City staff outlines legal path to transfer Whittier and Irving recreation centers to Norman Public Schools

City staff told the City Council Finance Committee on Jan. 16, 2025, that the city can likely transfer the Whittier and Irving recreation centers to Norman Public Schools but that the transfer raises legal and administrative issues tied to how the properties were purchased and how they have been used.

The city attorney, Rick, told the committee that Oklahoma law distinguishes property held for a “corporate use” from property held in trust for a public use and that the city may only alienate property held for public use with special legislative authority or if the public use has been abandoned or the property is unsuited for continued use. “The municipal governing body may make gifts of any real estate belonging to the municipality to any school district which is located in the municipality,” Rick said, citing Title 11 as the statutory basis often relied on in these cases.

That legal framing matters because the two recreation centers were constructed with voter-approved bond proceeds in the 1970s and the proceeds or the proceeds of any sale generally must be used for the same public purpose or deposited to the sinking fund. “If bond funds were approved, you constructed the facility with those funds, you subsequently sell the facility, you have to use those bond funds for the same purpose or you have to deposit those in the sinking fund as a rebate to the taxpayers,” Rick said.

Why it matters: transferring ownership would shift maintenance and repair responsibility to the school district and would allow the district to use its bond funds to repair or upgrade the buildings — work the district has said it wants to do but cannot fund while it does not own the structures.

Key details from the committee discussion

- Use and users: The city’s programs at the two centers have largely shifted. Jason, the staff presenter, said youth sports previously held at Whittier and Irving have moved to the WIFAC; the centers now host after-school programs and summer camps that are regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, which limits public access while camps are in session. Norman Public Schools (MPS) uses the centers for assemblies, performances, physical education and games and is the primary daytime user, staff said.

- Maintenance and costs: City staff said the city currently maintains the two buildings and that combined maintenance costs are about $50,000 a year (roughly $30,000 for janitorial staff plus an estimated $20,000 in facilities maintenance). If the district takes ownership it would assume those costs — staff described that assumption of maintenance as a form of consideration for a gift of the real estate.

- Title and record discrepancies: A council member flagged a prior land exchange involving tennis courts that apparently was not recorded with the Cleveland County abstract; as a result, county records still show the city owning some parcels that both parties believe the school district owns. Staff said that the city only owns the buildings in those locations at present and that the properties are effectively surrounded by school property, limiting alternative market buyers.

- Building condition and funding limits: Whittier requires mold remediation after a past flood; the city is remediating mold but does not plan to replace drywall. Staff said MPS holds bond funds for improvements but cannot access them until it owns the buildings. The committee recalled a similar transfer in 2020 when the city gave the Norman High gym to the district after the facility had been effectively abandoned by the city and needed a new roof; the council then treated the district’s commitment to make improvements as consideration.

- Statutory and case-law risk: Rick told the committee that Title 11 O.S. §22-125 permits municipalities to “gift real estate to any school district” located in the municipality, but he also warned there is little case law directly construing that provision and that legal risk remains. Rick cited a 2021 Oklahoma Supreme Court case about sale of parkland that held property dedicated to public use cannot be alienated without special authority unless abandoned or unsuited for continued use. He said courts sometimes require fact-specific findings, including whether a public use was truly abandoned.

What the committee decided and next steps

The committee did not take a formal vote on a transfer. Staff told the committee they will place a formal action item on an upcoming council agenda for consideration after the city and district counsel and the city attorney’s office finalize proposed documents. “Council, we will agendize an action item for your consideration in an upcoming meeting,” a staff member said.

The committee discussed practical follow-ups including clarifying county title records, documenting the maintenance and remediation responsibilities, formalizing any nominal lease or fee for continued city programs (staff mentioned a possible $1-per-year rental for one room), and negotiating which movable city-owned fixtures and plaques would transfer with the buildings or be retained for historic display.

The city attorney advised the committee the council has two likely legal paths: (1) rely on the Title 11 provision to gift the property to the school district, accepting a modest legal risk because case law is sparse, or (2) show that the city has effectively abandoned the recreation use of those buildings, a fact-intensive route that courts may require a jury to decide in disputed cases. Staff will return with an action item and proposed documents for council consideration.

Ending: The committee scheduled the matter to return as an agenda item for a future council meeting after review by city and district legal counsel; no transfer will occur until the council votes on a formal measure and any title or bond-fund questions are resolved.