New Downtown Arena

[Pete]

BTW, this stated $900 million number from six years of an additional $.01 sales tax does not begin to add up -- the actual number is likely to be much higher.


For the City's fiscal year which ended in June, the same $.01 sales tax for MAPS 4 amounted to $143 million. That represented a 7% increase from the previous year, pretty typical growth due to inflation and all the growth within city limits.

Remember we will not start collecting the arena sales tax until MAPS 4 ends, which means it would start in 2029 and then run for six years.

Even allowing for only a 5% annual increase (very conservative) means we would take in $1.37 billion just through sales tax alone; not $900 million. $900 million is basically the amount you get if you take 2023 and assume everything will still be the same by the time we get to 2029 and run through 2034. At an average increase of 7% that number rises to $1.6 billion. But even 3% average growth would result in collecting $1.1 billion.

But let's take the conservative $1.37 billion, plus the $70 million from MAPS4 and $50 million from the ownership group: That's nearly $1.4 billion in total budget.

$50 million ownership contribution would then represent 3.6% of the total, not including the land value if that is indeed donated by the City.

[chssooner]

BTW, this stated $900 million number from six years of an additional $.01 sales tax does not begin to add up -- the actual number is likely to be much higher.


For the City's fiscal year which ended in June, the same $.01 sales tax for MAPS 4 amounted to $143 million. That represented a 7% increase from the previous year, pretty typical growth due to inflation and all the growth within city limits.

Remember we will not start collecting the arena sales tax until MAPS 4 ends, which means it would start in 2029 and then run for six years.

Even allowing for only a 5% annual increase (very conservative) means we would take in $1.37 billion just through sales tax alone; not $900 million, which is basically the amount you get if you take 2023 and assume everything will still be the same by the time we get to 2029 and run through 2034. At an average increase of 7% that number rises to $1.6 billion.

But let's take the conservative $1.37 billion, plus the $70 million from MAPS4 and $50 million from the ownership group: That's nearly $1.4 billion in total budget.

$50 million ownership contribution would then represent 3.6% of the total, not including the land value if that is indeed donated by the City.

But the arena is going to be a set cost. Anything above that will be subject to additional allocation procedures, or set aside for future use, I would guess. It doesn't go into the owners' pockets.

[PoliSciGuy]

But the arena is going to be a set cost. Anything above that will be subject to additional allocation procedures, or set aside for future use, I would guess. It doesn't go into the owners' pockets.

Not directly, but it increases the valuation of the Thunder, which they can then take out loans against and further line their pockets.

[Pete]

But the arena is going to be a set cost. Anything above that will be subject to additional allocation procedures, or set aside for future use, I would guess. It doesn't go into the owners' pockets.

It would go toward the arena, just like excess MAPS money goes into all the various projects, as it has for the last 30+ years.

In this case, there is just one project.

No City project has a set cost. There is an original budget that gets changed repeatedly and in the case of the sales tax collection, that just gets added onto the existing projects. They don't stop the collection or refund the excess in any way -- it gets spent on the projects for which the sales tax increase was approved by voters.

[Jake]

This could approach Paul Brown Stadium levels of stadium/arena deals.

[Teo9969]

It has literally nothing of note nationally, aside from the Thunder. If you can't realize that, then I don't know what to say. A person in Milwaukee or Salt Lake doesn't even know OKC exists without the Thunder.

I do wish there was a way to talk to Mayor Holt about it, and see the steps. Could always request it, but I doubt he would say yes.

But what other uses would an arena have? I want to have my "book club" meeting in the middle of the arena, and because I'm paying for it, I should totally be able to? It's for sporting events and concerts/rodeo/wrestling/etc.

I think you're overselling what everyone else has that's "of note" nationally. The fact that the city has the ability to fund a $1B project in about 6 years off of a one-cent sales tax tells you all you need to know about the quality of the city. The Thunder is an amenity, not THE reason to live here.

By public, I mean spaces dedicated to outside foot traffic, parts of the structure that create value beyond when events are scheduled, places where people can stay (apartments/hotels), etc. The Paycom Center is useless if nothing is going to be there. We can't invest $1B for something that is only useful during event nights, especially if we don't know whether that anchor tenant is going to pay a reasonable price to do so.

[chssooner]

Again, we see where the majority of OKC Talk is leaning. Hopefully they aren't the voting majority, because this ownership group will sell in a heartbeat and leave OKC with nothing for a national brand, other than being the only city to gain a team by nefarious means, and then lose them within 20 years.

The richest owner is in Tulsa, so he won't care what happens to the perception of this city.

I'm not thrilled 100% with this deal, but I know the alternative is way worse. We will just be another capital city in a flyover state.

[chssooner]

I think you're overselling what everyone else has that's "of note" nationally. The fact that the city has the ability to fund a $1B project in about 6 years off of a one-cent sales tax tells you all you need to know about the quality of the city. The Thunder is an amenity, not THE reason to live here.

By public, I mean spaces dedicated to outside foot traffic, parts of the structure that create value beyond when events are scheduled, places where people can stay (apartments/hotels), etc. The Paycom Center is useless if nothing is going to be there. We can't invest $1B for something that is only useful during event nights, especially if we don't know whether that anchor tenant is going to pay a reasonable price to do so.

I agree with you. But most arena areas don't have public use areas. Not sure what you are looking for (I plead ignorance, not bashing you).

The Thunder actually give people outside of OKC a reason to think about OKC. Without them, 85% of this country couldn't find OKC on a map (maybe harsh, but still, the point is there). They may not be the reason to move here, but they are a major benefit, one that will not be easily replaced.

[Teo9969]

It would go toward the arena, just like excess MAPS money goes into all the various projects, as it has for the last 30+ years.

In this case, there is just one project.

No City project has a set cost. There is an original budget that gets changed repeatedly and in the case of the sales tax collection, that just gets added onto the existing projects. They don't stop the collection or refund the excess in any way -- it gets spent on the projects for which the sales tax increased was approved by voters.

Could the city build a hotel and then sell the property upon completionn? Would that violate the OMNI deal? I feel like the stadium cost itself will be <$800M...the only other major amenity I can think that would come in as expensive that would make up that difference is a hotel.

[Pete]

Could the city build a hotel and then sell the property upon completionn? Would that violate the OMNI deal? I feel like the stadium cost itself will be <$800M...the only other major amenity I can think that would come in as expensive that would make up that difference is a hotel.

There are always price increases and add-ons. Nothing ever becomes less expensive once they start.

I fully expect this project to end up costing well over $1B just based on the very conservative numbers being presented now.

[fortpatches]

Again, we see where the majority of OKC Talk is leaning. Hopefully they aren't the voting majority, because this ownership group will sell in a heartbeat and leave OKC with nothing for a national brand, other than being the only city to gain a team by nefarious means, and then lose them within 20 years.

The richest owner is in Tulsa, so he won't care what happens to the perception of this city.

I'm not thrilled 100% with this deal, but I know the alternative is way worse. We will just be another capital city in a flyover state.

I really don't see why it's so important to have them. I didn't even know who the Thunder was until I moved to OKC and work like two blocks from paycom. This seems way overpriced to me. Reduce costs by 20% and increase owner investment to 20%, sell naming rights to the new arena, and do a 3yr sales tax of $0.01 to cover the last half billion dollars and I would be all for it.

Besides, it really seems premature to have a vote on this. No information has really been released. It's still wishes and hopes. May present an actual plan to vote on? 14 months seems like a long time just to get to "So.... we are going to vote on an arena and if it passes, this sports team will kick it here for another 25 years."

[David]

My two requirements for voting yes for this, assuming it'll land on the Cox site:

1) I would like to see the larger site development plan have mixed use elements including housing. Assuming I am remember the previous conversations correctly (and that those conversations were correct) the arena won't require the entire superblock so the design for the rest of the block needs to be good.
2) The site design needs to better connect Sante Fe station to downtown overall.

[chssooner]

The mayor is active on social media. I suggest reaching out to him. If he gets enough feedback, something will come of it. He may not address everyone individually, but he will have a release about it. He isn't the horrible mayor some on here are making it seem like he is, just trying to line his and the owners' pockets with our tax dollars. He is fairly open for feedback, and will likely get back to your question.

[chssooner]

My two requirements for voting yes for this, assuming it'll land on the Cox site:

1) I would like to see the larger site development plan have mixed use elements including housing. Assuming I am remember the previous conversations correctly (and that those conversations were correct) the arena won't require the entire superblock so the design for the rest of the block needs to be good.
2) The site design needs to better connect Sante Fe station to downtown overall.

You won't see 1 until that land can be sold. No sense putting together a plan for land that won't even be available for 5 years, let alone in a certain developers hands.

I agree on #2, but I think the Santa Fe station is less of a focal.point for the RTA (unless I read something wrong).

[FighttheGoodFight]

Can we land a Taylor Swift concert if we get a new arena?

[PoliSciGuy]

The richest owner is in Tulsa, so he won't care what happens to the perception of this city.

But I was told multiple times in this very thread that Thunder ownership were great stewards of this community and had great civic engagement?!

[chssooner]

Can we land a Taylor Swift concert if we get a new arena?

No. She only plays stadiums.

[BoulderSooner]

It would go toward the arena, just like excess MAPS money goes into all the various projects, as it has for the last 30+ years.

In this case, there is just one project.

No City project has a set cost. There is an original budget that gets changed repeatedly and in the case of the sales tax collection, that just gets added onto the existing projects. They don't stop the collection or refund the excess in any way -- it gets spent on the projects for which the sales tax increase was approved by voters.

and some times excess budget gets moved to other projects ..

[Pete]

and some times excess budget gets moved to other projects ..

There would be no other projects approved in the vote -- big difference from MAPS.

[BoulderSooner]

You think they bought that team and negotiated in good faith to keep them in Seattle?

If so, you'd be the only one.

The Sordid Deal That Created The Okla. City Thunder


And Aubrey was fined $250K by the NBA for saying the quiet part out loud:

https://www.seattlepi.com/news/artic...ot-1274409.php

the seattle city council president actively lobbied for the state legislature to not even hold a vote on the renton plan .. if the state had voted on and passed the plan for a new arena the team would not have moved .. period .

[BoulderSooner]

There would be no other projects approved in the vote -- big difference from MAPS.

maps 4 arena money got moved to this project ..

[Pete]

maps 4 arena money got moved to this project ..

Only because it was shifted from the Paycom improvements.

[Laramie]

Please, let's not gamble with our city's NBA future.

You're correct Pete, we're in a binary position, vote 'Yes' to keep or vote 'No' to reject.

There are no guarantees there will be 'another election' if this December vote fails; the ownership may be weary and ready to cash in on $1.75 billion which Seattle is waiting on OKC to eject their Supersonics. Our NBA franchise will be sold and relocated quicker than you can blink an eye.

A five year extension will cement the NBA in OKC until 2050. We're going to need a new arena. $900 million is a bargain; a new arena beyond 2030 could cost $1.2 billion and we may not have an NBA anchor tenant.
A 'No vote' will be contagious for future MAPS elections especially if our Thunder are gone.

PS: Ask cities like Seattle, Vancouver, Kansas City, Cincinnati and St. Louis who have been waiting 15-55 years for another opportunity to host an NBA franchise.

[lpsooner]

BTW, this stated $900 million number from six years of an additional $.01 sales tax does not begin to add up -- the actual number is likely to be much higher.


For the City's fiscal year which ended in June, the same $.01 sales tax for MAPS 4 amounted to $143 million. That represented a 7% increase from the previous year, pretty typical growth due to inflation and all the growth within city limits.

Remember we will not start collecting the arena sales tax until MAPS 4 ends, which means it would start in 2029 and then run for six years.

Even allowing for only a 5% annual increase (very conservative) means we would take in $1.37 billion just through sales tax alone; not $900 million. $900 million is basically the amount you get if you take 2023 and assume everything will still be the same by the time we get to 2029 and run through 2034. At an average increase of 7% that number rises to $1.6 billion. But even 3% average growth would result in collecting $1.1 billion.

But let's take the conservative $1.37 billion, plus the $70 million from MAPS4 and $50 million from the ownership group: That's nearly $1.4 billion in total budget.

$50 million ownership contribution would then represent 3.6% of the total, not including the land value if that is indeed donated by the City.

I'm confused, I thought the City would own the arena and lease it to the Thunder. If that's correct, then who would the city be donating the land to? Or will the Thunder be partners with the City in the ownership of the building?

[LocoAko]

I really don't see why it's so important to have them. I didn't even know who the Thunder was until I moved to OKC and work like two blocks from paycom.

Experiment: Search for "OKC" on Google Images.

The majority of results relate to the Thunder.

We hashed this over for pages and pages earlier in this thread and it was one of the few things almost everyone agreed on. Anyone denying the role that the Thunder have had in changing our brand and visibility nationally are in denial.