REI

[cannon_fodder]

"I will say, there was one person that was in opposition with it," Bird said

Are these the meetings that are at 2pm in the afternoon with ~24 hours notice?

Shocking that there isn't better attendance.

[SouthTulsaCountyDude]

"I have talked to the developer. They do have — they've got a secondary site in mind, because they really like that market," Bird said.

secondary site in mind ??!?!!    Where at??

[Conan71]

secondary site in mind ??!?!!    Where at??

Next to Simon in Jenks.

Sorry couldn't resist.

[PonderInc]

Can you publish/share the meetings online?  I'd be interested to see what was discussed, what was open to the public, and why so many executive sessions were needed.

Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 03-28-2013  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 07-25-2013  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 11-07-2013  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 04-10-2014  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 07-24-2014  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 08-28-2014  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 10-23-2014  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 12-18-2014  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 01-22-2015  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 03-05-2015  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 03-24-2015  (Agenda) (Addendum)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 05-28-2015  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 06-25-2015  (Agenda-Addended)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 07-23-2015  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 07-29-2015   (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 08-11-2015   (Agenda) (Addendum)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 09-24-2015  (Agenda-Addended)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 10-12-2015   (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 10-22-2015  (Agenda)
Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 11-19-2015  (Agenda)

[SXSW]

secondary site in mind ??!?!!    Where at??

Yes I'm very curious where their Plan B site is located. 

I could see REI eventually having two locations in Tulsa.  A flagship either in Utica Square or downtown and another typical suburban location in either south Tulsa or Jenks (maybe by the river there).

[Conan71]

Well the whole executive session thing seems to cloud the transparency to the process that Clay Bird claimed happened.  I'd also like to know what the purpose of the special meeting was on Jan. 24, 2013.

Does anyone else see that having the mayor and the city manager as trustees is stacking the deck on any business the TPFA does?

[PonderInc]

It's also amusing to note that the first time Dewey even stepped foot in a TPFA meeting was the day of the 3-2 vote. (Gosh, this was also apparently the first time the TPFA ever actually had public participation.)  He voted first, so everyone else in the room had to think about whether they wanted to cross the mayor or not.

[cannon_fodder]

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 released

12. 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/recreation

5. 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 courts

Twombly 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 said

Executive 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

[PonderInc]

Thanks for the summary, CF.  I noticed another amusing thing in the minutes.

You will recall that the first time public comment was heard was on 8/11/15.  On 9/24/15, the TPFA (for the first time in its existence?) discusses the need for a policy on public comment.

From the approved minutes of the 9/24/15 meeting:

6. Consider development of a policy for public comments at Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Meetings (Mike Kier, City of Tulsa)
Mr. Kier brought forward the opportunity for the Trustees to set a procedure on how they would like to handle public comments.  Mr. Kier offered a number of potential options, including allowing no comments, restricting comments to the agenda items listed, and an open general public comments option.  Discussion ensued between the trustees on how they would like to handle public comments.

Motion: Blue moved to adopt a procedure to allow public comments to be taken up at the beginning of each agenda item, with the comments specifically addressing that agenda item and a limit of 30 minute total per agenda item, 5 minutes per comment and the ability extend the times if the trustees so chose.
Second: Twombly
Vote: The motion carried with the following votes:
Aye: Bue, Sartain, Twombly, Cremin
Nay: None

This amazes me, since the TPFA has existed at least since the early 1990's.  Yet this is the first time they've bothered to have a policy for public comment? 

Clay Bird even mentioned in the City Council Urban/Economic Development Committee meeting last Thursday that the TPFA "normally meets in a closet."  This is funny, since he keeps talking about how there were so many public meetings on this topic, and how surprised he was by the opposition.

The CC Urban/Economic Dev meeting is fascinating, b/c you get to hear Bird and Twombly respond to a lot of really direct questions from the City Council.  Pretty much all of them are unhappy that the citizens of Tulsa helped buy the land, and have maintained it as a park for all these years, but didn't get a say in the sale of the land.  It also becomes apparent that the City of Tulsa will provide the legal services in the upcoming court case to represent the TPFA.  So, the citizens bought the land, operated and maintained the land, and will also pay for the legal representation for the group that made decisions about the land without public input.

Councilor Ewing is especially eloquent when talking about land use and the need for high-quality design along the river corridor, and how this development falls far short. Also makes a great argument for why design overlays would have prevented this mess.  Bynum does a great job of breaking down all the ways in which the public essentially owned and operated the land, but was not adequately involved in the decision-making process.  Laiken spends most of his time trying to sound like he worked to make the development better than it would have been, but all he does is show how clueless he is about urban design issues.  My favorite quote from Councilor America is something like (paraphrase): "It doesn't speak well when you say the TPFA usually meets in a closet."  Generally, all the city councilors recognize this was a big fail, although they are more concerned with the public process than the need for great urban design.  They are all aligned when talking about the need to get out in front of these debates and involve the public much earlier in the process.

If you're interested in this topic, the video from the Urban/Economic Dev Committee meeting is must watch TV:
http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3064

(It's TGOV, so you'll have to watch using Internet Explorer, or maybe Firefox.  I know it doesn't work with Chrome.)

[SouthTulsaCountyDude]

So, is there a court date set?    What's next?

[cannon_fodder]

The short version - we wait for the Court to throw out the City's suit (the matter was already before the Court) and set a hearing on the underlying suit from August. The TFPA arguing that they can sell what they want, when they want it. The Citizen arguing it is a park, and the City Council has to approve it.


What's going on is odd to me -

Craig Immel sued the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority seeking an injunction in August, 2015. Tulsa: CV-15-902
The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority sued him on November 25, 2015, over the same issue. Tulsa: CV-15-1320. In fact, their petition in the latter is then cut and pasted into the response to the former. Same parties. Same issues. Same pleadings. Why the hell did they file what appears to be a frivolous lawsuit and then present the same arguments in a counterclaim in the underlying action?  Publicity stunt to appease the developer?

I don't get it. In their meeting of August 11th, 2015, the TFPA commented that the original petition was deficient, so they essentially ignored it. But instead of moving to dismiss it they filed a response to it as a separate lawsuit and then answered it without ever being served. Anyway, the Counterclaim contained in the Answer to the original suit and the petition filed by the City in the new suit appear to be exactly the same. Identical actually.  I assume the litigation by the City of Tulsa on behalf of the separate and independent entity (the TFPA) is actually being driven by the private developer...

On the original suit, no action was taken until the City Answered on December 29, 2015, a month after filing a lawsuit over the same thing. In the new lawsuit and answer/counterclaim, TFPA claims they can sell the land but don't have to give their legal analysis that explains they they can sell the land, but they then go on to explain it. Kind of. It's a 57 page document, so cut me some slack.

Basically, they argue that the Trust can dispose of any property that is "no longer needful for Trust purposes" (p. 6, Counter Claim paragraph 5). They admit that the property was purchased by the City of Tulsa and funds raised by Mr. Helmerich. They admit it has colleyball courts, playground, picnic tables, restrooms, etc., that it shows up on maps as Helmerich Park, that it has Tulsa Park signage... but "No portion of the subject Property has been dedicated as a park in any written instrument." (p. paragraph 8.) So they don't need anyone's permission to unload it, so tell us we can unload it Court!

A little more detail:

Paragraph 11: July 16, 2015, zoning changed from "Park and Open Space" to  "Mixed-Use Corridor" (that's right, the totally not a park that was labeled and used as a park was also zoned a park). They also admit "The Council has not formally adopted a resolution declaring that Tract A is no longer needed for public use." But go on to say in paragraph 14 that they don't need the Council to declare the tract no longer needed for a public purpose in paragraph 14.

12. August 11, 2015, Special meeting approved purchase and sale contract to sell 8.8 acres to private developer.

13. That same day, a private citizen brought suit for an injunction questioning the TFPAs "legal right to convey pulbic property, currently used for public purpose, to a private developer."  (yes, suit was brought the same day the TFPA made it public that they wanted to sell the land)

14. The Trust can sell what they want without City Council approval in any way

15. The Trust can execute contracts, sell, lease, etc. etc. etc. any property of the Trust in just about any way whenever it wants. (If that is the true standard, then no City property should ever be placed with this Trust, as they can do whatever they want with it whenever they want with it, without regard for that pesky political process of input from annoying voters.)

16. The trust indenture provides the purposes are to dispose of property no longer needful for Trust purposes."  (I wonder on what grounds they decide the property isn't "needful for Trust purposes," which is to benefit the City of Tulsa)

They then ask for the Court to say they can sell it immediately.


The Answer of the City, linked above, contains the following attachments (exhibit numbers are wonked):
-  Trust Indenture
- Proof of publication of the Trust in 1981
- Amendment to the Trust and Publication thereof
- More Amendments and Publication in 1991 (is anyone questioning the overall validity of the Trust?)
- November 2015 zoning change minutes
-  7PM Friday, August 11th Amended Notice and Agenda of Special meeting on the issue the following Tuesday at 4pm (so if you didn't go down and check for this agenda item on Monday and get off of work the next day, screw you! That's public engagement...)

- Minutes from August 11th Meeting, seven people - INCLUDING Ponderic if I am not mistaken, spoke against the development citing poor development criteria, large open parking, use with the river, and use as parkland. The developer spoke in favor along with Clay Bird with Mr Bird pointing out that the process was totally open (it wasn't), the Helmerich he trotted in front of the panel was in favor, and then they said the temporary injunction that was filed was deficient.  They called a break.

They then came back into session and declare that Greg Bledsoe said the Authority does have the ability to sell parkland and again noted that the Authority is a separate legal entity from the City of Tulsa.  They discussed some of the concerns, including the destruction of the trail, if a determination had been made that the property was no longer needed as parkland.  (my guess: they later figured out the "parkland" issue presented an obstacle, and decided to admit it is listed as a park used as a park, appears on maps as a park, has park signage, is zoned as a park, and had a ceremony naming it Helmerich Park... but hold firm that it was never a park)


- - -


Also... The TFPA also has title abstract documentation on the property, that you can stop by and "inspect" if you want. Someone please "want" and post the thing on the web. Could be very interesting (but probably not very helpful).

Fun fact... according to the TPFA the City Council has no authority to stop the deal or do anything with the land, because it is an independent authority and separate and distinct legal entity whose affairs are separate and independent from the City of Tulsa. The City is just a beneficiary of the Trust. Otherwise, it is not part of the City of Tulsa.  But the City Attorney's office is doing all the legal work for the "totally not part of the City of Tulsa and independent Trust" because... well, I guess because screw you, that's why!

Doesn't anyone know if the City Attorney can volunteer time to benefit a "separate and distinct legal entity?" I really don't know how that works.

[Conan71]

Doesn't anyone know if the City Attorney can volunteer time to benefit a "separate and distinct legal entity?" I really don't know how that works.

[SouthTulsaCountyDude]

The short version - we wait for the Court to throw out the City's suit (the matter was already before the Court) and set a hearing on the underlying suit from August. The TFPA arguing that they can sell what they want, when they want it. The Citizen arguing it is a park, and the City Council has to approve it.

Yes, I get that.   I was asking.... estimated timelines?  Are there hearing dates set?  Does it look like its going to be a long drawn out battle to possible go on for 1 year or more due to possible appeals?  Etc.  Etc. 

[cannon_fodder]

Per the links provided above, no, there are no dates set. The Court could rule as a matter of law, ask for briefing, or set evidence hearings and allow for discovery.  So there is on easy way to tell the timeline. Yes, appeals are possible - but don't know anything about the citizen who filed the suit, so I can't speak to if it is likely or not.

[PonderInc]

Thanks, CF for ongoing legal analysis.

One minor correction: The land has been zoned PUD-128 since 1972 (long before it was turned into a park).  The original PUD envisioned all sorts of high intensity development: Commercial shopping, Office Medium Heavy, residential multifamily. From the staff analysis: "It permits the property to be used for over a million SF of office space with building heights up to 154 feet and over 60,000 SF of commercial floor area by right."

Once it was turned into a park thanks to public/private partnership, nobody ever bothered to rezone the land to agricultural, which would have been appropriate.  The PUD just sat there, dormant and unknown to most people in town.

So two actions have occurred related to land use.  The original PUD was amended for the 5th time PUD-128 E.  This was considered a minor amendment, which is why it didn't go before the City Council.  After the minor amendment to the PUD was approved, the comprehensive plan Land Use Map was also amended from "Parks and Open Space" to "Mixed Use Corridor" and the designation was changed from "area of stability" to "area of change."