IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR TULSA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA

CRAIG IMMEL, TERRY YOUNG, 
HERB BEATTIE, CLAYDA STEAD and)

RAY PEARCEY 
Plaintiffs, 
vs. No. CV-2015-00902
Judge Jefferson D. Sellers

TULSA PUBLIC FACILITIES 
AUTHORITY, a Public Trust 
Defendant,
. 
CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA, an ,3 EMS
Oklahoma Municipal Corporation, JAN 
Defendant. 
I: semi. @391 Mm
enamtsac?um

ANIENDED PETITION

Come now the plaintiffs, Craig Immel, Terry Young, Herb Beattie, Clayda Stead

and Ray Pearcey and for their amended petition allege and state as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action principally for declaratory relief, pursuant to 12 0.8. 
1651 et seq. and for related claims. Plaintiffs Immel, Young, Beattie, Stead and Pearcey
inng this action as taxpayers and residents of the City of Tulsa,-Oklahoma. They seek to
recover park land for the City of Tulsa which they claim holds the land in trust for the
public?s bene?t and not in a proprietary capacity under the common law of Oklahoma,
pursuant to Green. 12. City of Norman, 455 P.2d 58, 1969 OK 88 and State Ex Rah-Remy v.
Agar, 559 P.2d 1235, 1977 OK 6. This action primarily relates to claims by said
plaintiffs that defendant Tulsa Public Facilities Authority (T PEA) has committed of?cial

wrongs and is attempting to misappropriate taxpayer funds and other funds of the City of

Tulsa by attempting to sell, for private commercial development, 8.8 acres of park land
(hereafter the park land), that is part of what is the City of Tulsa’s Helmerich Park, near
the intersection of 71st Street and Riverside Drive in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma. These plaintiffs contend that defendant TPFA does not own this land and that
it was purchased for the TPFA with restricted park purpose dedicated sale tax funds and
other restricted park purpose funds of the City of Tulsa that were transferred to the TPFA
for no consideration. Plaintiffs assert that the park land is owned by the City of Tulsa by
virtue of a resulting trust created pursuant to the provisions of 60 O.S. § 137 and the facts
and circumstance related to its purchase and the subsequent course of conduct of the
defendant TPFA and the City of Tulsa. Title 60 O.S. § 137 states: “When a transfer of
real property is made to one person, and the consideration therefor is paid by or for
another, a trust is presumed to result in favor of the person by or for whom such payment
is made.” See also Boatright v. Perkins, 1995 OK 34, 894 P.2d 1091.
2.

In the alternative, these plaintiffs also seek a declaration that defendant

TPFA has violated the provisions of its trust indenture established in Title 39, §§ 1600 et
seq., Appendix II, Art. III § 4, of the City of Tulsa Revised Ordinances (TRO), attached
as Ex. A, by attempting to sell the park land for commercial development without first
finding that the land is not needed for “trust purposes,” purposes that are solely limited to
facilities involving the governmental and proprietary functions of the City of Tulsa. In
relation thereto, these plaintiffs seek a declaration that before the park land can be sold
defendant TPFA must seek City of Tulsa City Council approval and a determination that
the park land is not needed for any “governmental or proprietary functions of the City of
Tulsa” and is also “not necessary for [any other] public use or purposes,” as required by

-2-

 TPFA’s trust indenture (Ex. A) and the provisions of Art. VIII, § 14 of the Amended
Charter of the City of Tulsa, attached as Ex. B.
3.

In the alternative, these plaintiffs also seek a declaration, based on the

Common law of Oklahoma, that the park land is held in trust for the public and cannot be
sold by either the defendant TPFA or the City of Tulsa, regardless of the provisions of
Art. VIII, § 14 of the Tulsa Amended Charter, unless there is a clear factual record
supporting a determination that the public use of the land has been abandoned or the
property has become unsuited for continued public use as a park, pursuant to the holdings
in Green v. City of Norman, 455 P.2d 58, 1969 OK 88 and State Ex Rel. Remy v. Agar,
559 P.2d 1235, 1977 OK 6. These plaintiffs seek a declaration extending this principal to
defendant TPFA, as it relates to the attempt to sell the park land. These plaintiffs contend
it may not exceed the "authorized and proper" public functions of its municipal
beneficiary, the City of Tulsa, pursuant to 60 O.S. § 176(A) and Question Submitted by:
The Honorable Danny Morgan, State Representative, District 32, 2004 OK AG 20 and 60
O.S. § 176.1(3) which requires the “function or enterprise in which the public trust is
engaged is or could be authorized by state law to be performed by the beneficiary.”
Since the TPFA and its trustees are “an agency of the state and the regularly constituted
authority of the beneficiary for the performance of the functions for which the trust shall
have been created,” pursuant to 60 O.S. § 179, theses plaintiffs contend that neither
TPFA nor its beneficiary, the City of Tulsa, may sell the park land unless the Common
law conditions stated above are satisfied. These plaintiffs contend that the attempt by the
TPFA to sell the park land is an attempt to exceed the “authorized and proper” functions
of its municipal beneficiary and is a “function or enterprise” which state law does not

-3-

 authorize its beneficiary, the City of Tulsa, to perform, to wit: selling public park land.
Since, these plaintiffs contend that the park land has not been abandoned nor has it
become unsuited for continued public use as a park they seek a determination it cannot be
sold.
4.

In the alternative, these plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the defendant

TPFA has violated the provisions of its trust indenture established in TRO, Title 39, §§
1600 et seq., Appendix II, Art. III § 4, Ex. A and 60 O.S. § 177.1, by attempting to sell
the park land to a private party for commercial development. 60 O.S. § 177.1 states: “. . .
no public trust shall engage in any activity or transaction that is not expressly authorized
in the instruments or articles prescribing its creation except by express consent of the
governmental agency or governmental entity that created said public trust.” These
plaintiffs contend the purposes of the TPFA are limited to developing facilities for the
governmental or proprietary purposes or activities of the City of Tulsa and do not include
selling park land for economic development to a private party. For this activity to be
authorized it must be expressly consented to by the governing body that created the trust,
in this case the Tulsa City Council. These plaintiffs contend that this has not occurred.
These plaintiffs contend that since selling land for private economic development is not
expressly authorized in the trust indenture the park land cannot be sold, except as
provided by the statute.
5.

These plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the defendant TPFA, as it

relates to the attempt to sell this park land, has been directed and controlled by executive
officials of the City of Tulsa, in violation of its indenture (TRO, Title 39 §§ 1600 et seq.,
Appendix I, Article VIII, Ex. A) and because of this and a course of conduct and other

-4-

 related facts is the alter ego of the City of Tulsa, in relation to the attempt to sell the park
land. These plaintiffs seek a declaration that TPFA’s separate legal status should be
disregarded as a distinct legal entity from that of the City of Tulsa with respect to the
attempt to sell the park land.
6.

In the alternative, these plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the attempt to

sell the park land to a private party by defendant TPFA is on such favorable terms,
recovers such de minimums benefits to the TPFA or the City of Tulsa and is for such a
fraction of the park lands value that it cannot be sold because it amounts to a gift and a
failure of consideration that violates Article10, § 17 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
7.

These plaintiffs also seek a declaration that, with respect to the attempt to

sell the park land, TPFA has willfully violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act by
failing to adequately describe matters on its meeting agendas thereby depriving the public
of actual notice; canceling announced regular meetings and replacing them with special
meetings set on short notice thereby making the schedule of meetings incomprehensible
to the public; conducting executive sessions for an unauthorized purpose and with
incomplete information posted as to the specific nature of any impairment that would be
caused by holding open sessions; inadequately describing the results of these executive
sessions as it reported back into public meetings; and has improperly obtained consensus
among a majority of its trustees with respect to selling the park land through informal
discussions. On this basis these plaintiffs seek a declaration that the actions of the TPFA
with respect to attempting to sell the park land are invalid and that the executive session
minutes be disclosed to the public, pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Open
Meeting Act, 25 O.S. §§ 307(F)(2), 313 and 314.

-5-

 8.

The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that all records and documents

related to the sale of the park land, including but not limited to records of any closed and
executive sessions of the TPFA trustees or any other record that otherwise might lawfully
be withheld to the public under the Oklahoma Open Records and/or the Open Meeting
Act, are nevertheless open for public inspection based on the TPFA’s trust indenture,
TRO, Title 39 §§ 1600 et seq. App. I, Art. IX which requires “records and minutes of the
[TPFA] Trustees . . . be considered as public records and available for inspection at all
times by any interested party.”
PARTIES
9.

Plaintiff Craig Immel is a taxpayer and resident of the City of Tulsa. He

has over 15 years experience in real estate investment, development consulting and
construction management. He holds a Master of Science degree in Real Estate and
Construction Management from the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business,
and a Bachelor of Science in Geography from Oklahoma State University. He is a
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional, with
specialized experience in sustainable land development, green building and renewable
energy. Immel has been recognized as an outstanding young business leader by
Oklahoma Magazine and The Journal Record, and received the OSU Environmental
Science 2011 Green Award for Sustainability and the 2015 President’s Volunteer Service
Award.
10.

Plaintiff Terry Young is also a taxpayer and resident of the City of Tulsa.

From 1977 to 1984 he served as Tulsa County Commissioner for District 2. In that
position, he personally negotiated the acquisition of the first 150 acres of what is now

-6-

 Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness Park. From 1984 to 1986 Young was Mayor of
Tulsa. Following the 1984 Memorial Day flood, Young led numerous flash flood-control
efforts, including the creation of Tulsa’s internationally recognized storm water
management program. He negotiated with the Federal government for the site of
Oklahoma State University-Tulsa and helped fund $15 million for its first classroom
buildings. As mayor, Young led the successful effort to secure voter approval of the
1985 City of Tulsa sale tax initiative and the enactment of an ordinance that restricted
funding to categories such as “Park Facilities Improvements” and specific projects within
the categories and which obligated city officials to spend the tax proceeds only for those
purposes. Since leaving office, Young has served in leadership positions for the Tulsa
Economic Development Corp, the Oklahoma Legislature’s Ad Valorem Task Force and
the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. He is a former independent consultant on zoning and
land use matters and from 1998 to 2010 was executive vice president of Cinnabar Service
Co. in Tulsa, a national land and right of way acquisition firm.
11.

Plaintiff Herb Beattie is also a taxpayer and resident of the City of Tulsa.

He has worked to enhance, extend, improve and protect the public parks and open space
in the Arkansas River corridor in Tulsa County since 1977 when he raised the private
funds needed to create the River Parks trail from Crow Creek to 56th Street. In 1978, he
chaired the committee which created the Tulsa Run (15K) which was the first road race
in Tulsa which used public streets. From 1980 to 1985 he was a member of the River
Parks Authority (RPA) and was a founder of the Tulsa Rowing Club. Beginning in 1987
Beattie led the efforts which prevented the construction of a six lane expressway in and
adjacent to River Parks. In 1987 he accepted the gift of a perpetual easement on behalf of

-7-

 the RPA which created the trail extension through Helmerich Park and further south to
Joe Creek. In 1979 he led the effort to obtained the private funds which created a
preserve which protects a bald eagle nocturnal roost on Keystone Lake. He was the first
Executive Director of the Oklahoma Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), serving
from 1986 to 1992. In that capacity he negotiated in the purchase of the ChapmanBarnard ranch which has become the largest and most significant tall grass prairie
preserve in North America. In 1989 Beattie also secured for the City of Tulsa the gift of
the Redbud Valley Nature Preserve and its headquarters. In 1988 he negotiated the
purchase of the railroad right-of-way, rails, ties and bridges which extended the River
Parks trail system from Tulsa to Sand Springs. In 1989 he accepted the gift of critical
least tern habitat which is adjacent to Helmerich Park to TNC. In 1990 he negotiated
funding from the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to TNC to create an endowment to
monitor and protect least tern and bald eagle habitat in the Arkansas River corridor in
Tulsa County, including the area adjacent to Helmerich Park. As a consultant to the
Trust for Public Land, Beattie negotiated the gift of a railway right-of-way which
connects a trail from Tulsa to the City of Skiatook. From 2007 to the present Beattie
served as founding chair of the City of Tulsa's "Bark Park Task Force" which has
established two very successful and heavily used off leash parks for people and their dogs
in the City of Tulsa. At the request of Tulsa County Parks, he in 1984 obtained funding
necessary to create 3-mile recreational trail around LaFortune Park. Beattie was a
member of the board of Park Friends, Inc. from 1987 to 1993, serving as it chair from
1988 to 1990. In this capacity Beattie participated in the decision by Park Friends, Inc. to
provide a $1 million bridge loan that allowed the City of Tulsa to purchase Helmerich

-8-

 Park. Beattie is life member and former president of Tulsa Running Club and member of
the National Audubon Society and Sierra Club. He is a life member of Trout Unlimited
(TU) and served as founder and chair of its first chapter in Georgia and on the TU
national board and as chair of its research and projects Committee. Beattie is a life
member, former president and current government relations chair of the Brookside
Neighborhood Association.
12.

Plaintiff Clayda Stead is a taxpayer and resident of the City of Tulsa. She

was formerly employed by Tulsa based oil and gas companies Sun Ray DX and Amerada
Hess as a division order analyst authorizing payment of oil royalties based on legal
documents of title. She was also the office manager for W. W. Wheeler Engineering
Company and supervised its general office functions and payroll. In that role she also
helped write many specifications and engineering contracts with the City of Tulsa’s
water, sewer and streets departments. She is a long-time adult leader with Girl Scouts of
Eastern Oklahoma, former treasurer and board member of the Tulsa Girls Softball
Federation and is currently treasurer of Tulsa Will Rogers High School Alumni
Foundation, Inc. She served from 1990 to 1996 as either Chair or Vice-chair of City of
Tulsa Sales Tax Overview Committee and from 2006 to 2013 as a member of the City of
Tulsa Board of Adjustment.
13.

Plaintiff Ray Pearcey is a 1975 graduate of the University of Tulsa with a

Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. He is a management/technology consultant, a non
fiction writer and a lifelong Tulsan. As a business strategist, a chief technology officer
and a digital design pro his consulting engagements have included an array of private
firms, public agencies and non-profits, including the Tulsa Development Authority, the

-9-

 Community Service Council and the Tulsa Public Schools. He was employed by the City
of Tulsa from 1975 to 1985 as a city planner, leaving as the Chief of Policy Planning for
the Development Planning Department. He is currently managing editor of The
Oklahoma Eagle and a regular contributor to Tulsa's alternative bi-weekly, The Tulsa
Voice.
14.

Plaintiffs Immel, Young, Beattie, Stead and Pearcey are persons who have

used and may use Helmerich Park and are appropriate representatives of taxpayers and
the potentially numerous citizens of the City of Tulsa who are similarly situated.
15.

Defendant Tulsa Public Facilities Authority (TPFA) is a public trust

created in 1981 pursuant to 60 O.S. §§ 176 et seq. as per City of Tulsa ordinance, Title 39
§ 1600 et seq., Ex. A. The City of Tulsa is its sole beneficiary. The trustees of the TPFA
are the Mayor of Tulsa and four other individuals nominated by the Mayor and confirmed
by the Tulsa City Council. The TPFA and its trustees are an agency of the the state and
the the City of Tulsa, its beneficiary, for the performance of the functions for which the
trust shall have been created, pursuant to 60 O.S. § 179. The purposes of the TPFA are to
promote, secure and encourage the development, redevelopment, renovation and
rehabilitation of such properties, real, personal and mixed, and facilities as are necessary
and/or convenient to the performance of any governmental or proprietary purposes or
activities of the City of Tulsa. Selling public property for private economic development
is not listed as a purpose of the trust. Only may the defendant TPFA dispose of property
owned by the trust if it determines that the the property is no longer needful for trust
purposes. Ex. A, App. II, Art. III (4).

- 10 -

 16.

The City of Tulsa, Oklahoma (City) is an Oklahoma municipal

corporation. It is the sole beneficiary of defendant TPFA. In 1991 the City provided
“park purpose” restricted sales tax funds and other “park purpose” restricted funds that
were donated to the City to purchase approximately 70 acres of land for a public park
near and south of the intersection of 71st and Riverside Drive in the City of Tulsa,
Oklahoma. The 8.8 acres of the park land defendant TPFA is attempting to sell is part of
the 70 acres of park land. This land was named by the City of Tulsa Park Board as
Helmerich Park in 1991. The City is a necessary party to this action and should be joined
because in its absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties.
As asserted by these plaintiffs, the City claims an interest relating to the subject of the
action and is so situated that the disposition of this action in the absence of the City may
as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect and defend its interest in the
park land. Without the City being a party in this action it may leave the other parties
subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
obligations by reason of the asserted interest of the City in the park land. These plaintiffs
assert that the City should be designated as a plaintiff because they believe the City owns
and controls the land in question and should defend this interest. If the City refuses to
join as a plaintiff it should be designated as an involuntary plaintiff or in the alternative as
a defendant, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2019 (A).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
17.

In 1988 the approximately 70 acres of land that now make up Helmerich

Park adjacent to 71st and Riverside Drive and that includes the 8.8 acres that has been
sought to be sold by defendant TPFA was acquired by the First National Bank of Tulsa.

- 11 -

 A developer, The Riverside Company, discontinued its desire to development the land for
intense commercial, office and multi-family residential development and deeded the
property to its lender. Other than an extension of Tulsa’s River Parks trail, the site was
undeveloped and no structures or other improvements were on the land. Except for the
trail along the edge of the property, the land was a scenic wildlife habitat and wetland
that was adjacent to the east bank of Arkansas River.
18.

In early 1991 Walter Helmerich, CEO of the Tulsa oil and gas drilling

contractor Helmerich & Payne, Inc. and a member of the board of directors of First
National Bank of Tulsa contacted then Mayor of Tulsa, Roger Randle about the property.
Helmerich had learned that another developer was in discussions with the bank to
commercially develop the 70-acre tract. In order to prevent this development, he
proposed that the City of Tulsa purchase the property from the bank for a public park that
would provide an extension of park land from 71st street to approximately 78th Street and
between the Arkansas River and Riverside Drive. The City-County Agency, the River
Parks Authority, already operated a public park along the east bank of the river along
Riverside Drive from 11th Street to 71st Street.
19.

Walter Helmerich proposed that the City provide $2.25 million and

offered to secure donations to the City by private parties to provide another $2.25 million
so that the City could meet the bank’s asking price of $4.5 million.
20.

Mayor Randle agreed with this proposal and in March of 1991 announced

that the City of Tulsa will add the about 70 acres that now make up Helmerich Park to its
parks inventory thanks to a group of local businessmen donating half the cost of the land.
Randle announced a gift of $2.25 million and said it represents the largest private land

- 12 -

 donation to the city in Tulsa’s history. Randle said he envisions an “active” park with
fields for soccer and softball and other recreational facilities, but that funds to develop it
must come from other sources. Randle said he will call for the City Council to approve a
change to the 1985 sales tax ordinance to allocate surplus money to acquire the land.
Randle said the tract had been considered for inclusion in the 1991 sales tax extension
package but was omitted because $19 million in other park projects were included, which
made an additional $4 million to $5 million project impractical.
21.

In April of 1991 Mayor Randle instructed City of Tulsa Finance Director,

Ron Payne, to initiate a process to enact legislation before the Tulsa City Council to
amend the 1985 sales tax ordinance to appropriate $2.25 million in surplus tax collections
for a “new project, Park Land Acquisition- to acquire 72 acres between 71st and 81st
Street on Riverside Drive.” See Ron Payne Request for Authorization to City Council and
related documents, attached as Exhibit D.
22.

In May of 1991, then City of Tulsa Park Director Hugh McKnight told the

City Council, prior to its decision to appropriate the funds, with respect to the park land
that: “We have the opportunity here to look at some special facilities, possibly financed
through revenue bonds, for a citywide facility…” McKnight indicated that possibilities
included a “super center” recreational facility that would include year-round swimming
and water sports complex, and a community theater complex. McKnight stated: “We’re
talking community wide development, a master plan that could be financed in a
tremendous number of ways.”
23.

After two public hearings that were required by the sales tax ordinance the

Tulsa City Council on May 30, 1991 acted favorably on the request, amended the sale tax

- 13 -

 ordinance and appropriated the $2.25 million surplus sales tax funds, together with
another $2.25 million that had been raised from private donors and transferred to the
City’s Park Acquisition Fund “to be used for park acquisition.” See Tulsa City
Ordinance # 17509 and Tulsa City Ordinance # 17510, attached as Exhibits E & F.
24.

At the request of then City Finance Director Payne the funds were

transferred from the City’s “park acquisitions” accounts to the defendant TPFA’s “trust
account” for payment to the bank in exchange for the land. Payne advised the Council
that legal title would be placed in the name of the TPFA in anticipation of bond financing
for future park development and improvements. Assurances were given to the Council
that the TPFA could not sell or transfer the property without the consent of the Council
prior to the City Council appropriating the funds to purchase the park land. The Council
would not have appropriated the funds for the purchase of the park land if it thought the
park land could be sold by defendant TPFA without the Council’s consent.
25.

Any sale or transfer of real property owned by the City of Tulsa can only

be made after the City Council approves it and determines that the property is “not
necessary for public use or purposes.” See Tulsa Amended Charter, Art. VIII, § 14,
attached as Ex. B. Even then, public park land cannot be sold or transferred by a
municipality unless the public use has been abandoned or the property has become
unsuited for continued use. Green v, City of Norman, 455 P.2d 58, 1969 OK 88 and State
Ex Rel. Remy v. Agar, 559 P.2d 1235, 1977 OK 6. The park land sought to be sold by the
defendant TPFA has not been abandoned nor has it become unsuited for continued use as
a park.

- 14 -

 26.

The 1985 sales tax ordinance from which $2.25 million was appropriated

for the purchase of the park land is codified as TRO, Title 43-B, §§ 100 et seq. It is still
in effect. It provides in pertinent part: “The City of Tulsa hereby officially and solemnly
pledges to the citizens of Tulsa: 1. That ALL funds received by the City . . . will be spent
ONLY for those projects and purposes set forth herein; 2. That NONE of such funds shall
ever be spent for any other purpose; . . . 4. That any attempt to divert any of such funds to
other purposes or projects . . . shall constitute a breach of the official City policy herein
established, shall be a violation of the terms, spirit and purpose of this chapter, and shall
constitute sufficient grounds for the removal of such officer or employee from his office
or position. . .” TRO, Title 43-B §§ 100 et seq., attached as Exhibit G.
27.

The TPFA took legal title to the park land from the bank on June 4, 1991

with funds provided by the City of Tulsa. All these funds were from the restricted park
acquisition accounts of the City of Tulsa and $2.25 million of the funds were also from
the 1985 voter approved sale tax proceeds for a specific project to acquire this park land.
28.

In June of 1991 the trustees of the TPFA knew or should have known that

legal title to the park land was being placed with them at the request of the City of Tulsa,
as the beneficial owner of the property and as an accommodation related to anticipated
future bond financing by the City of Tulsa to further develop the land for use as public
park controlled by the City. The TPFA trustees knew or should have known that the park
land could not be sold without the consent and approval of the City Council of the City of
Tulsa.
29.

On June 27, 1991 the Park and Recreation Board of the City of Tulsa met

and noted that the City of Tulsa had recently acquired property along 71st Street and

- 15 -

 Riverside Drive for a new park. It passed a resolution naming the park for Walter
Helmerich. See Minutes of special meeting of the Tulsa Park and Recreation Board, June
27, 1991, attached as Exhibit G.
30.

The City of Tulsa Park and Recreation Board is an agency of the City of

Tulsa that, inter alia, advises the Mayor and the City Council on the establishment,
control, management, operation, improvement, and maintenance of the City’s public
parks. See Amended Charter at Art. V, §§ 3.1-3.7, attached as Exhibit H.
31.

In conjunction with this City of Tulsa Park Board meeting, then Tulsa

Mayor Roger Randle, at a public breakfast reception, called the newly acquired park land
“the centerpiece of Tulsa's park system.” Randle said “converting the wild, undeveloped
land into sports fields and park facilities will require a bond issue.” Randle stated that
city workers will soon start mowing and maintaining the park. The mayor said he
envisions a classic approach to development, transforming the vacant tract into south
Tulsa's version of Mohawk Park on the north side. Mohawk is characterized by mature
trees, stone picnic shelters and also includes the Tulsa Zoo and a nature center. The City
of Tulsa paid for half the costs of this breakfast while private donors paid the balance.
Defendant TPFA did not pay any of the costs.
32.

From June of 1991 when the Helmerich Park land was purchased with

funds provided by the City to the present, the City of Tulsa park department has
maintained and utilized the land as a public park. Public funds have been annually
appropriated by the City of Tulsa for this purpose. The defendant TPFA has spent no
funds to maintain or improve the park land. The City has placed signs on the the property
designating the land as “City of Tulsa, Helmerich Park.” Official City of Tulsa park

- 16 -

 maps include Helmerich Park. The City’s park department did the layout for the park and
has constructed ten sand volley ball courts, parking lots, a restroom facility, a
playground, a picnic shelter with picnic tables, grills, trash cans and a splash pad on the
park land. Use of the volley ball courts and picnic shelter must be scheduled through the
City’s park department. The City of Tulsa has paid all these costs. The TPFA has paid
nothing. The City’s park department indicated in 2015 that it is making plans to
construct park improvements at Helmerich Park for restrooms and a new playground at a
projected cost of $1,175,000. City of Tulsa ordinances define Helmerich Park as a park
of the City of Tulsa. See TRO, Title 26, § 100(A)- “Park areas and facilities shall mean
any park, playground, recreation area, sports field, garden, land, building, museum or
other structure designated by legal instrument, formal acceptance or custom under the
jurisdiction of the Park and Recreation Board of the City of Tulsa…”, attached as Exhibit
I.
33.

In January of 1999 an initial concept plan for the continued development

of Helmerich Park was prepared for the City of Tulsa park department. Attached as
Exhibit J is a copy of the plan.
34.

Between August 2004 and February 2009, the Arkansas River Corridor

Master Plan was completed in three phases. Each phase was officially adopted by the
Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG). The Mayor of Tulsa and at least five
members of the Tulsa City Council served as members of the INCOG Board of Directors
at the time votes were cast to adopt the three phases of the plan. The total cost of the plan
was $1,487,286.94. All money was taxpayer money allocated by federal and county
governments and INCOG. The City of Tulsa is the largest financial participant in

- 17 -

 INCOG, appropriating to it annually thousands of tax dollars. The Corridor Plan includes
specific treatment of the “71st Street Riverfront.” The concept for this riverfront was
developed for and presented in Phase II of the plan in October of 2005 and reflects a
predominant park and recreation function for Helmerich Park. This plan is
fundamentally different than that which has been authorized by TPFA with the proposed
sale of the 8.8 acres of park land for commercial development, which is a big box style
retail shopping center with an anchor tenant and other retail stores with over 580 parking
space on an asphalt parking lot.
35.

In 2010, the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan was incorporated,

without amendment, in the update of the City of Tulsa Comprehensive Plan. The
Corridor Plan is presently being used by the City of Tulsa Arkansas River Task Force as
a basis for seeking public funding for river corridor park improvements. The Corridor
Plan remains the official and only plan for development along the banks of the Arkansas
River that is recognized by Tulsa County and the City of Tulsa.
36.

The sale of the park land will permanently and adversely affect the

plaintiffs, the public and the City of Tulsa in the use of the park land, now and in the
future by allowing the construction of a grossly incompatible commercial project (a bigbox type store with an asphalt parking lot for over 580 automobiles) that will cause
degradation of the City of Tulsa’s adopted 71st Street riverfront plan; destroy existing
relief from the over-built commercial environment at and east of the intersection of
71st Street and Riverside Parkway; eliminate an attractive backdrop to living and
working areas where Tulsans would otherwise congregate, escape the urban environment,
appreciate nature and engage in active recreation; establish a negative precedent that will

- 18 -

 have cumulative impacts, including fragmentation of the park area beyond the footprint
of the proposed development resulting in the loss of distinctive settings for events and
social interactions; foreclose future opportunities to complete the planned park
development in the existing Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan; destroy over 40
mature trees; temporarily and perhaps permanently displace 10 sand volley ball courts;
and disturb sensitive wetlands that support challenged wildlife habitat for the American
Bald Eagle and Least Terns.
37.

The sale of the park land will permanently and adversely affect the

plaintiffs, the public and the City of Tulsa in the use of the park land, now and in the
future because the contemplated commercial development will contribute negatively to
urban flooding and storm water runoff management. The sale will violate the adopted
Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan which specifies no development along the river
below the level of the 1986 flood. Portions of Helmerich Park were flooded in 1986
including a significant part of the park land sought to be sold by defendant TPFA. If
structures are built on the park land sought to be sold they will likely be flooded.
38.

The sale of the park land will permanently and adversely affect the

plaintiffs, the public and the City of Tulsa in the use of the park land, now and in the
future, because its sale for commercial development would prevent any facilities built
thereon from getting LEED Green Building Certification from the US Green Building
Council since no development of buildings, hardscape, roads, or parking areas on
portions of sites that meet any of the following criteria can be approved: previously
undeveloped land whose elevation is lower than 5 feet above the elevation of the 100year flood; land specifically identified as habitat for any species on federal or state

- 19 -

 threatened or endangered lists; land within 100 feet of any wetlands; previously
undeveloped land that is within 50 feet of rivers, streams, and tributaries that support or
could support fish, recreation, or industrial use; and, land that prior to acquisition for the
project was public parkland, unless land of equal or greater value as parkland is accepted
in trade by the public landowner.
39.

The sale of the park land will permanently and adversely affect the

plaintiffs, the public and the City of Tulsa in the use of the park land, now and in the
future, because its sale for commercial development will undermine the confidence voters
have placed in the commitment by the City and its officials to only spend voter approved
sales taxes for approved projects and will likely negatively affect the favorable
consideration by the voters of future tax proposals.
40.

The sale of the park land will permanently and adversely affect the

plaintiffs, the public and the City of Tulsa in the use of the park land, now and in the
future, because its sale for commercial development will undermine the confidence of
charitable givers as they can no longer count on the full faith and credit of the City of
Tulsa and its officials to use their donations for the purposes intended.
41.

The sale of the park land will permanently and adversely affect the

plaintiffs, the public and the City of Tulsa in the use of the park land, now and in the
future, because its sale for commercial development will undermine the confidence of the
citizens who participated in the public process and in expending millions of dollars in tax
payer funds to develop the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and the 2010 Update of
the City of Tulsa Comprehensive Plan, both of which are being ignored.

- 20 -

 42.

In 2013 City of Tulsa Chief Economic Development Officer Clay Bird

discovered that legal title to Helmerich Park was held by the TPFA. Bird and officials in
the office of the Mayor of Tulsa developed a plan for large portions of the park to be
leased on a long term basis for emphasis on retail/recreation venues that would increase
sales taxes for the City of Tulsa.
43.

In 2013 the TPFA and the City of Tulsa jointly issued a “request for

proposal” (RFP) regarding Helmerich Park. See RFP attached as Exhibit K. The RFP
was wholly prepared and administered by employees of the City of Tulsa at no cost to the
defendant TPFA. Unlike other Title 60 Public Trusts and other authorities that have the
City of Tulsa as their exclusive beneficiary, the TPFA does not have any employees,
other than the TPFA trustees, and is wholly dependent on staff supplied by the City of
Tulsa who are authorized and permitted to work for the TPFA at no cost. For example,
other than a specialized bond attorney who serves as an independent contactor, TPFA
receives free legal, accounting, auditing, records preparation and retention and other staff
services from employees of the City of Tulsa at no cost, despite having more than $15
million dollars in its unrestricted accounts according to its last financial statement.
44.

The RFP has several indications that the TPFA and the City of Tulsa know

and understand that the City is the beneficial owner of the park land and that with respect
to this park land the TPFA is not truly independent from the City. The RFP required the
Mayor of Tulsa to approve the RFP and to approve any lessee. The RFP notes that “[t]he
successful respondent shall become a Lessee of City of Tulsa and the TPFA.” RFP, Ex.
K at p. 4. The PFP required any potential lessee to protect or relocate the existing City of
Tulsa constructed volley ball courts and playground, as well as the publically maintained

- 21 -

 river trail. The insurance policy a successful lessee was required to obtain must name the
City of Tulsa as an additional insured. The RFP notes that the ground lease will be
awarded by the City. The RFP establishes that two of the four members of the review
committee for the proposal are City of Tulsa officials, the City of Tulsa Chief Economic
Development Officer and the City of Tulsa Director of Planning and Economic
Development. The RFP was advertised on the City of Tulsa’s web site along with other
RFPs sponsored by the City at no cost to TPFA. See COT/RFP Screen Shot, attached as
Exhibit L. The TPFA does not have its own web page and is totally dependent on the
City of Tulsa for any presence on the internet which it receives at no charge.
45.

City of Tulsa Chief Economic Development Officer Clay Bird has stated

that no viable responses to the RFP were received by the TPFA and the City. Bird states
that TPFA and the City did receive a viable proposal in 2014 for the 8.8 acres of park
land that is the subject of this controversy. Bird has informed the public that the
proposal was not under the RFP but was for the sale of the park land rather than for its
long-term lease. Bird and the TPFA first informed the public that a sale rather than a
lease was being considered on July 23, 2015.
46.

Beginning on March 28, 2013 and continuing to the present, posted 

and published TPFA meeting agendas and the officially approved minutes of its 
meetings have contained intentionally vague language to properly describe the park 
land it owns at 71st and Riverside failing to provide adequate notice to the public of 
matters to be discussed and/or acted upon.
47.

Beginning following its regular meeting of July 24, 2014 and 

continuing to the present, TPFA has cancelled eight scheduled regular meetings, all 

- 22 -

 of which regular meetings were announced in the published schedule required by 
law, which a reasonable person would have been expected to include discussion and 
possible action regarding the matter of land owned by TPFA at 71st and Riverside.
48.

Between March and the end of December 2015 the posted agendas 

and official minutes for numerous regular meetings were misleading to the public 
by noting when the next meeting would be held when such meetings were then 
canceled or rescheduled, often with short-notice special meetings in a manner that 
would mislead and confuse the public regarding possible action related to the park 
land.
49.

Beginning on March 5, 2015 and then on March 24, July 29, August 11, 

and December 11, 2015, TPFA conducted special meetings with notice to the public 
required to be posted and published with as little as 48 hours prior to such 
meetings, excluding weekend days and holidays, at which meetings executive 
session discussion and possible action was scheduled on the matter of land owned 
by TPFA at 71st and Riverside.
50.

On Oct 12, 2015, TPFA conducted a special meeting with notice to the 

public posted only 26 hours prior to the beginning of the meeting, excluding 
weekend days and holidays, at which was scheduled an executive session, 
discussion and possible action on the matter of land owned by TPFA at 71st and 
Riverside.
51.

Beginning on July 24, 2014 and then on August 28, October 23 and 

December 18, 2014 and on January 22, March 5, March 24, May 28, July 23, July 29 
and August 11, 2015, TPFA conducted executive sessions on the matter of land 

- 23 -

 owned by TPFA for at 71st and Riverside for an unauthorized purpose without 
notice of the specific nature of any impairment to TPFA or the public for holding 
said executive sessions.
52.

Defendant TPFA from its regular meeting on July 24, 2014 through its 

special meeting on August 11, 2015 has conducted business in executive session 
that upon reconvening in public session was presented in terms that were so 
convoluted and vague as to be misleading to the public in its presentation during 
such meetings and in its official meeting minutes thereby preventing the public from 
comprehending its actions and to act accordingly.
53.

On December 18, 2014, TPFA made a decision in executive session to 

hire a “broker.” The broker was not properly named on the posted and published 
agenda of the meeting.
54.

Beginning on July 24, 2014 through August 11, 2015, TPFA 

improperly obtained consensus among a majority of its trustees outside of public 
meetings with respect to the park land owned by TPFA at 71st and Riverside.
55.

On August 11, 2015 the TPFA trustees by a vote of 3 to 2 voted to sale the

8.8-acre track of park land to a developer. The TPFA trustees in connection with the
decision to sell the park land did not make a finding that the park land was no longer
needed for trust purposes nor did they ask the City of Tulsa City Council if the park land
was needed for any governmental or proprietary functions of the City of Tulsa. On
August 11, 2015 the park land was being used and is presently being used as a public
park under the control of the City of Tulsa’s park department. Bird informed the TPFA

- 24 -

 that the City of Tulsa would relocate the 10 volley ball courts to another part of
Helmerich Park that was not affected by the 8.8 acres.
56.

Also on August 11, 2015 plaintiff Immel initially filed this action

questioning TPFA’s right to sell the park land to a private developer.
57.

In December of 2015 City of Tulsa Chief Economic Development Officer

Clay Bird told the Tulsa City Council that the land was being sold at less than fair market
value and not for its highest and best use. He stated that the TPFA and the City of Tulsa
were not interested in making a profit off of the sale.
58.

The 8.8 acres of park land is proposed to be sold for $1,465,000 of which

$895,000 will be in cash and $570,000 will be a credit against the purchase price for
infrastructure improvements.
59.

The Tulsa County Assessor has set the current fair market value for the

entire 70-acre park which includes the 8.8 acres proposed to be sold at $24,361,641.00.
60.

The fair market value of the 8.8 acres of park land for its highest and best

use is at least $5 million, without any credit for infrastructure improvements.
61.

Bird and the TPFA claim that jobs and retail sales will be created from the

sale of the property, but this contention is speculation. Any jobs and retail sales created
by the sale of the park land will likely not be a net gain, but will be transferred from
existing retail establishments.
62.

As of the filing of this amended petition the sale of the park land has not

yet occurred. Officials of the City of Tulsa and the TPFA have indicated to the public
that because of the original filing of this action by plaintiff Immel the sale of the park
land cannot go forward until it is determined who owns and controls the land.

- 25 -

 -26-

CLAIMS
First Claim for Relief
(Resulting Trust, 60 O.S. § 137)
63.

These plaintiffs claim that the park land cannot be sold by the defendant

TPFA because the City of Tulsa owns it because of a resulting trust, as asserted in
paragraph 1 above, based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, which are
incorporated herein.
Second Claim for Relief
(No Determination Property Not Needed)
64.

In the alternative to the First Claim for Relief, these plaintiffs claim that

the park land cannot be sold by the defendant TPFA, as asserted in paragraph 2 above,
because it has not determined that it is not needed for trust purposes as required by its
trust indenture, based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, which are incorporated
herein.
Third Claim for Relief
(Common Law, Title 60 §§ 176(A), 176.1(3) & 179
Trust & City Cannot Sell Park Land)
65.

In the alternative to the First Claim for Relief, these plaintiffs claim that

the park land cannot be sold by the defendant TPFA and the City of Tulsa, as asserted in
paragraph 3 above, because they cannot sell park land unless conditions are met, based on
the foregoing facts and circumstances, which are incorporated herein.
Fourth Claim for Relief
(Sale Not Authorized by Trust Indenture
& Title 60 O.S. § 177.1)
66.

In the alternative the First Claim for Relief, these plaintiffs claim that the

park land cannot be sold by the defendant TPFA, as asserted in paragraph 4 above,

- 27 -

 because the trust indenture does not authorize the sale to private parties for economic
development purposes, based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, which are
incorporated herein.
Fifth Claim for Relief
(TPFA is Alter Ego of City of Tulsa)
67.

These plaintiffs claim that the park land cannot be sold by the defendant

TPFA because, it is the alter ego of the City of Tulsa, as asserted in paragraph 5 above,
based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, which are incorporated herein
Sixth Claim for Relief
(Lack of Consideration)
68.

In the alternative to the other claims, these plaintiffs claim that the park

land cannot be sold by the defendant TPFA because there has been a gift and lack of
consideration in connection with the proposed sale of the park land, as asserted in
paragraph 6 above, based on the forgoing facts and circumstances, which are
incorporated herein.
Seventh Claim for Relief
(Open Meeting Act)
69.

These plaintiffs claim that the defendant TPFA has willfully violated the

Oklahoma Open Meeting Act and because of this its decision to sell the land is invalid
and executive session minutes must be disclosed, as asserted in paragraph 7 above, based
on the foregoing facts and circumstances, which are incorporated herein.

Eighth Claim for Relief
(Trust Records Must Be Open)

- 28 -

 70.

These plaintiffs claim that all the records of the TPFA are open to

inspection by the public and ask for such a determination, as asserted in paragraph 8
above, based on the forgoing facts, which are incorporated herein.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Immel, Young, Beattie, Stead and Pearcey request that
they be granted the following relief:
1. A declaration that the park land is owned by the City of Tulsa;
2. A declaration that the TPFA and the City cannot sell the park land;
3. A declaration that the defendant TPFA has willfully violated the Open Meeting
Act; a declaration that the decision to sell the park land is invalid; and that records
from any executive session be produced;
4. A declaration that all the records of the defendant TPFA are open for public
inspection.
5. Such other necessary relief to effectuate the Court’s declarations, the costs of this
action, attorneys’ fees as provided by law and such other and further relief as may
be just and proper.
D. Gregory Bledsoe, OBA # 0874
1304 E. 26th PL
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114
Tel. 918-519-9983
bledsoe@aol.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Certificate of Service

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed or delivered
and emailed this _______ day of January 2016, to:
Stephan A. Wangsgard, Asst. City Attorney
Gerald M. Bender, Litigation Div. Mgr.
City Hall @ One Technology Center
175 East Second Street, Suite 685
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
D. Gregory Bledsoe

- 29 -