The Omni Hotel will be renting the spaces at market value so it's not like a freebie.

Oh dear god, no. Know what I really hate? Going to a hotel, paying too much for a room as it is, and then get told parking is an additional $22. Daily.

"But you get unlimited in/out privileges!"

I hope we're early enough in the process to avoid that nonsense.

Oh dear god, no. Know what I really hate? Going to a hotel, paying too much for a room as it is, and then get told parking is an additional $22. Daily.

"But you get unlimited in/out privileges!"

I hope we're early enough in the process to avoid that nonsense.

A lot of hotels are like this, especially in urban areas. And with the development around the Omni, it will be very busy. I know that even the Renaissance Hotel in Richardson, Tx. charges $20+ a night for parking. So this is nothing new.

I paid (and didn't like it) $40 a night in San Fran and $40 a night in Honolulu. I only wished it would have been 20.

Didn't say it was new, said I hated it and I hope we can avoid it. Although most likely we can't/won't.

I wouldn't expect it to be free to anyone. This does make me wonder if revenue from the parking garage is going to Omni or OKC? OKC is building it and owns it right?

Uber.

I wouldn't expect it to be free to anyone. This does make me wonder if revenue from the parking garage is going to Omni or OKC? OKC is building it and owns it right?

Both. The way I read it was that Omni will lease a certain number of spaces. So OKC is getting the revenue. What I have seen happen in other cities and what I hope I don't see happen here (but probably will) is Omni will then charge people who stay there a fee, structured in such a way to where Omni also gets revenue. The potential fly in the ointment is if Omni is only leasing some of the spaces, then they won't really be able to charge $22/night if the city is charging less than that, because people would obviously just go park in the city's section, until that section is full and they're forced to use Omni's. Another limiting factor is this wouldn't be the only place to park, especially if people are willing to walk more than a couple hundred feet, and for people flying in, there's taxis, ride shares, and airport shuttles. Every hotel I've been to that charged insane rates for parking did so because they were more like Tulsa than OKC. They could charge premium rates for parking because parking was at a premium. While the garage would obviously be a good thing, it wouldn't be the only game in town, or even within the block.

They way they can charge more is in an out privileges and valet parking. Sheraton charges $25 for valet parking and $10 for self park with 2 in and out privileges. They used to do a $20 self park with unlimited in and out, and it could be billed to your hotel room. If you plan on getting out a few times during your stay, it's worth it, vs paying $5-10 each time you come and go at one of the other lots.

And this isn't that unusual for downtown hotels.

What is the commitment to blocks of rooms to the City? I am asking because I don't know. The presentation to Council on Tuesday was one and a half hours long; there was no mention of it. Seems like if that was what we were getting for our $150 million ($85 +$50interest+$10 parking garage + land for parking garage) it would have been mentioned in the presentation. I am sure there is a comittment, just not sure it is as robust as you seem to assume.

They talked about it briefly at the presentation. The room block agreement is between Omni the CVB (convention visitors bureau) and SMG (who okc hired to run the new convention center).

They didn't get into the specifics

I really wish they could revise this plan and go with 750 rooms instead of 600. The study recommended over 700 to compete for the larger conventions so why not do it right the first time? Invest a little more now to gain a lot more $$$ later. Rising tides lift all boats and downtown area businesses will be profiting from the larger conventions coming in. Lets get it right! In this case bigger is better IMO.

I'm a little confused by this as well. The study did recommend more than 700 rooms - why are they only getting 600 rooms with this hotel?

I'm a little confused by this as well. The study did recommend more than 700 rooms - why are they only getting 600 rooms with this hotel?

The Fairfield Inn right next door I believe is being included in room totals near the CC.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but part of the point of the subsidy is that so the city has buy in and rights to the blocks of rooms for conventions. We aren't subsidizing a hotel just to get one built, we are subsidizing a hotel that the city and convention center has an active, symbiotic relationship with. There's more to this than just wanting a big attached hotel.
You are absolutely correct, and summed up most of what I have been saying here, except your post was delightfully brief and to the point. :)

The Fairfield Inn right next door I believe is being included in room totals near the CC.

IIRC the Fairfield Inn & Suites - Marriott (133 rooms)


...He cleared the site and completed designs that won accolades from the Downtown Design Review Committee.--December 2016.


Oklahoman: http://newsok.com/article/5530956

Should this thread be renamed Omni Hotel?

https://res.cloudinary.com/simpleview/image/fetch/c_fill,f_auto,h_197,q_75,w_630/http://res.cloudinary.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1477515692/clients/oklahoma/convention_60b46e22-e8e2-4d06-8d74-8d746cf180a3.gif

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cchotelwiki1.jpg http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/fairfieldwiki1.jpg
Downtown Hotel Summary: http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=34292&p=659682#post659682

Total of 733 rooms available for the Oklahoma City convention center complex.

http://newsok.com/questions-and-answers-about-oklahoma-citys-convention-center-hotel/article/5557288

So when should we start to see construction on the site?

Shouldn't we be seeing final renderings & proposal for the hotel soon?

typical, the 'conceptual' renderings ARE the final.

I believe the only change will be adding or deleting the skywalk, depending on which rendering your looking at.

The convention center has submitted the final design to design review and have put out the entire project to bid but the hotel has done neither as of yet.

I know the city is still trying to come up with the money for the required parking garage.

So based on the discussion with Omni on the Downtown Year in Review panel. They should be releasing final designs of the hotel later this month. But it was noted that the height of the hotel got smaller from 19 to 17 stories...smh so much for skyline changer.

http://m.newsok.com/local-leaders-overview-of-coming-projects-excites-crowd/article/5574672?rotator=true

Its been 17 stories for awhile. Every proposal I've seen was always a midrise Vegas height tower at best.

I was hoping they would alter the design to look more like Louisville's. After seeing it in person Im glad we're getting a hotel closer to the Nashville design. It might not be as tall but the glass tends to make it pop more from a distance.

What did Louisville offer that they got a 30 story OMNI and OKC gets a 17 story OMNI?

What did Louisville offer that they got a 30 story OMNI and OKC gets a 17 story OMNI?

The Louisville Omni has a 225 luxury apartment addition & the city is paying for 48% of the hotel cost at $139 million.

https://www.omnihotels.com/blog/omni-hotels-breaks-ground-in-louisville/

The Louisville Omni has a 225 luxury apartment addition & the city is paying for 48% of the hotel cost at $139 million.

https://www.omnihotels.com/blog/omni-hotels-breaks-ground-in-louisville/

That explains it, lol. Thank you for that link G.

Reminder that OKC is spending $135 million on our Omni.

$50 million of that is interest, but we are still spending it directly on this project.

Plus $40 million+ for a required parking garage and probably more for a skywalk.

I will reserve my opinion on the height after I see the final designs. 17 stories can look really nice & effective if designed right. If it turns out just to be a glass box...well...

Reminder that OKC is spending $135 million on our Omni.

$50 million of that is interest, but we are still spending it directly on this project.

Plus $40 million+ for a required parking garage and probably more for a skywalk.

Have other cities had this absurd amount of interest involved in their convention hotel projects or are we unique in this respect?

Have other cities had this absurd amount of interest involved in their convention hotel projects or are we unique in this respect?

Not sure but a big part of our deal with Omni is they wanted all their money up front, so we have to borrow it then pay back the loan over time.

Also not sure if they require a city to provide parking and a skywalk.

Sounds like we better get some guarantees on this deal then, including some funding payback if all the terms aren't met.

That's the kind of thing that i hate and would rather Amazon not look at us because you know the city would give the world away for it. It's become so common as part of negotiations and we lose out so much of the time.

Regarding the height: Remember where this stands downtown. It's location will help it feel taller than it really is.

Pete, you are now assigning the full value of the parking garage to the Omni..? You have also previously hung it around the neck of the convention center itself I think? Which is it? If the full price of the garage is a direct cost of the convention center it can't also be a direct cost of the hotel, and effectively be counted twice for the sake of argument. I understand of course that the hotel itself is driven by the existence of the convention center, but it seems like the cost assignments are freely transferred from one project to the other to suit the argument being made. We're only paying once for the garage, not twice.

If the garage is indeed assigned to the convention center itself, that difference alone means the Louisville hotel is far from an apples-to-apples expense comparison, as you seem to be making it out to be by your post. If it is a cost of the hotel than the convention center is suddenly way less expensive than has been represented at times.

Also, for what it is worth the hotel is only using a portion of the garage and they are renting the spaces at market rate. The balance of the spaces are public parking. You could just as easily assign the cost of the garage to Scissortail Park, though I certainly am not making a case for doing so.

^

I've been lumping all the public costs of the hotel into the convention center project.

^^^^^^^^
OK then, you can't say that the hotel is a $135 million expense to taxpayers.

Here is the running total for the convention center (in millions), and there is also the cost to relocate Broadway and other infrastructure that is not figured in. Also, the project has yet to even be bid, much less constructed:

Convention Center $252.0
Contingency moved to CC $36.0
Parking garage $26.00
Parking garage land (OG&E) $14.00
Hotel public cost $85.0
Interest on $85MM $50.0
TIF for land acquisition $10.0
Land swap with OG&E $10.0
Add Alternates $9.0

Total $492.0

^^^^^^^^
OK then, you can't say that the hotel is a $135 million expense to taxpayers.

??

Here is the running total for the convention center (in millions), and there is also the cost to relocate Broadway and other infrastructure that is not figured in. Also, the project has yet to even be bid, much less constructed:

Convention Center $252.0
Contingency moved to CC $36.0
Parking garage $26.00
Parking garage land (OG&E) $14.00
Hotel public cost $85.0
Interest on $85MM $50.0
TIF for land acquisition $10.0
Land swap with OG&E $10.0
Add Alternates $9.0

Total $492.0

Isn't this thread about the convention hotel? And in the exchanges where people were asking about how the Louisville hotel compared to the OKC hotel did you not jump into the conversation to say that the total taxpayer commitment to the hotel was $135 million, including $40 million for the garage? As a comparison to the Louisville hotel with a reported $139 million in taxpayer subsidy? Seems clear from this end that you were suggesting Louisville was getting way more hotel for a mere $4 million difference. At least that's how I read it.

Now I see that same $40 million reflected in the cost of the convention center itself, bring the cost (your numbers) to the total you suggest. My point is that you can't say that the cost of the hotel is $135 million if you are already counting this money into your convention center total. If you want to make the case that all of this is driven by convention center itself, well, fine. But you can't swap the money over to the other project just for the sake of fortifying a separate argument.

Merely saying that the public money spent on the hotel is a subset of the total cost of the convention center itself.

By the way, in your numbers above you say "hotel public cost $85 million." Therefore, as it relates to the point being made regarding differences between our Omni and the Louisville Omni, the dollars comparison would seem to be:

Louisville Omni public participation: $139 million
OKC Omni public participation: $85 million (your number)

Of course, this is also a gross oversimplification of the differences between the respective structures of both cities' public participation, but at least it's a more fair way to represent things for the sake of comparison.

Merely saying that the public money spent on the hotel is a subset of the total cost of the convention center itself.

That is a defensible way to put it.

By the way, in your numbers above you say "hotel public cost $85 million." Therefore, as it relates to the point being made regarding differences between our Omni and the Louisville Omni, the dollars comparison would seem to be:

Louisville Omni public participation: $139 million
OKC Omni public participation: $85 million (your number)

Of course, this is also a gross oversimplification of the differences between the respective structures of both cities' public participation, but at least it's a more fair way to represent things for the sake of comparison.

You could also easily argue that OKC is spending $135 million and then compare what the two cities are getting for similar costs in return.

^^^^^^^
We're back to square one I see.

^^^^^^^
We're back to square one I see.

I'm not clear on what your issue is here...

Are you saying the $50 million of public money spent on interest shouldn't be included for some reason?

I'm not clear on what your issue is here...

Are you saying the $50 million of public money spent on interest shouldn't be included for some reason?

Not to speak for Urbanized, but is Louisville's interest on debt included in those figures?

The point is to make our deal look as bad as possible, not to fairly compare what we are doing vs. what other cities are doing to help their convention business, including assisting in hotel deals, or outright building them.

We talk about how we want everything to be world-class, but then we rally the troops and try to convince them how corrupt our system is when we do try to get good projects done. There is no way in hades OKC was getting a luxury full class hotel downtown either with or without an new CC (certainly not without) without providing some subsidies. We will gripe whether it is $150 million, $50 million, or $5 million. It's what we do here. We always talk a good game amongst ourselves on these types of boards, but then we do all we can to demonize anything that we actually CAN get done.

We talk about how we want everything to be world-class, but then we rally the troops and try to convince them how corrupt our system is when we do try to get good projects done.

How is paying $50 million in interest helping to make anything world-class? It seems this is the opposite... Throwing a ton of money away because we did not properly plan.

If this has been included in MAPS 3 as it should of been given how everyone involved absolutely insists it is needed to make the CC a success, then it could have been budgeted and planned for and the interest charge avoided altogether and this money could have been put towards something of benefit to the community, rather than just paying a lender.

The point is to make our deal look as bad as possible, not to fairly compare what we are doing vs. what other cities are doing to help their convention business, including assisting in hotel deals, or outright building them.

We talk about how we want everything to be world-class, but then we rally the troops and try to convince them how corrupt our system is when we do try to get good projects done. There is no way in hades OKC was getting a luxury full class hotel downtown either with or without an new CC (certainly not without) without providing some subsidies. We will gripe whether it is $150 million, $50 million, or $5 million. It's what we do here. We always talk a good game amongst ourselves on these types of boards, but then we do all we can to demonize anything that we actually CAN get done.

I don't think that's fair. Not that Pete needs defending, but I think his intent is always honest and above board. I agree there can be some demonizing of the city and the local media, and I've disagreed with some of those sentiments. But I do agree that information hasn't been forthright and that there has been some "manipulation" of the numbers as they get put out to the public. Additionally, as much as I dislike Shadid, I find myself more and more agreeing with him on his stance on the MAPs projects, and how they were sold to the public.

How is paying $50 million in interest helping to make anything world-class? It seems this is the opposite... Throwing a ton of money away because we did not properly plan.

If this has been included in MAPS 3 as it should of been given how everyone involved absolutely insists it is needed to make the CC a success, then it could have been budgeted and planned for and the interest charge avoided altogether and this money could have been put towards something of benefit to the community, rather than just paying a lender.

I am absolutely about promoting a more transparent process here. However, sometimes people just want the patient to live and they don't want to watch the gory details of the operation. We start debating and demonizing every step and second guessing motives, etc.. In the end, the surgery gets done and the patient lives, but we continue to debate whether the surgeon should have used 100 stitches to sew them up or 150. Their new heart works and the surgeon was paid and goes home. We lament for 20 years about the scar that was left. And, it is always the 3rd cousin twice removed that is complaining most. The wife and kids are happy.

We second guessed the way the Ford Center/Chesapeake was handled... bad bidding, cheap building, added costs later, no tenant, already existing serviceable arena, yadda, yadda, yadda. Today, it would have been on the wrong site, not beautiful enough, too small, too many suites for the rich, not enough subsidies for those who can't afford tickets, too much programming, not enough programing....
We may well have not gotten it built if the voters knew they would be asked for more money to finish and then not get all the things they imagined or were told we hoped to get (practice courts, etc.). And yet, that debacle brought us the single biggest positive pr program in our history through the Thunder.. put us on a national stage and continues to.

In a few years, when the CC and the Omni is built, and the park is full of citizens enjoying it, I doubt everyone will still be lamenting that some money was moved from one pocket to the other or that things were added or deleted, or that the interest was too high. And all the people who worked very hard and very ethically to make it happen will have some pride in making our city markedly better. The idea that we could have avoided the interest even if there was more knowledge from the beginning is just speculation. BTW, interest isn't a GIFT to the lender, is is a payment for the value of the loan...which makes things possible earlier and maybe better.

The idea that we could have avoided the interest even if there was more knowledge from the beginning is just speculation.

No it isn't. The whole point of MAPS is to pay for things as the money is received, which is why we don't have these massive interest expenses on any of the projects.

This hotel and parking garage have been portrayed by every single person who has advocated for the convention center as absolute necessities, and they knew this before the matter went to vote.

Now, you have money being taken from various TIF districts (including $10 million from the Devon / P180 TIF) and a massive interest expense that is being incurred because Omni insists of having the $85 million of public money in hand before they spend a dime.

Arguing "the end justifies the means" is absurd in a public context. The whole point is transparency and accountability of PUBLIC funds. In other words, democracy.

No it isn't. The whole point of MAPS is to pay for things as the money is received, which is why we don't have these massive interest expenses on any of the projects.

This hotel and parking garage have been portrayed by every single person who has advocated for the convention center as absolute necessities, and they knew this before the matter went to vote.

Now, you have money being taken from various TIF districts (including $10 million from the Devon / P180 TIF) and a massive interest expense that is being incurred because Omni insists of having the $85 million of public money in hand before they spend a dime.

Arguing "the end justifies the means" is absurd in a public context. The whole point is transparency and accountability of PUBLIC funds. In other words, democracy.

It is way easier looking back than looking ahead. Hind sight is 20/20 as they say. 10 years ago if we could have negotiated the whole deal out in the public eye and then kept all inputs rigid for those 10-15 years of execution, and that our city's needs or circumstances would not change, then yes, I guess we can avoid all surprises and changes. I would love to see what democracy that exists in. Part of democracy is voting in people to represent us. We don't vote on every issue or every decision related to it. We trust those we empower to represent us the best we can. So, the accountability now is VOTE THEM OUT if you think they were purposely deceiving the public or if we got a raw deal, or if there was insider dealing, or they are stupid, or whatever the claim is. Imprison them if they broke the law.

The other part is that we take away discretion from our elected officials. Let everything get voted out and let's see how well we function then. We can't even get consensus on this board. Best we could hope for is least common denominator. I can guarantee we won't be world class.

This was never a surprise. It was known from the outset and never disclosed to voters what they were getting into.

And the numbers keep going up and up and up... And we haven't even put this project out to bid yet.

So, you ARE saying they used unethical and/or illegal means to deceive the citizens, etc. Are you suggesting a cleaning of the house downtown, or legal proceedings? Or both? Please give us the names of those whom you know to be responsible. As you indicate, a good democracy relies on all to do their part, so please give us the details on who did what so we can get to work. Otherwise, you paint with a really broad brush. Le'ts get to the root of this.

I would also suggest you run/apply for a critical position with the city to help keep this from happening again. We need leaders who know how to get this done the absolute right way.

So, you ARE saying they used unethical and/or illegal means to deceive the citizens, etc. Are you suggesting a cleaning of the house downtown, or legal proceedings? Or both? Please give us the names of those whom you know to be responsible. As you indicate, a good democracy relies on all to do their part, so please give us the details on who did what so we can get to work. Otherwise, you paint with a really broad brush. Le'ts get to the root of this.

I would also suggest you run/apply for a critical position with the city to help keep this from happening again. We need leaders who know how to get this done the absolute right way.

Seems like this would be the perfect thing that could be investigated with OKCTalk being partners with KFOR.

I'm not just saying there was intentional deceit; it has been well documented. In the last article on this subject even the Oklahoman stated that these 'necessities' were never mentioned during the MAPS 3 campaign.

The first needed change IMO is for the Alliance to become a fully public body and make their meetings and records open. The City seemed to be functioning fine before that group was formed.

Also, the City should stop using private groups like the Chamber, the Fairgrounds, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau to fund studies and surveys on which they act. If this information is so critical to decision making, then it should be fully public at the time it is performed.

As a reminder, the whole necessity of this hotel came from a 2008 report commissioned by the Chamber which has never been made public. They had that report in hand well before the MAPS 3 vote.


And finally, I've made this point many times: The Alliance often meets with the City Council in small groups specifically to circumvent open meetings laws. They merely avoid a quorum but pitch these ideas with great detail completely away from public view, which is why you see very little discussion when the item is ultimately brought before City Council for a vote. Even though no formal vote is taken in these small groups, effectively the matter is completely decided before the public even knows about it.

It is the opinion of the municipal counselor this practice does not violate open meetings law but I have spoken to experts on this subject who assert that it absolutely does. When I raised this point to the municipal counselor's office they basically said, "then get a lawyer". And I still may.

The wheels are already in motion on the convention center & Omni conference hotel. The money approved for the MAPS III convention center did not include a conference hotel. Looking at what other major cities (Dallas, Phoenix, Nashville, Louisville) have convention center & hotels that will cost well over $500 million.

OKC is fortunate to have a convention center & hotel that will align with the Chesapeake Energy Arena once the OG&E substation is removed. Don't be surprised to see this project swell to well over $400 million.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/omni5.jpg
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/scissortail120917.jpg

Does anyone know if our recent September 12 Go-Bonds package passage have some funds which could be used on the convention center & hotel project's infrastructure?

In reality, the market for a full luxury high rise hotel is Oklahoma City is not there. So we are basically paying Omni to build a hotel here, otherwise they would of never built a hotel here with their own money just because we were building a new convention center.

In reality, the market for a full luxury high rise hotel is Oklahoma City is not there. So we are basically paying Omni to build a hotel here, otherwise they would of never built a hotel here with their own money just because we were building a new convention center.

So true, don't know of any major city that received a free convention center hotel as a result of building a convention center.

Dallas' owes roughly $660 million on its new 1,001-room Omni. OKC got the best bargain for their investment ($86 million hotel/$37million parking garage which could escalate to $130 million--and Omni received a lot of assurances that competing hotels will not encroach upon their investment.

Compare Dallas' 1,001-room (660,000 per room) to OKC's 600-room Omni ($144,000 per room); plus we'll have 733 room total (+ Fairfield Inn - 133 rooms) on the tract of land assigned for the convention center/hotel complex.

I remember hearing before the vote that the convention center would probably require a new hotel, and that it would need some sort of public funding. It was talked about pretty openly on this website. Now obviously, that wasn't part of the ad campaign for MAPS 3, but it wasn't unknown.

Seems like we're getting a pretty good deal, all things considered. Maybe not the absolute bestest deal in the world, but pretty reasonable. I do have some concerns that the chamber of commerce is a little too buddy-buddy with the city council, but that doesn't mean this is a bad deal.