Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Airport Land Conveyance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Chickasha airport authority accepts land conveyance after citizen urges pause over trust and tribal issues

3639433 · June 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Chickasha Municipal Airport Authority voted to accept a conveyance of land from the Chickasha Industrial Authority after public comment urged the board to delay sale of airport property and consult legal and tribal stakeholders.

The Chickasha Municipal Airport Authority adopted Resolution No. 2025-11R to accept a conveyance of land from the Chickasha Industrial Authority, a transfer the authority said corrects a title issue discovered during a contract review.

The conveyance covers property described in the council packet as the east half of Section 7 and the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 7 North, Range 7 West in Grady County. Mark, speaking for the authority, told the board that while the property had been under contract for sale, a title review showed “a strip of that land … was actually owned by the Chickasha Industrial Authority and not the Chickasha Municipal Airport Authority,” and that the Industrial Authority had voted to convey the strip to the Airport Authority so the real estate contract could proceed.

The item drew public comment urging delay. Jan Preece Gattis urged the council to defer action on the conveyance and to take additional legal and procedural steps because, she said, airport property is held in public trust and “cannot be sold without specific legislative authority.” Gattis also cited State v. Ramey and urged review of titling and survey records and consultation with the Chickasaw Nation, saying the council should consider whether citizen approval is required. “I would encourage you to look at this, and also I encourage, new council members … make yourself well versed in the case McGirt versus Oklahoma,” Gattis said.

Amanda (staff) and counsel explained to the board that transfers from one public trust to another follow a different rule set than conveyances by a municipality, and that the Industrial Authority’s trust indenture allows conveyance of property. Mark reiterated that the transfer was undertaken to honor existing contractual obligations and that the Airport Authority’s trust indenture permits it to hold or dispose of property.

The authority voted to accept the conveyance by roll call (recorded as: Pebble Quayt/Heavily/Smith/Alexander/Burrows/Southern/Hatchett/Irving/Guinn/Ginn/Grayson — recorded votes appear in the official minutes). The motion carried; the board’s clerk will record the conveyance in the county records as set out in the resolution packet.

Because the transfer was from one public trust to another rather than from the municipality’s general assets, staff and counsel said the steps taken were consistent with the trust indentures; a citizen asked the board to revisit survey and title details and to consult tribal authorities before any subsequent sale to a private party proceeds.

The authority did not adopt any separate direction to pause further sale or to require a citizen vote; board members said subsequent sales or development would return to the board for approval and that the transfer at issue was a title-correcting step needed to allow an existing contract to move forward.