Convention Center

[Stickman]

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

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

[OKCRT]

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

[BDP]

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

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

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

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

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

[BoulderSooner]

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

I would bet on land ajacent to the park.

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

[Urbanized]

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

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

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

[Rover]

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

[Pete]

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

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

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


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

[Pete]

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

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

[Pete]

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

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

We would have owned the cc land anyway.


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

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

We would have owned the cc land anyway.


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

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

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

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

[Pete]

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

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

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


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

[Just the facts]

I thought the east Park location was public land.

[Pete]

I thought the east Park location was public land.

Not owned by the City.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^

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

[Laramie]

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

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

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

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

Last information on hosting:

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

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

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

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

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

Sacramento putting together bid for 2019 NBA All-Star Game | The Sacramento Bee The Sacramento Bee

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

College Final Four:

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

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

Men's Final Four bid process under way | NCAA.com

[Canoe]

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

[Just the facts]

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

[Pete]

^^^^^^^

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

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

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

[Just the facts]

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

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

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

[Pete]

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

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

[DoctorTaco]

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

Please continue...
:

[Pete]

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

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

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

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