The justices sent the case back to Tulsa County District Court to address two material facts that remain disputed: whether the park was lawfully abandoned by the city and Tulsa Public Facilities Authority; and whether public dollars to have been paid to the developer meet the public purpose requirement under the Oklahoma Constitution.

The district court’s ruling on those findings of facts will determine whether the case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs or the defendants and would be subject to appeal by the parties.

Former District Judge Jefferson Sellers in 2018 granted a request by the city and TCPA for a summary judgment in the case. The ruling was appealed by the plaintiffs in the case, Craig Immel, Herb Beattie, Ray Pearcey and former Tulsa Mayor Terry Young.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Greg Bledsoe, said he was pleased with the ruling and heartened that it would protect city parkland.

“This case will set a precedent for other cities that want to do this kind of thing,” Bledsoe said.

Young called it a vindication of everything he and his fellow plaintiffs have been arguing all along.

“If you read through it, it is as if we had written the opinion, based upon the briefs that we filed,” Young said. “It cites the same cases, it cites the same precedents, it cites the same rationale. I don’t know how the city of Tulsa is going to be able to go forward.”

The city of Tulsa said Tuesday that it does not comment on pending litigation.

In their November 2017 request for declaratory judgment, plaintiffs asked the district court to find that TPFA and the city: cannot sell parkland because it is held in a public trust “expressly as a park for the people;” that tax funds would be misappropriated if the sale of park land occurred; and that the sale price and other considerations were so minimal, “that it would result in an unconstitutional gift” to the private developer.

The plaintiffs also argued that the park was never actually abandoned by the city.

The city and TPFA have argued that the city does have the authority to sell the park land and that they had already given the plaintiffs what they had requested in earlier petitions to the court.

Although the City Council had voted to abandon the park property, finding it was no longer needed for public purposes, the plaintiffs argued that it was not enough to simply declare that it was no longer needed for public purposes, the city had to show proof.

The property at the time was home to often-used volleyball courts.

“The burden is on the TPFA and the City to prove that Tract A (the development site) of the Park or the entire park has been lawfully abandoned and/or is no longer fit for its intended use as a public park,” the Supreme Court’s ruling states.

The question of whether public dollars spent by a city meet the public purpose requirement under the Oklahoma Constitution can be a complicated one, especially when the purported public good created by the project pertains to economic development.

The plaintiffs in the Helmerich Park lawsuit argue in part that the city sold the property for 20% of its actual market value and that the approximately $500,000 the city committed to the developer for infrastructure violated the public purpose requirements under the state constitution.

The city and TPFA argue that the project would benefit the city through increased sales tax revenue and employment.

Tulsa Public Facilities Authority agreed in 2015 to sell the 8.8-acre property to UCR Development of Dallas for $1.465 million.

The agreement includes a stipulation that the anchor tenant specialize “in the sale of high-end sporting goods and outdoor merchandise.”

That anchor tenant was later identified as REI. Recreational Equipment Inc. is a nationwide sporting goods and outdoor merchandise company with more than 140 stores, including one in Oklahoma City.

The other structures included in the original development plans are a 12,000-square-foot retail/restaurant space, a restaurant with a 6,000-square-foot patio facing the Arkansas River and a 7,000-square-foot restaurant and retail space at the north end of the property.

The proposed development site is on the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and 71st Street. Helmerich Park is approximately 67 acres.

Don Bouvier, president and co-founder of UCR Development, said he has no intention of giving up on the project.

“Many people have worked extremely hard on this project and we received tons of community encouragement to not give up,” Bouvier said. “We remain optimistic.”

Bouvier also indicated that REI could still be part of the development, a contention the plaintiffs in the lawsuit don’t agree with based on their reading of UCR’s agreement with TPFA.

“REI will make a positive impact on this surrounding area and will be of great benefit to the city for a number of reasons,” Bouvier said.

Video: Meet adoptable dogs and cats looking for love in Tulsa.