Arkansas River: October 2017 Archives

Walt Helmerich III, whose foundation donated $1 million toward the 1991 purchase of the riverfront property now known as Helmerich Park, and who served on the board of the bank that owned the land, rebuffed an overture from a private developer who wanted to create a "major mixed-use entertainment, recreational, retail and office complex" on the site, according to a sworn declaration by Rodger Randle, who was Mayor of Tulsa when the land was acquired. The city's half of the purchase price was paid out of the Park Facilities Improvements Account of the surplus from the 1985 Third Penny Sales Tax fund.

Randle's history of the park's acquisition provides some important context in the dispute over the city's proposed sale of part of the park at the corner of 71st and Riverside for commercial development.

In March 1991, according to Randle, Helmerich contacted him, offering to raise private funds for half of the $4.5 million purchase price for the 67 acres between 71st Street and Joe Creek, Riverside Drive, and the Arkansas River.

At about the same time, Randle writes, local zoning attorney John Moody approached him on behalf of an out-of-state developer with a plan for commercial development for the land, telling Randle that the developer would seek to purchase the land from the bank. Randle attempted to arrange a meeting between Moody and Helmerich, so that Moody could present his plan, but Helmerich was not interested:

Mr. Helmerich was a member of the board of the First National Bank. Helmerich was also an avid supporter of public parks. I was informed that Mr. Helmerich wanted to cancel the meeting and was not interested in Moody's proposal. I directed a member of my staff to inform Mr. Moody that the meeting had been canceled.

Later in the declaration, Randle explains the constraints created by the "Brown Ordinance" process, which ensures that Third-Penny sales tax funds are spent as promised and which imposes a process for amendment intended to draw public attention to any proposed changes, including the expenditure of surplus funds:

In this case, we were allocating the surplus funds specifically to the Park Facilities Improvements account of the 1985 third-penny sales tax. Had we wanted to include the future option of this land being developed by a private party for economic development purposes we would have allocated all or part of the surplus 1985 sales tax funds to acquire the property to the sale tax's Urban and Economic Development category as we did other items in the 1985 third penny sales tax ordinance, TRO, Title 43-B, §§ 100, et seq., as amended. We did not do this because itwas our intent to use the property exclusively as a City park....

In my opinion, any sale of any part of the park property for a commercial shopping center, such as is proposed in this case, would be a violation of this ordinance, an attempt to divert the funds to other purposes or projects and a breach of official City policy as clearly established in 1991.

Randle also explained the decision to put the property in the name of the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority:

Prior to closing on the property, city staff recommended that formal legal title be held by TPFA, as was done with the convention center. Why this was done is not clear to me but had something to do with achieving maximum flexibility regarding municipal bond financing for possible recreation facilities at the park. At no time was it contemplated that the park could or would be sold for private commercial development.

As a Title 60 trust, TPFA would be able to issue bonds against its own anticipated revenue. This suggests to me that they were considering the possibility of revenue-generating activity on the site as a means of financing recreational facilities -- perhaps concessions renting bicycles or canoes, a rentable facility for events, a snack bar or cafe. In this situation, TPFA would have borrowed against anticipated revenues from these activities to build the facilities to house them, without requiring additional taxpayer investment. Such a scenario wouldn't make sense unless you intended to keep the land under public ownership.

The copy of Randle's statement that I received was an attachment to a letter from attorney James L. Sturdivant to Mayor G. T. Bynum IV. The late Tulsa philanthropist Patti Johnson Wilson was Sturdivant's client and was one of about 30 contributors to the $1.25 million in private donations that was added to the Helmerich $1 million and the city's $2.25 million to purchase the land for the park. Sturdivant writes, "I do not know the amount of her contribution but I do know Patti would not have given money to the City to engage in a land play. She certainly would have given to acquire a park."

Sturdivant and Randle both expressed concern about the impact of the park land's sale on future donors. Sturdivant writes, "Will future donors worry about the City taking their money, buying park land, then selling it?" Randle stated, "[Selling the land for commercial development] was never contemplated because it would undercut the City's future ability to seek private donations for other projects. Donors would be uncertain that their funds would be used as intended. In this case, in addition to Mr. Helmerich, almost thirty other private parties contributed."

The complete text of Randle's declaration follows the jump: