What other MAPS/city projects have ever been approved without a rendering?

What other MAPS/city projects have ever been approved without a rendering?

Almost all of them. The current arena, the library, the baseball park, the canal, the convention center, the Cox Center expansion, the streetcar, and Scissortail Park did not have renders and/or were substantially different in design or location from what was initially proposed. The City can't select an architect until it knows that there is money and a need for one. None of the Maps For Kids projects had renderings before the vote. These are just some of the projects that didn't have renderings before they were approved.

In all honesty this vote will probably fail and putting it up to vote in December is asking for it. Details, details and more details are what's needed. The city council needs to get on it AND specifically say who will get the money from whatever company sponsors this arena. If it will open in say 2030 would sponsors pay 150 million over 15 years? That money could be used to pay for the arena but as of now we do not even have details on that. Or even if the money would go to the city or go to the Thunder. It's basically give us $1 billion now or else. They are asking for a good portion of the city to vote no. I just don't so how people don't see this as a trash deal. If the Thunder wanna leave they can go. If they want to present a better deal then maybe I could vote yes.

It's understandable that the NBA has strict arena standards and that the Paycom Center as it currently is might not measure up, but can it not be upgraded to meet the standards? The arena has already had numerous upgrades since it first opened in 2002. I think a new arena is a difficult sell given that the current one isn't that old and has had at least a couple of facelifts already.

It's understandable that the NBA has strict arena standards and that the Paycom Center as it currently is might not measure up, but can it not be upgraded to meet the standards? The arena has already had numerous upgrades since it first opened in 2002. I think a new arena is a difficult sell given that the current one isn't that old and has had at least a couple of facelifts already.
There's no room to bring it up to standards. The block is too small, as is the shell of the arena. Can only add so much lipstick to a pig.

In all honesty this vote will probably fail and putting it up to vote in December is asking for it. Details, details and more details are what's needed. The city council needs to get on it AND specifically say who will get the money from whatever company sponsors this arena. If it will open in say 2030 would sponsors pay 150 million over 15 years? That money could be used to pay for the arena but as of now we do not even have details on that. Or even if the money would go to the city or go to the Thunder. It's basically give us $1 billion now or else. They are asking for a good portion of the city to vote no. I just don't so how people don't see this as a trash deal. If the Thunder wanna leave they can go. If they want to present a better deal then maybe I could vote yes.

It won't fail. What on earth are you talking about? Okctalk.com is a very, VERY small vast minority of OKC. Most are totally ok with doing what is needed to keep the Thunder. They know that the Thunder will leave quickly if a no vote rules the day.

I think we will learn much more as we get closer to the vote. Less than 3 months, now? We will get some general renderings; estimated future specs for truck load-out and traveling show needs; enhancements that allow for higher customer spend and greater daily usage, etc...

We know what the team, and we the city need for a "50 Year Arena". It ain't no secret.

It comes down to if we trust our Mayor (that the world and everyone who can read thinks is hot stuff) and our other elected officials, plus our half dozen rich men owners, who have tied their lives and fortunes to Oklahoma City?

Jo Beth is talking down the Thunder deal today again on Twitter. Many of the replies disagree with her takes.

It's understandable that the NBA has strict arena standards and that the Paycom Center as it currently is might not measure up, but can it not be upgraded to meet the standards? The arena has already had numerous upgrades since it first opened in 2002. I think a new arena is a difficult sell given that the current one isn't that old and has had at least a couple of facelifts already.

There's not enough space to increase vendors or add the outside balcony overlooking the new Scissortail Park and convention center complex. A new arena to replace Payom Center is the only viable solution available.

I think we will learn much more as we get closer to the vote. Less than 3 months, now? We will get some general renderings; estimated future specs for truck load-out and traveling show needs; enhancements that allow for higher customer spend and greater daily usage, etc...

We know what the team, and we the city need for a "50 Year Arena". It ain't no secret.

It comes down to if we trust our Mayor (that the world and everyone who can read thinks is hot stuff) and our other elected officials, plus our half dozen rich men owners, who have tied their lives and fortunes to Oklahoma City?

That’s not necessarily a good thing

So, you want the city to pay for designs so you can see where the doors are located and what color the roof is? That will make you vote for it?

If you’ve listened to date they’ve talked plenty about the shortcomings of our current arena and what a new arena should include at a minimum.

We’re building an arena to the specs of Thunder ownership requests. What everyone wants to see is the plans and requirements they have already laid out to David Holt. There is already a rush on the project. I don’t believe there is anyway the Thunder don’t already have detailed plans.

We’re building an arena to the specs of Thunder ownership requests. What everyone wants to see is the plans and requirements they have already laid out to David Holt. There is already a rush on the project. I don’t believe there is anyway the Thunder don’t already have detailed plans.

It is very unlikely that there are any sort of detailed plans. It doesn't make sense to have detailed plans on a project of this magnitude without funding in place.

What will have happened is they would have done some napkin math and approximations of the cost for what they want. More of that detail needs to be revealed.

At the end of the day, if we're building a $900M arena and it's going to be an arena only, we need to drop the tax collections by at least one year, because there is zero reason to have money for future upgrades to a billion dollar arena. PBC can fund future upgrades they want at the 15-20 year mark.

Absolutely the most asinine aspect to this whole thing is that we would expose ourselves to so substantially overcollect funds that we could build the 2nd part of the convention center with the extra funds.

Most likely, the arena itself, with everything the arena needs, won't even make it to $750M in cost. So the rest of that is land/demolition and interest and we will land well within budget @ 5 years of collections vs 6

We’re building an arena to the specs of Thunder ownership requests. What everyone wants to see is the plans and requirements they have already laid out to David Holt. There is already a rush on the project. I don’t believe there is anyway the Thunder don’t already have detailed plans.
The specs are what is required of a competitive arena for a top tier city with amenities necessary to attract professional events like sports teams, major concerts, etc. You sound as if it is just some sort of with list or vanity endeavor for the Thunder.

The specs are what is required of a competitive arena for a top tier city with amenities necessary to attract professional events like sports teams, major concerts, etc. You sound as if it is just some sort of with list or vanity endeavor for the Thunder.

That’s not true…

It’s not specs to attract major concerts. We’re already getting major concerts.

It’s specs to accommodate more suites and seating “experiences” that can be sold at a higher price point. I highly doubt the seating capacity will be materially changed. They know how many suites they’d like to have, the locations they would accept, the street interaction, additional types of development, and revenue streams.

You really believe the Thunder are just sitting around waiting on this to pass before drawing up any conceptual plans?

It is very unlikely that there are any sort of detailed plans. It doesn't make sense to have detailed plans on a project of this magnitude without funding in place.

What will have happened is they would have done some napkin math and approximations of the cost for what they want. More of that detail needs to be revealed.

At the end of the day, if we're building a $900M arena and it's going to be an arena only, we need to drop the tax collections by at least one year, because there is zero reason to have money for future upgrades to a billion dollar arena. PBC can fund future upgrades they want at the 15-20 year mark.

Absolutely the most asinine aspect to this whole thing is that we would expose ourselves to so substantially overcollect funds that we could build the 2nd part of the convention center with the extra funds.

Most likely, the arena itself, with everything the arena needs, won't even make it to $750M in cost. So the rest of that is land/demolition and interest and we will land well within budget @ 5 years of collections vs 6

You believe that’s how multibillion dollar organizations build forecast models?

That’s not true…

It’s not specs to attract major concerts. We’re already getting major concerts.

It’s specs to accommodate more suites and seating “experiences” that can be sold at a higher price point. I highly doubt the seating capacity will be materially changed. They know how many suites they’d like to have, the locations they would accept, the street interaction, additional types of development, and revenue streams.

You really believe the Thunder are just sitting around waiting on this to pass before drawing up any conceptual plans?
Not sure you understand how designs are done and when.

That’s not true…

It’s not specs to attract major concerts. We’re already getting major concerts.

It’s specs to accommodate more suites and seating “experiences” that can be sold at a higher price point. I highly doubt the seating capacity will be materially changed. They know how many suites they’d like to have, the locations they would accept, the street interaction, additional types of development, and revenue streams.

You really believe the Thunder are just sitting around waiting on this to pass before drawing up any conceptual plans?

We're getting middle of the road concerts with a couple top-tier concerts. There is a reason U2 went to Tulsa, and why others they have gotten over OKC. They can get complex stages set up easier due to better truck access and docks.

We're getting middle of the road concerts with a couple top-tier concerts. There is a reason U2 went to Tulsa, and why others they have gotten over OKC. They can get complex stages set up easier due to better truck access and docks.

We get nearly every big name in country music…just look at the recent and upcoming artists.

I’m continually hearing about this unsolvable dilemma of truck access and shipping docs…if we as a city can’t solve something so mundane then we def shouldn’t be looking at building a new arena. The great shipping dock conundrum of Oklahoma City leaving the worlds greatest architects puzzled. The only solution was a $1B entirely new arena with shipping docks and truck access placed perfectly for Bono himself.

Folks, plain and simple we’re building a new arena because the Thunder require it. No chance they met with the Mayor and told him some broad requests for size and suggested a few locations.

Not sure you understand how designs are done and when.

They’re done when someone wants them.

That’s not true…

It’s not specs to attract major concerts. We’re already getting major concerts.


OKC currently can NOT host back to back events ... so yes this is also to attract major concerts ..

You believe that’s how multibillion dollar organizations build forecast models?

Not sure I'm understanding the question?

You believe that’s how multibillion dollar organizations build forecast models?

The city isn't a corporation. Considering the history of cost overruns in government projects, l think it would be smart to build in inflation expectations and change order costs - then apply any possible unused revenue to other capital projects. Its better than having to whittle down what is planned and sold to the public end end up with a disappointing facility.

I wanted to go on the record and state I am 100% for a new arena and know darn well it is needed. I don't think I have to explain what a big deal this would be to me personally, as I'll be out there taking drone shots for years on end!

Just trying to call attention to issues around this, especially the process.


As always with any election, I won't be taking a public stance.

Love your style. OKCTalk is the only news source in town, imho.

The city isn't a corporation. Considering the history of cost overruns in government projects, l think it would be smart to build in inflation expectations and change order costs - then apply any possible unused revenue to other capital projects. Its better than having to whittle down what is planned and sold to the public end end up with a disappointing facility.

I guess what I am trying to say is, the Thunder leadership has decided they need to forecast some “spec revenue” to remain viable in the NBA. That “spec revenue” is going to come from additional suites, new seating opportunities, potential restaurants and other new revenue streams. Anytime a corporation the size of the Thunder decides they want to forecast increased revenue there are models built and several rounds of scrutiny with a board etc…. So they build a model that says we need a xxx,xxx sq ft arena in order to build xx types of revenue streams. Within the P/L will be each line item and the speculative revenue generated from those speculative ventures. That gives them an idea of what they can forecast on net revenues when payroll, operations, and other expenses start to increase.

They didn’t just meet with Mayor Holt and tell him we’re roughly thinking $900M and what do you think about these 3-4 site locations. There is a throughly vetted plan that is most likely built on speculation but we’re not privy to that even though the city will incur the costs. That’s my belief

TheyÂ’re done when someone wants them.

SouthOKC. You are driving me crazy internet friend. We all agree we'd love to have renderings and, I think, most believe that some placeholder renderings do exist to show how an arena might fit on a plot of land such as the Cox Convention Center site. But, I think we all also agree that the actual architectural renderings of what we might get (not a placeholder 10 min CGI creation) are what is important to see, right?

If the aforementioned is correct, then please, tell me which of the follwoing statement is untrue:

1) The City is going to own the arena.

2) The City is going to fund the arena, along with a small contribution from Thunder owners *if* the new Arena passes.

3) The City's own rules state that they cannot spends funds they have not yet allocated.

4) A vote will be forth to continue taxation levels of past MAPS as necessary to activate the Arena building funding, thereby continuing the lease.

If all of those statements are independently agreed, then what the heck are you on about. If something there is outright incorrect, let's discuss it in a vacuum and have those who know more shed light.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario: The evil greedy Thunder owners are holding the leaders of OKC hostage by telling them that the only way the Thunder stays is to build a new billion dollar arena. The evil Thunder owners demand that the City show them completed architectural renderings of their Arena offering, lest they walk away from the table. The City pays for the renderings, out of fear of losing the Thunder. The payment and the renderings are made public. The Jo Beth Hamons and the SouthOKCs of the world cry foul, stating that the City has violated it's own bylaws in spending money from *previously taxed resources* which was not agreed to and voted on by the People. The People are outraged, feeling betrayed, and decide to vote down the Arena.

If you think the "billion dollar franchise" has paid some money for their own renderings of what they want the City of OKC to build, wouldn't you agree that they would never make that public lest it appear that the City is truly only a servant of the Thunder's wishes??

SouthOKC. You are driving me crazy internet friend. We all agree we'd love to have renderings and, I think, most believe that some placeholder renderings do exist to show how an arena might fit on a plot of land such as the Cox Convention Center site. But, I think we all also agree that the actual architectural renderings of what we might get (not a placeholder 10 min CGI creation) are what is important to see, right?

If the aforementioned is correct, then please, tell me which of the follwoing statement is untrue:

1) The City is going to own the arena.

2) The City is going to fund the arena, along with a small contribution from Thunder owners *if* the new Arena passes.

3) The City's own rules state that they cannot spends funds they have not yet allocated.

4) A vote will be forth to continue taxation levels of past MAPS as necessary to activate the Arena building funding, thereby continuing the lease.

If all of those statements are independently agreed, then what the heck are you on about. If something there is outright incorrect, let's discuss it in a vacuum and have those who know more shed light.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario: The evil greedy Thunder owners are holding the leaders of OKC hostage by telling them that the only way the Thunder stays is to build a new billion dollar arena. The evil Thunder owners demand that the City show them completed architectural renderings of their Arena offering, lest they walk away from the table. The City pays for the renderings, out of fear of losing the Thunder. The payment and the renderings are made public. The Jo Beth Hamons and the SouthOKCs of the world cry foul, stating that the City has violated it's own bylaws in spending money from *previously taxed resources* which was not agreed to and voted on by the People. The People are outraged, feeling betrayed, and decide to vote down the Arena.

If you think the "billion dollar franchise" has paid some money for their own renderings of what they want the City of OKC to build, wouldn't you agree that they would never make that public lest it appear that the City is truly only a servant of the Thunder's wishes??

My bad not my intention to drive you mad..lol

I enjoy the discussion and debate perhaps the tone is lost via internet message board posts.

Personally, I think it’s too important to the future of OKC to not pass this vote. I don’t feel like the Thunder owners are evil but greedy is all about perception. I appreciate Clay Bennett and everyone involved to bring the Thunder to OKC and believe they genuinely want the city to thrive.

I think your last sentence sums it up for me…if you’re requesting the city build a $900M+ arena for you as the primary tenant then we deserve to see what you’ve got in mind. In some sense the future financial success of the Thunder is pertinent to public’s investment. Show us how you plan to not to default on the next 25 years of the lease. You’d like a larger building then show us why and how you’re going to grow revenue with that building.

I think your last sentence sums it up for meÂ…if youÂ’re requesting the city build a $900M+ arena for you as the primary tenant then we deserve to see what youÂ’ve got in mind. In some sense the future financial success of the Thunder is pertinent to publicÂ’s investment. Show us how you plan to not to default on the next 25 years of the lease. YouÂ’d like a larger building then show us why and how youÂ’re going to grow revenue with that building.

I think we are on the same page.

I hope our new Arena, if it passes, involves some highly creative and even loud architectural stylings. I'm sure there are plenty who want something totally different.

I suspect that if there are architectural renderings already created they are not showing them for fear of the naysayers drowning out the supportive commentary. Heck, 90% of the time anything is announced on social media the Facebook comments are so toxic I can't help but wonder if they come from real people. It's almost astounding.

But at that point it's a fait accompli, so who cares? Holt will be termed out, the building done and the deal signed. What would the public do, other than just be generally ticked off...until the Thunder make the playoffs and all is forgiven?

... AND, this happens almost all of the time. Proposals get value engineered or even bait and switch - that's the OKC way. But the thing is, NOTHING ever got voted/approved without some sort of rendering - whether it was too-good-to-be-true or conceptual to justify cost/TIF.

We're so far seeing NONE of this with the arena, which for me leaves a sour taste - particularly since its the largest project in OKC history.

I guess what I am trying to say is, the Thunder leadership has decided they need to forecast some “spec revenue” to remain viable in the NBA. That “spec revenue” is going to come from additional suites, new seating opportunities, potential restaurants and other new revenue streams. Anytime a corporation the size of the Thunder decides they want to forecast increased revenue there are models built and several rounds of scrutiny with a board etc…. So they build a model that says we need a xxx,xxx sq ft arena in order to build xx types of revenue streams. Within the P/L will be each line item and the speculative revenue generated from those speculative ventures. That gives them an idea of what they can forecast on net revenues when payroll, operations, and other expenses start to increase.

They didn’t just meet with Mayor Holt and tell him we’re roughly thinking $900M and what do you think about these 3-4 site locations. There is a throughly vetted plan that is most likely built on speculation but we’re not privy to that even though the city will incur the costs. That’s my belief

For comparison, the Convention Center came in at <$300M. FiServ is ~715k sq ft and convention center ~500k sq ft. Obviously an arena is going to cost more to build per sf and this will also involve cost of capital which we didn't have with MAPS (although, building costs also are easier to predict with this project because the distance between vote and construction is significantly less.)

Pete's very reasonable math puts total collections north of $1.3B and all of that is going to be forced to the arena.

This is why, for me, I need to know what else is included in this arena besides an arena. PBC and the Mayor both know that the number we're floating is WAY under a reasonable assessment. That is probably the most cheeky thing about how this has been proposed. It's an easy way for PBC to hedge their bets at the cost of the city.

For comparison, the Convention Center came in at <$300M. FiServ is ~715k sq ft and convention center ~500k sq ft. Obviously an arena is going to cost more to build per sf and this will also involve cost of capital which we didn't have with MAPS (although, building costs also are easier to predict with this project because the distance between vote and construction is significantly less.)

Pete's very reasonable math puts total collections north of $1.3B and all of that is going to be forced to the arena.

This is why, for me, I need to know what else is included in this arena besides an arena. PBC and the Mayor both know that the number we're floating is WAY under a reasonable assessment. That is probably the most cheeky thing about how this has been proposed. It's an easy way for PBC to hedge their bets at the cost of the city.

how much do you think the interest is going to cost?? and how is it being paid for ...

that is your answer

Question for all those that might know: what would the cost of removing the old cox convention center (Prairie Surf Media) cost, roughly? $1,000,000? $5,000,000? $10,000,000?

They’re done when someone wants them.

They are done when someone pays for them.

They are done when someone pays for them.

So you’re saying someone with enough money and a considerable financial interest could consult with an architectural firm? The ability to pay for it would be all that’s needed? No formal voting process would be required? No funding appropriation?

That’s a great point. I wonder who might benefit from taking such an action? It would have to be someone that could afford to lose the fees required in case the project didn’t pan out. Most likely someone that had an imminent plan and really needed understand the financial implications prior to requesting such a project be started.

I’d almost prefer they tell me the general public is being left in the dark than believe they have no plans at this point in the game. If the mayor hasn’t seen something more formal in terms of plans for a potential arena you really have to question if he’s operating in good faith on behalf of the city.

I think even if we dont have some rendering of what the outside is going to look like, they do already have an idea of what some of the inside features would be. Meaning, how many decks and how many levels of suites. Are they one on top of the other, do they include slouge (sp?) boxes?

Somewhere, i thought i saw that the intent was to create an entire second level of suites? Am i making that up? If that's the case, there are multiple options with this, so they may not have nailed one down. Meaning, do they go like some NFL and stack them? Do they put some on the floor level again like NFL (i dont think they can with the expandable seating), do they put one at the bottom/top of each deck. How many decks this time? 3 or 4?

There are only so many ways to make an oval here. BUUUUT, you can get pretty danged creative in 3-D with that oval. And what's outside that oval in terms of concourses for the ameneties....well, that's where a LOT of money comes in. Concessions, restaurants, shops, etc. I almost think they could get away with not having much of an idea on the exterior right now, if they could just get us some inside specs with even a very rough rendering of the CONCEPT.

I think even if we dont have some rendering of what the outside is going to look like, they do already have an idea of what some of the inside features would be. Meaning, how many decks and how many levels of suites. Are they one on top of the other, do they include slouge (sp?) boxes?

Somewhere, i thought i saw that the intent was to create an entire second level of suites? Am i making that up? If that's the case, there are multiple options with this, so they may not have nailed one down. Meaning, do they go like some NFL and stack them? Do they put some on the floor level again like NFL (i dont think they can with the expandable seating), do they put one at the bottom/top of each deck. How many decks this time? 3 or 4?

There are only so many ways to make an oval here. BUUUUT, you can get pretty danged creative in 3-D with that oval. And what's outside that oval in terms of concourses for the ameneties....well, that's where a LOT of money comes in. Concessions, restaurants, shops, etc. I almost think they could get away with not having much of an idea on the exterior right now, if they could just get us some inside specs with even a very rough rendering of the CONCEPT.

They most likely have a general requirements document... square feet, number of general seats, number of suites, number of loge seats, electronic requirements, retail sq ft, media area size and infrastructure, loading and storage area requirements, truck and bus areas, locker rooms sizes, dressing and other green room areas sizes, vip parking area, etc., etc. And, they will have a general spec for quality of finishes, etc. All that would allow them to get a very rough estimate of costs. But, that doesn't really give them any form or layout info to do real renderings that would represent much more than gross size.

Was reminded of it the other day but taxpayers put in about $15 million for the Thunders private practice facility. Which is definitely one of the weirder things taxpayers pay for in regards to having a pro sports team, their private practice facilities. Theres no public or economic benefit with those taxpayer dollars. Deduct that out of the $50 million thunder ownership is putting up and its even smaller percentage of the new arena.

They most likely have a general requirements document... square feet, number of general seats, number of suites, number of loge seats, electronic requirements, retail sq ft, media area size and infrastructure, loading and storage area requirements, truck and bus areas, locker rooms sizes, dressing and other green room areas sizes, vip parking area, etc., etc. And, they will have a general spec for quality of finishes, etc. All that would allow them to get a very rough estimate of costs. But, that doesn't really give them any form or layout info to do real renderings that would represent much more than gross size.

I mean they know how to do it…https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sonics-owner-unveils-model-for-proposed-renton-venue/

We know Clay was *cough cough* “possessed” to keep the team in Seattle per emails to Aubrey and Tom Ward. However, he just had to give way to OKC that was much more cooperative in accommodating the team.

So all we’re saying is we want this as much as they do, let us in on the plan. Especially, if you’re pushing through a financial plan to contribute next to nothing.

Was reminded of it the other day but taxpayers put in about $15 million for the Thunders private practice facility. Which is definitely one of the weirder things taxpayers pay for in regards to having a pro sports team, their private practice facilities. Theres no public or economic benefit with those taxpayer dollars. Deduct that out of the $50 million thunder ownership is putting up and its even smaller percentage of the new arena.

OKC owns it and rents it out. So, again, you're not wanting to have facts ruin your good story.

Either way, it doesn't travel. It stays here, no matter what, so it is not an asset they can use in their calls for gains. Not sure if you are serious with this one. OKC can do with it what they please if the Thunder leave.

OKC owns it and rents it out. So, again, you're not wanting to have facts ruin your good story.

Either way, it doesn't travel. It stays here, no matter what, so it is not an asset they can use in their calls for gains. Not sure if you are serious with this one. OKC can do with it what they please if the Thunder leave.

Isn’t it like a $16M facility and the team pays just $100K in annual rent?

Isn’t it like a $16M facility and the team pays just $100K in annual rent?

But OKC owns it, and it isn't an asset of the Thunder, in terms of boosting their value. if the Thunder leave, this can easily be turned into a public rec center or after-school facility, and therefore it serves multiple purposes.

$100k is more than enough to cover property taxes and stuff. Team pays utilities and such.

But OKC owns it, and it isn't an asset of the Thunder, in terms of boosting their value. if the Thunder leave, this can easily be turned into a public rec center or after-school facility, and therefore it serves multiple purposes.

$100k is more than enough to cover property taxes and stuff. Team pays utilities and such.

Sure, but 100K is less than $2.00 per sqft/year for a facility that cost $300/sqft to build.

I’m thinking The City might have been negotiating with Presti on that deal . . .

Sure, but 100K is less than $2.00 per sqft/year for a facility that cost $300/sqft to build.

I’m thinking The City might have been negotiating with Presti on that deal . . .

And again, I am not sure how the arena inflates their value. If the prospective owners are planning to move the team, they won't give a rat's behind about the new arena. They will piss all over the current owners trying to include it in negotiations.

So if the new owners are truly wanting to move, then the new arena hurts the owners more than helps, IMO (having been in on negotiations like this).

"Worst" case
18324

"Reasonable" case
18325

"Best" case
18326

^^ If the language of the vote does not explicitly give the city the ability to reallocate funds for this, we're potentially tying up an incredible amount of funds on this project. Having a $50M little egg once we finish would be meaningful and strategic (though the arena creates revenue that should be able to sustain operations/standard maintenance of said arena). Having >25% of project costs stashed away is fiscal irresponsibility that the city should not stand for.

The more I think about it is anyone else thinking the ownership should keep their $50M contribution? In what will almost assuredly exceed $1.3B in cost it amounts to an immaterial amount. My preference would be for the city to limit the amount of say Thunder ownership has in the arena. When you have 0 negotiating power outside of walking away from the deal you have to press for accountability where you can get it.

Also, something else I find interesting is we haven’t really heard much from Clay Bennett at least that I can find. As much as I like/trust Holt he kinda comes off like the mouthpiece for Bennett. It’s on brand for the Thunder they def employ the strategy of not giving the public any information that allows anyone to form an opinion.

^^ If the language of the vote does not explicitly give the city the ability to reallocate funds for this, we're potentially tying up an incredible amount of funds on this project. Having a $50M little egg once we finish would be meaningful and strategic (though the arena creates revenue that should be able to sustain operations/standard maintenance of said arena). Having >25% of project costs stashed away is fiscal irresponsibility that the city should not stand for.

Double

^^ If the language of the vote does not explicitly give the city the ability to reallocate funds for this, we're potentially tying up an incredible amount of funds on this project. Having a $50M little egg once we finish would be meaningful and strategic (though the arena creates revenue that should be able to sustain operations/standard maintenance of said arena). Having >25% of project costs stashed away is fiscal irresponsibility that the city should not stand for.

The vote is yes, extend the tax for a new arena, or no, don't extend the tax for any purposes. So all or nothing. They won't build without guarantees from the ownership group. Even if it passes, if they can't get those guarantees, the tax won't be collected.

The vote is yes, extend the tax for a new arena, or no, don't extend the tax for any purposes. So all or nothing. They won't build without guarantees from the ownership group. Even if it passes, if they can't get those guarantees, the tax won't be collected.

Well, I don't quite think that's how the law works. Pretty sure if it goes through "yes" and then the ownership group bails, they'd have to put it back up for a vote in order to not collect the tax.

ON EDIT: For reference, I think most of the city probably believes we've closed the book on MAPS 3 with the completion of Lower Park and the last 2 senior centers opening, but OKC is still sitting on $80M of MAPS 3 funds.

It’s on brand for the Thunder they def employ the strategy of not giving the public any information that allows anyone to form an opinion.

Yeah, like that keeps anyone from having a wild opinion. Lol

Is there a way to watch this morning’s council meeting? I’m a bit surprised that Holt hasn’t provided a link since has been such a public process.

Is there a way to watch this morning’s council meeting? I’m a bit surprised that Holt hasn’t provided a link since has been such a public process.
The OKC CONNECT app streams city council and most other meetings.

Is there a way to watch this morning’s council meeting? I’m a bit surprised that Holt hasn’t provided a link since has been such a public process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oypcCACb_eU

I think there is a special meeting tomorrow regarding the arena tax. I don't think it is part of the regular meeting.

I think there is a special meeting tomorrow regarding the arena tax. I don't think it is part of the regular meeting.

The discussion just began at this morning's Council meeting.

The discussion just began at this morning's Council meeting.

Hmmm, I guess the city minutes website was incorrect on the date it would be.

Hmmm, I guess the city minutes website was incorrect on the date it would be.

To be fair, it is on today's agenda (and now being discussed) and also for a special meeting tomorrow. I am not sure of the difference between the two vote sessions. But on today's agenda is the call for the December election and Councilman Cooper's proposed amendments regarding the workforce.

To be fair, it is on today's agenda (and now being discussed) and also for a special meeting tomorrow. I am not sure of the difference between the two vote sessions. But on today's agenda is the call for the December election and Councilman Cooper's proposed amendments regarding the workforce.

today is just the introduction and with the emergency .. they are setting the "public and final hearing" at the special meeting tomorrow (if the vote today passes) .. where the vote to enact it will actually happen ..

So the actual language of what's on the ballot is what they're voting on, yes?

OKC owns it and rents it out. So, again, you're not wanting to have facts ruin your good story.

Either way, it doesn't travel. It stays here, no matter what, so it is not an asset they can use in their calls for gains. Not sure if you are serious with this one. OKC can do with it what they please if the Thunder leave.

I’m just pointing out the generous things the city has already done for thunder. $16 million that could have been used elsewhere but instead it’s for a highly specialized facility for a pro sports team that pays a pittance in rent for it. This doesn’t easily or cheaply morph into a public rec center if thunder leave. Plus the location of it is surrounded by not much.

You’ve been in arena negotiations but you don’t understand how a new arena and all the increased revenue benefit ownership and value of the team? Interesting.

I’m just pointing out the generous things the city has already done for thunder. $16 million that could have been used elsewhere but instead it’s for a highly specialized facility for a pro sports team that pays a pittance in rent for it. This doesn’t easily or cheaply morph into a public rec center if thunder leave. Plus the location of it is surrounded by not much.

You’ve been in arena negotiations but you don’t understand how a new arena and all the increased revenue benefit ownership and value of the team? Interesting.

No. I meant acquisition negotiations. Buying something involves buying the assets. If the buyers are looking to move, why would they care one bit about an arena in a city they plan to leave? They wouldn't.