I will guess between 33 to 39 million, my two cents of course. This might make it difficult to compete with some of the larger cities with what is left over. It can be done in two phases just as Phoenix, with success.

...Any land swap is still a cost that should be billed to the convention center project.
Disagree with this statement. If the City instead built on land it already had in its possession should the fair market value of said land be deducted from the budget? Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty sure the original build of the arena (COTPA-owned), the downtown library (OCURA-owned), ballpark (partially COTPA-owned land), Fairgrounds projects, etc. didn't get this treatment. Are you suggesting the CC should be penalized in way that other projects have not been?

In the scenarios you mention, the City already owned the land and when those projects were put forth everybody understood the City land would be a part of the projects. It wasn't included in the budget because there was nothing to buy; no further related expense.

Swapping another parcel that has market value (which is why the prospective owners would want to trade for it) means that value should be deducted from the convention center, as it's value is already on the books elsewhere.

If one account is debited, another must be credited. Basic double-entry accounting.

I agree about accounts being properly debited/credited, but again disagree that this need involve relieving the CC budget of cash insofar as none changes hands. What you are suggesting would create no benefit to the City to gain from doing a land swap vs. buying outright; we'd might as well just pay fair market value for the dealership site and stay in the real estate holdings business on whichever other piece of property is in the discussion.

And by the way in the projects I mentioned it was NOT universally assumed that all of them would land on City-owned property. In the cases of the arena, the ballpark and the library ALL of the locations were very fluid. The library could have ended up on privately-owned property; the ballpark DID in part do so.

It's not about cash, it's about assets.

Whether it's a check, future tax abatement, bonds, free utilities or anything else of value the City has to offer it still counts exactly the same and has to be accounted for.

I just learned yesterday that the City Attorney has given the legal opinion that any land swap for the convention center would not be charged back to it's budget.

So clearly, this is the strategy to get around the big price gap that seems to exist in their budget vs. what will have to paid for the land and site prep.

I just learned yesterday that the City Attorney has given the legal opinion that any land swap for the convention center would not be charged back to it's budget.

So clearly, this is the strategy to get around the big price gap that seems to exist in their budget vs. what will have to paid for the land and site prep.

Definitely a back door subsidy of the Convention Center. Undeniable.

Do we know what land is being swapped? As for this concept in general, I don't have a problem with it so long as the values are close to each other, and I am okay not counting it towards the CC budget (unless the land being exchanged has some environmental issues that the City will be on the hook for in the future). In the end this might end up being a good deal if the Hall group has an interest in still going forward with their initial desires for the CC site.

I'm sure the Cox Center site is one that is being considered.

I'm sure the Cox Center site is one that is being considered.

This swapping also keeps the comps. down for surrounding land.:Smiley122

The next arena needs to be final 4/all star game capable IMO. By that time the city should have enough hotels built to handle that I assume with the way they are popping up. Build it they will come as they say.

The next arena needs to be final 4/all star game capable IMO. By that time the city should have enough hotels built to handle that I assume with the way they are popping up. Build it they will come as they say.

Whoa... How may rooms do you think are going to be added?

And whatever that number is, how many do you think are going to be of All Star game standards?

And, really, our arena is perfectly capable of hosting the All Star events right now. If the Thomas and Mack center can handle it, Chesapeake certainly can. It's not the arena, but city infrastructure that is the issue for OKC.

As for the Final Four, that's pretty much held in stadiums now, not arenas.

I'm sure the Cox Center site is one that is being considered.

I would bet on land ajacent to the park.


The next arena needs to be final 4/all star game capable IMO. By that time the city should have enough hotels built to handle that I assume with the way they are popping up. Build it they will come as they say.

Final 4s won't ever be in basketball arenas again. They are now only in football stadiums

I would go for land along the park but I would have to draw the line at giving the Cox land in exchange.

Do we know what land is being swapped? As for this concept in general, I don't have a problem with it so long as the values are close to each other, and I am okay not counting it towards the CC budget (unless the land being exchanged has some environmental issues that the City will be on the hook for in the future). In the end this might end up being a good deal if the Hall group has an interest in still going forward with their initial desires for the CC site.
Completely agree. Forget about the Cox Center location for a moment; if the location of the CC were instead moved to say, City-owned land on the river, land costs should not be charged against the project, but if the same land were swapped for an equal value portion of the selected site it should be? That's just ridiculous.

If we can utilize an existing, City-owned land asset to get more bang for our buck that's just good business. We've done it with many, many projects in the past. The City Attorney made the correct call.

If we can utilize an existing, City-owned land asset to get more bang for our buck that's just good business. We've done it with many, many projects in the past. The City Attorney made the correct call.

Yep, as long as the values are a wash what's the difference? Besides, what if the streetcar wanted to swap some land for the trolley barn? Should that be counted against the streetcar budget?

I would think swapping convention center land for convention center land would be a fair swap. Like for like.

Completely agree. Forget about the Cox Center location for a moment; if the location of the CC were instead moved to say, City-owned land on the river, land costs should not be charged against the project, but if the same land were swapped for an equal value portion of the selected site it should be? That's just ridiculous.

If we can utilize an existing, City-owned land asset to get more bang for our buck that's just good business. We've done it with many, many projects in the past. The City Attorney made the correct call.

Just to be clear, the city attorney only renders decisions on legal questions, not those pertaining to budgeting or accounting.


And we would not be getting "more bang for our buck". We will be trading something of equal value.

Yep, as long as the values are a wash what's the difference? Besides, what if the streetcar wanted to swap some land for the trolley barn? Should that be counted against the streetcar budget?

The difference is that the land that will be traded has a value and if it is merely shifted to the convention center, that is value we no longer have elsewhere.

The difference is that the land that will be traded has a value and if it is merely shifted to the convention center, that is value we no longer have elsewhere.

I get that, but we will still own the land the new convention center is on, so back to the accounting issue - there will be a debit for the land going away, and an equal credit for the land we are acquiring. If we are going to bill the CC budget for the land we are losing then we would have to credit the CC budget for the land we are gaining.

I get that, but we will still own the land the new convention center is on, so back to the accounting issue - there will be a debit for the land going away, and an equal credit for the land we are acquiring. If we are going to bill the CC budget for the land we are losing then we would have to credit the CC budget for the land we are gaining.

Yes, but we will no longer own the land we traded!

We would have owned the cc land anyway.


You guys are getting confused because an asset is being traded other than cash. But they have the same exact value.

Whatever the value of the land we are trading represents an increase in the investment in the cc.

That is, unless they plan not to spend the $17 million allocated for site acquisition and prep. And I seriously doubt that is the case.

Yes, but we will no longer own the land we traded!

We would have owned the cc land anyway.


You guys are getting confused because an asset is being traded other than cash. But they have the same exact value.

Whatever the value of the land we are trading represents an increase in the investment in the cc.

That is, unless they plan not to spend the $17 million allocated for site acquisition and prep. And I seriously doubt that is the case.

That is just it though - we won't own the cc land anyway. We can't afford it. To afford it we will have to pay the $17 million allocated in MAPS and trade land for the rest. Let's just say for fun that of the land the convention center is going on the city already owned 25% of it and we had to acquire the other 75%. Are you saying that the CC budget should be charged for the 25% the city already owns because the City lost the value of that land?

That is just it though - we won't own the cc land anyway. We can't afford it. To afford it we will have to pay the $17 million allocated in MAPS and trade land for the rest. Let's just say for fun that of the land the convention center is going on the city already owned 25% of it and we had to acquire the other 75%. Are you saying that the CC budget should be charged for the 25% the city already owns because the City lost the value of that land?

But the the cc isn't going on public land which is why they were budgeted $17 million dollars. Public land was never part of the plan either initially or at any phase of this project.

Now, they want to buy land that is outside the budget and they've already used their contingency and shifted $30 more for a bigger facility than planned. In fact, they advocated for moving that $30 million for expansion seemingly in full knowledge they would not have enough money for land purchase.


Whether land is traded or not, it's still city ASSETS (cash, land, buildings, etc., etc.) that are planning to be spent over and above the budgeted amount.

I thought the east Park location was public land.

I thought the east Park location was public land.

Not owned by the City.

^^^^^^^

JTF gets what I am driving at, and we are NOT "confused." As it stands that site is likely to exceed site acquisition budget. If it does, and that excess reduces the total budget, we will certainly be LESS bang for our buck. If, however, we are able to utilize existing assets to keep site acquisition costs down, it might increase the budget on paper but will NOT require additional money from the MAPS budget? Why does the City own land, anyway? It's not to be in the real estate business. It is in many cases owned to facilitate anticipated public facilities and infrastructure.

Whoa... How may rooms do you think are going to be added?

And whatever that number is, how many do you think are going to be of All Star game standards?

And, really, our area is perfectly capable of hosting the All Star events right now. If the Thomas and Mack center can handle it, Chesapeake certainly can. It's not the arena, but city infrastructure that is the issue for OKC.

As for the Final Four, that's pretty much held in stadiums now, not arenas.

Last information on hosting:

NBA All Star Game Classic: 5,000 hotel rooms:


5,000 hotel rooms in the proximity of the arena to host the NBA All Star Game.

Oklahoma City may be better situated to host an NBA All Star Game than Sacramento:


“At the end of the day, we need to accommodate all our guests,” he said.

There are 1,300 hotel rooms in the central city, plus another 2,000 rooms within three miles, according to the Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Sacramento putting together bid for 2019 NBA All-Star Game | The Sacramento Bee The Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article10097948.html)

Next bids will be for 2020 on All Star Game/Weekend Classic. Oklahoma City will be ready to submit bids for NBA All Star Classic after 2020...

College Final Four:

We would definitely need a 60,000 seat dome and a ton of hotel rooms; probably in excess of 10,000 minimum hotel rooms in the area near the venue. Our OKC metro current hotel room count is around 23,000.


When evaluating prospective hosts, the committee will review each city’s competition venue, transportation and lodging, and the region’s overall commitment to the event. Venues must hold a minimum of 60,000 fans, and host cities or regions must be able to provide at least 10,000 full-service hotel rooms within reasonable proximity to the competition venue.

Men's Final Four bid process under way | NCAA.com (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2013-09-19/mens-final-four-bid-process-under-way)

Why not build it on land we already own? Didn't we give the land selected more value by selecting it for the convention center? Why not just build it on the southern half of the ClayCo site next to the Myraid Gardens and let the private land owners figure out what to do with their land. This would also shut ClayCo out from TIFF money, which I would be fine with under this situation.

I guess for me it comes down to a basic question - should MAPS projects pay for the land they are built on if that land is owned by the city? Did the canal budget compensate the city for California Street?

^^^^^^^

JTF gets what I am driving at, and we are NOT "confused." As it stands that site is likely to exceed site acquisition budget. If it does, and that excess reduces the total budget, we will certainly be LESS bang for our buck. If, however, we are able to utilize existing assets to keep site acquisition costs down, it might increase the budget on paper but will NOT require additional money from the MAPS budget? Why does the City own land, anyway? It's not to be in the real estate business. It is in many cases owned to facilitate anticipated public facilities and infrastructure.

Utilizing existing assets in no way "keeps costs down".

You are basically spending assets, whether it's cash, land or otherwise. It's the exact same cost no matter.

Utilizing existing assets in no way "keeps costs down".

You are basically spending assets, whether it's cash, land or otherwise. It's the exact same cost no matter.

So use that same logic and switch gears to the streetcar. How much should the City charge the Streetcar budget for using existing assets? How much is 4 miles of ROW worth?

So use that same logic and switch gears to the streetcar. How much should the City charge the Streetcar budget for using existing assets? How much is 4 miles of ROW worth?

We are talking about spending/liquidating assets which doesn't apply to that scenario.

I find this argument very interesting. I can honestly see both sides here.

Please continue...
:Smiley171:

Let's put this in very simple terms...

If you owned a house that was worth $100,000 and wanted to trade it for one that costs $300,000, how much more would you owe the seller? $200,000 of course.

So you can either pay him $300,000 in cash or your house + $200,000. Either way, the cost is the same to you, although perhaps an easier transaction.

And either way, you still have $300,000 invested in your new house.

Let's put this in very simple terms...

If you owned a house that was worth $100,000 and wanted to trade it for one that costs $300,000, how much more would you owe the seller? $200,000 of course.

So you can either pay him $300,000 in cash or your house + $200,000. Either way, the cost is the same to you, although perhaps an easier transaction.

And either way, you still have $300,000 invested in your new house.

Right - but only $200,000 came out of my budget for a new home. Let me add, I totally get what you are saying and see your point of view but as long as we are trading apples for apples (land for land) I don't have an issue with it. Now if the CC guys came back and said hey - lets trade the existing Cox center then that is not an apples for apples trade.

Utilizing existing assets in no way "keeps costs down".

You are basically spending assets, whether it's cash, land or otherwise. It's the exact same cost no matter.
I agree with you. But crux of this argument is that by your own admission you would have no problem building on City -owned land and NOT charging the value of that land to the project (this still "spends" an asset), BUT you feel if the same land were used in a swap it SHOULD be charged charged against. I'm sorry; that makes no sense. None.

If you at least want to be consistent, say that when the arena was built we should have washed $5 million or whatever the land was worth at the time out of the MAPS budget and into the general fund via OCPPA or whichever trust owned the old bus terminal.

Right - but only $200,000 came out of my budget for a new home.

Cost = budget = expense.

Who cares about budgets, especially those presented to and approved by the voters? Besides Pete, I mean. When we put construction out for bid, they could put it in the bid documents the low bidder gets a city owned building in exchange for the one they build. That would get us even more bang for our buck.

I think we agree that the CC committee can't sell off city assets to raise money for the CC, but I just don't see that being the case here because we are getting equal value for the same commodity. We aren't selling City Hall to get an extra $50 million for the CC budget because that would result in us not having a City Hall (insert joke here that City Hall has already been sold and thus isn't the City's to sell now). We are taking land already owned by the city and trading it for land the that will then be owned by the city. It just so happens that the CC will then be built on that same land.

It's fine to be sanctimonious, but what is the point of the City owning land if it is not to be used for public projects?

It's fine to be sanctimonious, but what is the point of the City owning land if it is not to be used for public projects?

The huge majority of the land acquired by the City is not for public projects.

You're probably right; public USE probably would have been a more appropriate term. The only point of the City owning land should be that it some way it ultimately benefits the community. Public projects fit that definition. As far as I'm concerned - though there is surely legalese that will confirm/deny, and appears to be according to the City attorney's opinion - MAPS is a construction budget. If utilizing City-owned land makes it easier to deliver the intended project within that budget, such use is a good thing.

If one day we have to replace Chesapeake arena and repurposing the scoreboard helps them save millions that would have been otherwise spent on a new one, thus allowing other parts of the project to stay off of the chopping block, I'm all for it. Sorry, but it really IS as simple as that.

For the record, when I said "sanctimonious" I didn't mean Pete.

I guess for me it comes down to a basic question - should MAPS projects pay for the land they are built on if that land is owned by the city?

That's a solid question.

Agree. 20 million plus the Cox Center( worth about 25 million ) equals 45 million for the vacant land.

How about we pay 25 million for the land the city convention center and hotel will be build on and let the Hall/Howard group keep the land (between Hudson and Walker) that we won't use. It will be worth 3 times what it's worth after everything is built.

That land has been identified for future expansion of the CC. Doing that would guarantee having to start from scratch the next time we need more convention space.

If you were managing a project with a budget and went to your boss and said, "I'd like to use company assets in trade on my project and don't want that to count against my budget", what answer do you think you'd get?

I can tell you because I was a CFO who not only managed large projects but also was responsible for all the books for a large corporation. No flipping way.

Those assets have value and come from somewhere, just like cash. There is absolutely zero difference when it comes to budgeting and accounting.

Trust me.

So, again, why the double-standard from you regarding building on a site that the City already owns, vs. trading land? Again, Pete, it's a double standard that doesn't pass the sniff test.

So, again, why the double-standard from you regarding building on a site that the City already owns, vs. trading land? Again, Pete, it's a double standard that doesn't pass the sniff test.

Because that's the way the budgets were set up and the deal that was agreed to ahead of time, before the public voted, there were subcommittees, etc.

And, there is was/is no property changing hands in those situations. The City still owns it.

If you are referring to previous MAPS projects that's not the way it happened, at all. The ballpark and library very specifically did not end up anywhere near where they were originally envisioned.

The better question is why don't we use City assets to fund all sorts of projects that go over budget (or that would like to)?

Why not sell land to fund the shortfalls in Project 180, or to allow the Whitewater facility to be built to original specs along with the river grandstand?

Virtually ever MAPS project was over budget and had to be scaled back in some way.

Now the convention center comes along, has already been given a big increase/expansion before we've even acquired the property or have a final design (let alone construction bids) and we are already supplementing millions more through the transfer of property??


So, why is the convention center being treated this way when no other MAPS project has been?

It was one of the lowest priorities as determined by voters.

Plus, there was no allowance for parking (they now want to fund that through TIF tax dollars) or the hotel (which will require some undetermined number of tens of millions).


The City owns hundreds of millions in land. Why not trade (which is just another word for sell) that to fund all these other projects or education or tons of other things?

By the way, liquidating an underutilized asset to pay or free up budget for a new asset happens in business every single day.

If you are referring to previous MAPS projects that's not the way it happened, at all. The ballpark and library very specifically did not end up anywhere near where they were originally envisioned.

But they were still paid for by MAPS (i.e. $.01 sales tax) funds.

By the way, liquidating an underutilized asset to pay or free up budget for a new asset happens in business every single day.

We're talking about a voter approved project with very specific parameters, not the general operating fund of the City which is where these assets already reside.

If we put it on land the city already owns, would anybody care?

The better question is why don't we use City assets to fund all sorts of projects that go over budget (or that would like to)?

Why not sell land to fund the shortfalls in Project 180, or to allow the Whitewater facility to be built to original specs along with the river grandstand?


But that is not what is happening here. The city is taking an asset and trading it for the exact same asset in a different location. We aren't selling land and then taking the proceeds to build 50,000 more sq. feet (although that might be okay with me as well). The City will essentially own the same value of land before and after the transaction. If you want to look at it from a corporate point of view look at it like currency exchanges. Company X exchanges euros (which they don't/can't use) for dollars (they can/want to use). The value is the same.

What if the City wanted to kick in some funds for an additional mile of streetcar lines and it is going to sell some park-front land to do it? Are we saying that the streetcar can only be funded with MAPS III money now? The 'budget' is for the project's share of the MAPS III money, not additional funds from the City. Let's say the land swap is $20 million and that gets charged against the CC budget - that would generate a $20 million surplus in MAPS III funding when the tax collections didn't change at all.

Let's say the land swap is $20 million and that gets charged against the CC budget - that would generate a $20 million surplus in MAPS III funding when the tax collections didn't change at all.

Only if the convention center is not planning to spend all of it's budget, and I am very sure that isn't the case.

They are going to spend their budget, plus the $30 million extra that was just allocated, plus contingency, PLUS more City assets in the form of land. And this is before we even have a design, let alone construction bids.

That was not the deal struck with voters and the reason there is a budget -- and subcommittees and all types of oversight -- in the first place.

But they were still paid for by MAPS (i.e. $.01 sales tax) funds.
But not the property on which they were built..?