Opinion ID: 1292155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: tccja's authority to contract

Text: ¶ 20 Also at issue is whether the TCCJA exceeded its authority as a public trust by entering into a contract with CCA. Title 60 allows public trusts to be established for the furtherance and accomplishment of any authorized and proper public function or purpose. . . . [28] It is well settled that [a] valid trust in property, with a governmental entity as beneficiary, may be created for the furtherance. . . of any public function which the governmental entity might be authorized by law to perform. [29] ¶ 21 We have held that a valid public trust could operate a public parking facility, which amounted to the operation of a business for public purposes, even though only the State held the constitutional power to engage in an occupation or business for public purposes. [30] Similarly a valid public trust with a county as beneficiary may exercise rights granted specifically to the county. Since we have already determined that the TCCJA is a valid public trust, the TCCJA may lawfully exercise the powers of its beneficiary in order to accomplish the purpose of the trust. ¶ 22 The plaintiffs argue that the TCCJA, by contracting CCA for the operation of the jail, has exceed its authority under the sales tax proposition which was adopted by a vote of the Tulsa County taxpayers. The TCCJA was created not by the sales tax measure, but by the Tulsa County Commissioners. The TCCJA's authority is thus governed, not by the sales tax measure, but by the authority granted by the Tulsa County Commissioners, part of which was to provide for the operation of the new jail. [31] Thus, the contract with the CCA was not outside the TCCJA's authority.