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.

Interestingly, there is a rendering or two in the Seattle Times for the Renton arena (and was also for the KeyArena retrofit and the Bellevue arena).

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.

It does.

And the thunder leave revenue on the table operating in a 1.5MM person market when several other much much larger metros are on the table if they relocated the team. It's a true partnership, both sides give and take.

James Cooper’s binding resolution passed 8-1. Impressive work on his part to rally that much support.

What was the initial vote and who said Nea to the add'l resolution?

James Cooper’s binding resolution passed 8-1. Impressive work on his part to rally that much support.

What was his resolution? And will it make it to where the vote can't happen in December?

Press release:

**************

City Council approves letter of intent with the Oklahoma City Thunder and sets Dec. 12 election to fund new arena
09/26/2023

Oklahoma City Council approved a letter of intent with the Oklahoma City Thunder today that potentially retains the team in OKC beyond 2050 and called a citywide election for Dec.12 to build a new, publicly owned downtown arena. The new arena is the primary condition for securing the commitment from the team.

The new arena is proposed to be funded in part by a 72-month, one-cent sales tax that will start when the MAPS 4 tax ends and will not increase the sales tax rate.

In the letter of intent, the Thunder’s ownership group agrees to keep the NBA basketball team in Oklahoma City beyond 2050 and contribute $50 million toward the cost of the new arena.

The new arena will secure Oklahoma City’s status as a destination for premier concerts and similar events. If passed, the new arena will be built downtown, but the exact location has not been determined.

Workforce Intermediary Programs
City Council also adopted a resolution directing the City Manager to negotiate the use of workforce intermediary programs by the new arena operator for recruitment, training and hiring of Oklahoma City residents who are in most need of jobs. The resolution also requires the new arena operator to pay its part-time and full-time employees a wage equal to what City of Oklahoma City employees earn for similar work. Additionally, the resolution creates a working group to study and evaluate the use of labor peace agreements at the new arena.

Budget
In addition to the 72-month one-cent temporary sales tax, the arena will be paid for with $70 million in MAPS 4 funding and $50 million from the Oklahoma City Thunder ownership group.

Paycom Center
The Oklahoma City Thunder will play all home games at the Paycom Center until the new arena is ready to move in, no later than the start of the 2029-2030 National Basketball Association season. The Thunder’s 25-year commitment to remain in Oklahoma City begins when they move into the new arena.

The Paycom Center is the smallest in the NBA by square footage, it has the second-smallest capital investment of all NBA arenas, and at 21 years old, it is increasingly within range of the oldest arenas in the entire NBA.

The Paycom Center is not capable of securing a long-term lease with an NBA team. Meanwhile, there are U.S. markets larger than Oklahoma City that don’t have an NBA team, some of which already have or are planning an NBA-ready arena. Also, without a new arena, it will prove more and more difficult for Oklahoma City to retain and attract new major concerts, family shows, and other similar events.

Arena Background
The Oklahoma City Thunder has called Oklahoma City home since 2008. In 2023, the initial term of the 2008 use license agreement expired. The Thunder exercised an option to extend the agreement for three years to allow time for the city to develop a plan for a new arena.

“I commend the Council for authorizing me to sign this historic letter of intent, I thank the Thunder for their partnership, and I congratulate all of OKC for getting to this point,” Mayor David Holt said. “One step does remain, and that is the vote of our residents on December 12th. We encourage everyone to come out and set the course for our city’s future.”

What was his resolution? And will it make it to where the vote can't happen in December?

This is it:

Workforce Intermediary Programs
City Council also adopted a resolution directing the City Manager to negotiate the use of workforce intermediary programs by the new arena operator for recruitment, training and hiring of Oklahoma City residents who are in most need of jobs. The resolution also requires the new arena operator to pay its part-time and full-time employees a wage equal to what City of Oklahoma City employees earn for similar work. Additionally, the resolution creates a working group to study and evaluate the use of labor peace agreements at the new arena.

I am pleased with my councilmember Cooper that he got that resolution put together and passed nearly unanimously so quickly.

This is it:

Nice! I am glad council agreed to it! Most likely will be ASM for the arena management, and I feel like they pay well.

James Cooper’s binding resolution passed 8-1. Impressive work on his part to rally that much support.

I'm pretty far right, and I thought it was a fair and reasonable idea.

Hamon is an ideologue, Cooper is a sharp operator.

Hamon is an ideologue, Cooper is a sharp operator.

Not far right, but a very big yes to ^.

I am pleased with my councilmember Cooper that he got that resolution put together and passed nearly unanimously so quickly.

I may have some policy disagreements with Cooper but he is a good councilmen .. he is very thoughtful and works within the system to get things accomplished .. kudos to him

I may have some policy disagreements with Cooper but he is a good councilmen .. he is very thoughtful and works within the system to get things accomplished .. kudos to him

Once in a blue moon we agree, he's my councilman and he's been great for the city in so many ways.

I'm pretty far right, and I thought it was a fair and reasonable idea.

Hamon is an ideologue, Cooper is a sharp operator.

I’m in as well. Nice addition there by Cooper. As you said, his ability to work something that he may not completely be in love with into something he thinks is more positive or a better deal for the city (and I agree with him) instead of just saying no to everything he has a problem with all the time is why I really like him as a council person despite probably having fairly different political leanings.

Once in a blue moon we agree, he's my councilman and he's been great for the city in so many ways.

We all agree…what a wild day on this board LOLOL.

Come on! Someone hate on this! We can’t all get along this well.

Actual compromise and a willingness to engage in good faith are two of the biggest things missing from American politics at every level. People actually willing to engage with ideas that are different than their own are becoming rarer and rarer every day.

I’m in as well. Nice addition there by Cooper. As you said, his ability to work something that he may not completely be in love with into something he thinks is more positive or a better deal for the city (and I agree with him) instead of just saying no to everything he has a problem with all the time is why I really like him as a council person despite probably having fairly different political leanings.

Understands leverage.

It'll pass without him, but he can boost the proposal by making it look near unanimous which has value. Gets his amendment added and away we go.

Fully agree. Don’t agree with him usually but he has a way of making things proceed and getting a few of his ideas in rather than coming across as a stubborn roadblock

also, another thought.
Is there a stat on how much of the sales tax comes from non OKC residents or businesses(non-individuals)
I think would helpful in persuading people to vote to see how little this really impacts the OkC resident.

also, another thought.
Is there a stat on how much of the sales tax comes from non OKC residents or businesses(non-individuals)
I think would helpful in persuading people to vote to see how little this really impacts the OkC resident.

Honestly, the impact is no greater than it already is, we have been paying a penny for MAPS projects consistently for years, if this passes, we will continue to pay that penny towards this project. I think people are caught up with the 900 million price tag. You as an individual aren't having to come up with 900 million, you essentially keep paying the $1 for this when you buy your weekly groceries for $100.

also, another thought.
Is there a stat on how much of the sales tax comes from non OKC residents or businesses(non-individuals)
I think would helpful in persuading people to vote to see how little this really impacts the OkC resident.

IIRC 25-30%. Is paid by non OKC residents

Very sad to see that certain Jabronis are attacking Jo Beth on The Twitter.

There’s really no place for that type of trash.

Name calling is juvenile. But she also needs much thicker skin if she is going to be in politics and on social media.

Honestly, the impact is no greater than it already is, we have been paying a penny for MAPS projects consistently for years, if this passes, we will continue to pay that penny towards this project. I think people are caught up with the 900 million price tag. You as an individual aren't having to come up with 900 million, you essentially keep paying the $1 for this when you buy your weekly groceries for $100.

That's what concerns me. Many people don't realize that. It really needs to be driven home to people. I want to see this happen.

luckily the thunder are getting to be good again and should have a good start to their season and it be lively. That will get people motivated for the vote hopefully! Glad the vote is after season has started.

This arena will be owned by the City of Oklahoma City. If the city thinks the Thunder (Who won't own the new arena), ask the Thunder to chip in the 'naming rights' to the arena toward its construction.

Face it, there are MSAs larger than OKC who would be willing to offer the Thunder free rent to relocate to their markets. Oklahoma City isn't an NFL or MLB market, We are a state without a lot of tourist attractions on the level of MSAs exceeding 2 million or more; yet we are building potential future attractions like OKANA Resort & Indoor Waterpark.

Considering inflation, sure this arena is going to cost.

Name calling is juvenile. But she also needs much thicker skin if she is going to be in politics and on social media.

And is going to take the unpopular stance on every issue they vote on.

Timely peer-reviewed article that shows how economic estimates about the impact of stadiums are vastly overblown: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10911421231199517

And is going to take the unpopular stance on every issue they vote on.

facts ..

Timely peer-reviewed article that shows how economic estimates about the impact of stadiums are vastly overblown: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10911421231199517

peer reviewed doesn't mean much .. ..but in any event that article is talking about stadiums .. not really downtown multi use arenas ..

peer reviewed doesn't mean much .. ..but in any event that article is talking about stadiums .. not really downtown multi use arenas ..

Agree 100%

Time for the city to make a large investment in an arena that will fulfill the NBA and concert needs for our city.

Sure cities will always have items that need to be addressed. We addressed many of those in MAPS 4. It's always going
to be an issue with any city our size or larger.

peer reviewed doesn't mean much .. ..but in any event that article is talking about stadiums .. not really downtown multi use arenas ..

They're using those two examples to examine models that are used for all public stadia, including NHL/NBA stadiums. They even mention that in the article itself. The problem lies with the econometric model vis a vis potential stadium revenues, and that model is flawed regardless of stadium type. If you have an issue with their method and econometric analysis by all means call them out, but to handwave it away without actually reading the article or baselessly denigrating all peer-reviewed work is just bad faith arguing.

Just remember that Oklahoma City's population ranks 42nd among the top 50 MSA. Yet we are fortunate to have one of 30 NBA franchises available
in the U. S. Oklahoma City and Tulsa are considered one NBA market serving 1.3 million viewers. Our State ranks 28th behind Oregon and Kentucky.
Our largest MSA is larger than Louisville, Kentucky's largest city and smaller than Portland, Oregon's largest city.

Time to invest BIG in our city; quality of life is our springboard for future progress. It would be nice if we could get some help from the State.

They're using those two examples to examine models that are used for all public stadia, including NHL/NBA stadiums. They even mention that in the article itself. The problem lies with the econometric model vis a vis potential stadium revenues, and that model is flawed regardless of stadium type. If you have an issue with their method and econometric analysis by all means call them out, but to handwave it away without actually reading the article or baselessly denigrating all peer-reviewed work is just bad faith arguing.

I've tagged you in multiple peer reviewed research articles and books arguing the opposite. Have you read any of them? You are totally disregarding the human capital side of the equation.

I've tagged you in multiple peer reviewed research articles and books arguing the opposite. Have you read any of them? You are totally disregarding the human capital side of the equation.

? Where? I see no links in your post history

? Where? I see no links in your post history

https://www.amazon.com/Reversing-Urban-Decline-Entertainment-Culture/dp/1482206218

Honestly, the impact is no greater than it already is, we have been paying a penny for MAPS projects consistently for years, if this passes, we will continue to pay that penny towards this project. I think people are caught up with the 900 million price tag. You as an individual aren't having to come up with 900 million, you essentially keep paying the $1 for this when you buy your weekly groceries for $100.
Excellent point and well said.

https://www.amazon.com/Reversing-Urban-Decline-Entertainment-Culture/dp/1482206218

Oh, Rosentraub? Yeah he used case studies of projects he was a consultant on, such as Petco Park in San Diego, and shockingly found that those projects produced economic growth for the region (though even his studies find that the stadium itself is an economic loser). However he doesn't really tease out correlation/causation, a similar mistake that Mayor Holt makes when he points to the population growth that OKC experienced after the Thunder moved here. There are countless other confounding explanations that aren't controlled for.

Oh, Rosentraub? Yeah he used case studies of projects he was a consultant on, such as Petco Park in San Diego, and shockingly found that those projects produced economic growth for the region (though even his studies find that the stadium itself is an economic loser). However he doesn't really tease out correlation/causation, a similar mistake that Mayor Holt makes when he points to the population growth that OKC experienced after the Thunder moved here. There are countless other confounding explanations that aren't controlled for.

Keep moving those goalposts.

There are arguments on both sides. Bashing the other side while holding yours up as high and mighty is why no one ever discusses things (see the entire political spectrum nowadays). Each situation is unique, so it is hard to compare apples to apples. OKC has so little going for it, on a national scale, that losing the one thing that gets you publicity on an ESPN-level, cannot help your city, in terms of growing in the future, aside form people just wanting to leave the Arnett's of the world to come to the city.

? what goalposts did I move?

? what goalposts did I move?

Oh, he only compared this, that, and this. Nothing I would consider appropriate.

Someone offers you a counter to your point, and rather than discuss it, you toss it to the side because of some other reason. Hence, moving goalposts.

Interesting article on this by KOCO: https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-reactions-new-arena-thunder/45331202

I hope the arena vote passes with flying colors but my gut says this will be closer than some people think, maybe too close for comfort. I want it to pass, but I have some doubts that it will. Seems like concerns about what ownership is chipping in and spending that kind of money on an arena are pretty real to some people.

Interesting article on this by KOCO: https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-reactions-new-arena-thunder/45331202

I hope the arena vote passes with flying colors but my gut says this will be closer than some people think, maybe too close for comfort. I want it to pass, but I have some doubts that it will. Seems like concerns about what ownership is chipping in and spending that kind of money on an arena are pretty real to some people.

There was a survey conducted about a month ago with pretty much the same terms as will be voted on and even though we don't know the results, they wouldn't have moved forward unless they were positive.

Also, as with MAPS, there is really no organized opposition while the City and Mayor (and Chamber) use their massive platforms and resources to hammer home the benefits to the community with zero counterpoints. There will be some negativity on social media (as with anything) and that's about it.


I'm not taking a position on the vote, but from an objective point of view I'd be shocked if this doesn't pass, and by probably close to 60%.

There are countless other confounding explanations that aren't controlled for.

That's the problem with ALL of these studies, even the ones you like to cite. Because you can't control for all other variables that are economic factors within a given market to isolate the effects of a single project like a stadium development. You can't make precise calculations in a broader economic analysis without making assumed correlations. At some point they also have to rely on a made up zero sum association that just doesn't exists in the real world.

Now, if these were all small towns where the economic success of the market is hinged upon or disrupted by a single economic industry or entity, it can become clearer, but none of these studies are dealing which such markets and none of the markets economic portfolios are exactly alike. Furthermore, no two civics projects that contain both public funding and participation of private entities are structured the same way, either. Again, you simply cannot create the controls, in reality or mathematically, that you are seeking and every time one is presented in the studies, all it does it betray the biases of the approach.

Unfortunately, I can not read the Sage study, but even the abstract states its findings are based on assumptions found in other research. I'm not sayin that makes the study wrong or unworthy, I'm just pointing out that of course it does, because that's the only way you can do it.

In any event, we're talking about Oklahoma City. A city that was flat out told by potential economic influencers that they did not want to be in the market because they felt the quality of life sucked. MAPS was a response to that, The arena was a part of MAPS and the arena led to the NBA locating in the market. Since then, there have been consistent economic and quality of life gains that are apparent to anyone who has been associated with the market before and since these improvements. Can I say those improvements were entirely because of the arena and the NBA? No, of course not, and mostly because I don't believe that. I do believe it was a part of it, but isolating and quantifying an amount of impact tied solely to one single variable in a muti-variable uncontrollable system is inherently unscientific. I assume these researchers and the peers that review these studies know this, but I'm not sure those that hold them up in political or public policy settings know this. That doesn't mean that they are not useful or helpful, but they don't usually represent the surety with which they are often presented outside of academic environments,

Unfortunately, I would personally put more value into a bucket of cow **** as good fertilizer than any article written by a local reporter. The Oklahoman is an absolute rag. KOCO, KFOR, News 9, etc. are all not doing much in the way or hard hitting or meaningful reporting. It is mostly just juicing up the same people that pay to play without any sort of real criticism. The state of journalism today is an absolute travesty.

Honestly, the impact is no greater than it already is, we have been paying a penny for MAPS projects consistently for years, if this passes, we will continue to pay that penny towards this project. I think people are caught up with the 900 million price tag. You as an individual aren't having to come up with 900 million, you essentially keep paying the $1 for this when you buy your weekly groceries for $100.

Weekly groceries are like $350 these days unless you’re trying to eat Ramen and Potatoes

Weekly groceries are like $350 these days unless you’re trying to eat Ramen and Potatoes

This is my face I make when I check out at the grocery store. :1217:

OKC has so little going for it, on a national scale, that losing the one thing that gets you publicity on an ESPN-level, cannot help your city, in terms of growing in the future, aside form people just wanting to leave the Arnett's of the world to come to the city.

These takes are hilarious to me. That OKC is such a poor, pitiful, pathetic place if not for the Thunder. Good thing random dudes around the country see our name on ESPN though, its propelled OKC forward in immeasurable ways!

Unfortunately, I would personally put more value into a bucket of cow **** as good fertilizer than any article written by a local reporter. The Oklahoman is an absolute rag. KOCO, KFOR, News 9, etc. are all not doing much in the way or hard hitting or meaningful reporting. It is mostly just juicing up the same people that pay to play without any sort of real criticism. The state of journalism today is an absolute travesty.

The political reporters for the Oklahoman do a good job IMO.

But the Oklahoman had a ridiculously cursory article attempting to compare our arena deal to others and then tried to claim they are reporting 'all sides'. They take way more Thunder advertising than anyone, so they are nowhere near an objective party in this matter and should include that disclaimer, which they never do.

Interesting take Pete, about the Oklahoman's objectivity and the advertising angle, you can take that to the bank in their favor. They stand
to benefit from the Thunder and the new arena.

Weekly groceries are like $350 these days unless you’re trying to eat Ramen and Potatoes

This is absurd hyperbole. We get our groceries from Whole Foods each week for about $200. That's for a family of three and we dine at home at least 6 nights a week plus food for lunches.

This is absurd hyperbole. We get our groceries from Whole Foods each week for about $200. That's for a family of three and we dine at home at least 6 nights a week plus food for lunches.
It's just the two of us but we spend around $125 per week at the "expensive" Homeland. If we cut out wine and beer, which we really should, we'd be around $100.

Don't know why we are talking about groceries, almost everything you buy is subject to sales tax, including things online.

I was listening to the deal about cost overages yesterday. Basically the city pays for 100% overbudget unless it is a change requested by the Thunder, then the Thunder pays 100% (was my understanding).

And the project will almost definitely be over budget once it is finished. I know the number floated by the city in all this has been 900 million, but is the city obligated to put forth an arena with that price tag, or can the city put forth an arena for slightly less in order to account for inevitable overages so that the final contribution by the city actually ends up being 900 million?

^

That is my understanding as well but "changes from the Thunder" from what exactly?

We're told there isn't even a site yet. So, at what point does the baseline of the entire project get set to where something would represent a 'change' by the Thunder? And up until then, do we have to accommodate all their desires?

We already know that if sales tax collections exceed the $976MM estimate -- which you can almost guarantee -- the letter of intent requires all that money be spent on the arena, either the original build or a reserve for future improvements (not maintenance).


Just more questions to throw on a growing mountain.

Do we have the letter of intent?

Nvm...found it https://www.okc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/37863/638313106434970000

Do we have the letter of intent?

Yes, it was approved by City Council yesterday.

the letter of intent requires all that money be spent on the arena, either the original build or a reserve for future improvements (not maintenance).
.

Any surplus revenues ultimately collected from the temporary
sales tax that come in above project costs and any related financing costs will be utilized
either to complete the New Arena and/or placed in a capital improvement fund for
future capital maintenance of and improvements to the New Arena

C. Budget and Construction and Sources of Funds: The budget and the funds available
for the New Arena are initially estimated to be a minimum of $900,000,000. The
parties agree that continued joint development of the budget and its revenue sources
may increase the budget before construction commences, but the budget and the funds
available will not diminish below $900,000,000. The minimum budget and funds
available of $900,000,000 are dedicated to the project costs itself, excluding any
financing costs. This budget amount for the New Arena does not include the additional
value of any publicly-owned land that may ultimately be utilized as the site for the New
Arena. The funds for this budget will be supplied from the proceeds of the temporary
72-month sales tax to be considered by the voters of Oklahoma City before the end of
2023, as well as a minimum of $70,000,000 of MAPS 4 funds already earmarked for
the City's downtown arena, and a $50,000,000 contribution from the Team toward the
project. The final budget and funds available for the New Arena - an amount no less
than $900,000,000 - will be jointly agreed upon by the parties as they jointly work
through financial estimates, financing approvals, and other factors that are set forth in
the Development Agreement. The parties agree that all reasonable efforts will be made
to maximize resources. Any surplus revenues ultimately collected from the temporary
sales tax that come in above project costs and any related financing costs will be utilized
either to complete the New Arena and/or placed in a capital improvement fund for
future capital maintenance of and improvements to the New Arena. The parties agree
to work together in good faith to build to the final budget ultimately agreed upon by
the parties, and both parties acknowledge there is no major public source of project
funding beyond that which is provided for here for the New Arena, though the parties
agree to work diligently and creatively to maximize available resources within the
sources identified here. The Team shall not be responsible for any cost overruns with
respect to the budget except to the extent that such cost overrun is a result of
modifications to the project requested by the Team after the design is finalized, and
such request increases the budget for the New Arena. In such instance, the Team is
only responsible for the increase above the previously agreed-upon budget that is
attributable to their request.

entire section

^

Also note the wording explicitly says, "This budget amount for the New Arena does not include the additional value of any publicly-owned land that may ultimately be utilized as the site for the New Arena."

As I mentioned previously, if the Cox Site is chosen they will not be factoring in the value of that land into the budget.

Remember, way back in 2015 Bob Howard & Co. were asking $100MM for their land west of Paycom. When the City initiated eminent domain believing this number to be outrageous, they quickly dropped their lawsuit when it became clear that the independent commissioners appointed by the court were going to end up determining a land value much closer to that number than the City was prepared to pay. If you wait until the formal appraisal comes in with eminent domain, then the value is binding.

Long way of saying the value of the land is not insignificant, especially by the time this project kicks off.

I've said all the way along the total budget for this arena is going to be a lot closer to $1.5B than $1B.