plan
to incorporate landscaping, and the maintenance of the landscaping on the property.
Mr. Brannin, Mr. Young, Mr. West, Mr. Leighty, Mr. Beattie, Ms. Lemmon, and Ms.
Kobos spoke in opposition to the purchase and sale contract. They cited a number
of areas that they believed to be concerning about the transaction, including a large
amount of parking, potential impacts to the river, and fish and wildlife including
potential for runoff from impervious parking and pavement, and that the intent of the
property was originally for park land. They also noted the transparency of the
process was deficient and that while the committee met the open meetings
requirements they did not well-publicize the transaction; It was also stated that only
a minor amendment was needed in the rezoning process with a lack on notice to the
public beyond 300 feet.
Mr. Bird spoke in support of the project noting the steps taken to select the site and
issue an RFP, the lack of response to the RFP, the discussions had with the
Helmerich Family, and the marketing of the site following the RFP process. Mr. Bird
also informed the trustees that there were several public hearings and newspaper
articles on the project over the approximate 2 year period. He also stated that in the
original transaction all proceeds, should any property be disposed of, are to go back
into the remaining property.
The Trustees asked Mr. Helmerich to state his family's thoughts on the purchase
and sale contract. He noted that the family is supportive of this project and they
believe this will enhance the trails and outdoor living.
Mr. Leighty presented a petition for temporary injunction filed by Craig Immel on
August 11,2015 to the Trustees. Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Edmiston provided their
legal opinions that the temporary injunction was not properly filed, as it was not
signed, there was no affidavit attached, and a summons was also not served on the
Authority.
Prior to the reading on the next agenda item, Mr. Cremin called for a break at 5:23
PM. The meeting resumed at 5:34 PM.
3. Consider approval of a purchase and sale contract for land owned by Tulsa
Public Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside or authorization of the
continued negotiation of terms of such a purchase and sale contract.
Mr. Cremin informed the Trustees of an email he received from Greg Bledsoe
regarding the Authority's ability to transfer park land. Ms. VanValkenburg noted that
the Authority does have this ability in their trust indenture. It was also noted that the
Authority is a separate entity from the City of Tulsa. The Trustees reviewed the list
of questions from the July 29, 2015 meeting. Mr. Bird spoke to the relocation of the
volleyball courts, affirming that the Volleyball courts can be relocated South on the
property instead of Johnson Park. Mr. Wilkerson and Ms. VanValkenburg spoke to
the site plan, building renderings and the standards of the landscaping plan. Mr.
Bouvier answered questions regarding the number of parking spaces. He also noted
that they believe they will be back for regular updates on the status of the project.
Ms. VanValkenburg discussed the restrictive covenants, limiting the uses on the
property. The restrictive covenants are to be filed with the property at closing. She
also informed the Trustees of their role in a 1031 exchange. Mr. Edmiston spoke to
the regulations surrounding damage of the trail system.
The Trustees also discussed the concerns of the transparency of the process, the
possible use of the property as office space, and if a determination was made that
the property was no longer needed as park land.
Motion:
Second:
Vote:
Bartlett moved to accept the purchase and sale contract and utilize the
money received for the improvement of the remaining property.
Blue
The motion carried with the following votes:
Aye: Sartain, Blue, Bartlett
Nay: Macleod, Cremin
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.08.11-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf*****9/24/2015
First time they discussed the Park, or used the word park, this in the context of a request to rezone it so it couldn't be used as a park. Motion to initiate application passed.7. Discussion and potential action on rezoning applications brought forward by
the City Council and to be heard by TMAPC on October 7.2015. (Susan Miller,
IN COG)
a. PUD-128-1 - City Council, Location: South of southwest corner of South
Riverside Drive and East 71st Street South, requesting a PUD Major
Amendment to abandon a portion of the PUD, (CD 2) (Related to Z-7314)
b. Z-7314 - City Council, Location: South of southwest corner of South
Riverside Drive and East 71st Street South, requesting, requesting
rezoning from RS·4/RM-2/PUD·128·E to AG, (CD 2) (Related to PUD·128-1)
Ms. Miller presented these items together. She informed the Trustees that the
applications were initiated by City Council and request to abandon a portion of the
existing PUD and rezone the RS-4, RM-2 and PUD·128-E to AG. She noted that
abandoning the PUD would remove the allowable park use for Helmerich Park and
would make it a legal non·conforming use. To make the park a legal conforming use
an application would need to be brought before the Board of Adjustment to allow the
special exception. Susan suggested that the Parks Department submit the
application.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.09.24-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****10/12/2015
Status on sale moving forward. Then went to EXECUTIVE SESSION on the issue.2. Update on the Purchase and Sale Contract for land owned by Tulsa Public
Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside. (Clay Bird. City of Tulsa)
Mr. Bird reported that the Developer is moving forward. The Parks Department is
looking at site options for the relocation of the volleyball courts and is working with
the developer to determine if certain options on the Southside of the proposed
development would be viable with the potential tenants. Ms. VanValkenburg
addressed the Trustees questions regarding the impact of the zoning change on the
park use and its impact on the relocation of the volleyball courts.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.10.12-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf*****10/22/2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION on pending and potential litigation, only public information that is useful is...Macleod motioned to seek a narrow declaratory judgement to
clarify TPFA's responsibilities regarding the sale of property that
TPFA holds at 71 5t and Riverside with regard to abandoning the
public use.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.10.22-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf*****11/19/2015
EXECUTIVE SESSION on pending and potential litigation, no new information in the minutes.http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.11.19-TPFA-Regular-Meeting.pdf
