October 2021 - Parks & Recreation - 31

use and benefit of the citizens as
a public park. Second, because the
park land is held in a governmental
capacity for use by the public,
it cannot be sold without special
legislative authority. It is undisputed
there is no special legislative
authorization
empowering
the
TPFA and the City to sell Tract A
of the Park to a private developer
for commercial use.
In so doing, the court also rejected
the claim that Tract A could be
sold to the private developer for
commercial use because TPFA,
not the City, held legal title to the
tract. Despite having transferred legal
title to a public trust, the court
found the " City still had an equitable
interest in the land " :
As the City's sole beneficiary,
the TPFA holds Tract A in trust
for the public specifically for use as
a city park and this is true despite
the fact that legal title to the park
land was deeded from the City to
the TPFA. Additionally, a municipal
public trust cannot do something
its beneficiaries cannot do,
except as authorized by statute.
As cited by the court, state law
provided that " a municipal public
trust can be created for the furtherance
and accomplishment of any
authorized and proper public function
or purpose of the municipality. "
Moreover, the court noted the
powers of a public trust " may not
exceed those authorized and proper
public functions of its municipal
beneficiary. " The court, therefore,
acknowledged " a municipal public
trust cannot convey real property if
its municipality cannot. "
In this particular instance, the
state supreme court found " the
legislature has not authorized municipalities
to sell land held in trust
The court found the municipal
power to dispose of property dedicated
to public use is limited to circumstances in
which " the public use has been abandoned, or
the property has become unsuitable or inadequate
for the purpose to which it was dedicated. "
for the people, except under specific
statutory procedures, which are
not applicable to the sale of Tract
A of Helmerich Park. " As a result,
the court held TPFA, as a municipal
agency, is " equally bound by
the public trust doctrine with respect
to property held in trust for
the people, just as the municipality
itself would be. " Further, the court
found the City of Tulsa Charter, as
amended, did not include a grant
of power to " alienate parks " or
sell park property. Similarly, the
court found " no specific statutory
provision authorizing the City (or
the TPFA acting on its behalf) to
convey or otherwise dispose of the
[parkland] held in such a capacity. "
Moreover, the court found " the
[parklands] in
this
case, where
Helmerich Park, including Tract
A, has continually been in use as
a city park since 1991 and continues
to this day to be in use as a
city park. " As the result, the state
supreme court found the trial court
had erred in granting summary
judgment to the City and TPFA on
the proposed sale of parkland.
TPFA and the City had argued
interpretation of the public
this
trust doctrine would " mean that
Tract A of the Park or the entire
Park can never be sold. " The state
supreme court rejected this argument.
According to the court, in
order to sell Tract A of the park,
" the burden is on the TPFA and
the City to prove that Tract A of
the Park has been lawfully abandoned
and/or is no longer fit for its
intended use as a public park. "
In so doing, the state supreme
court reiterated that applicable rule
of law: " municipal property held in
a governmental capacity that is for
public use cannot be sold without
special legislative authority unless
the public use has been abandoned
or the property has become unsuited
for continued use. " In the
absence of special legislative authority,
the issue before the state supreme
court was, therefore, whether
there was evidence that " Tract A
of the Park has been lawfully abandoned
by the TPFA and the City. "
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | O CTOBER 2 0 2 1
| Parks & Recreation
31
October 2021 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of October 2021 - Parks & Recreation
