Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Payment Sinking Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff say payment of about $1.185 million will close appeal and allow city to take title to disputed Avalon property
Summary
City attorneys and treasury staff briefed the committee on a proposed resolution to pay roughly $1,185,000 from the sinking fund to resolve appeal costs in a case with Rockham Properties; staff described the payment as the final installment, after which title to the property would vest with the city and repayment will be levied over three years.
Tulsa finance and legal staff told the Public Works Committee that a resolution authorizing a payment of “$1,185,000 and some change” to Rockham Properties would satisfy appeal-related attorney fees and certain tax reimbursements tied to the Avalon property and close the litigation.
Chad Becker of the Tulsa Treasury said finance staff will issue payment from the city’s sinking fund, then forward paperwork to the county so the levy repayment can be placed on the property tax rolls and recovered over a three-year period. “Judgment has been approved already by the court and the mayor,” Becker said. He added that finance would proceed with payment “with council’s approval.”
Lawson Vaughn of the city legal department described the payment as the final installment: “This is the last payment on this case… We had a hearing April 15 on appeal related attorney fees and costs, and this was the result of that hearing with judge of Fortune.” Vaughn said the payment includes amounts for attorney fees and an amount to reimburse Avalon taxes back to the date when taking was determined. Vaughn said that after this payment the city will have title to the property.
Committee members expressed relief that the long-running case was closing and asked for the sinking‑fund balance. Treasury staff gave a balance figure during the meeting (transcribed as “78,900,000.0”), then another speaker said “70 8 point 9 million,” creating ambiguity in the oral exchange; the committee did not receive an additional written balance in the meeting record. Staff said the payment will be processed pending council approval of the resolution; no formal council vote was recorded by this committee at the meeting.
