Milwaukee, Louisville & others look at OKC...


Milwaukee Blueprint for the future? Quest for funding of new arena contrasts Oklahoma City, Milwaukee.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/print-edition/2012/11/30/blueprint-for-the-future.html


Louisville Fischer wants to follow Oklahoma City tax model.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2015/01/05/fischer-wants-follow-oklahoma-city-model/21288409/


Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Green Bay, Milwaukee...
Review of the economic impact of professional sports venues and downtown revitalization efforts in Oklahoma City.

[PDF] http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/ccCouncil/2013-PDF/LRB143797-AldMurphy-SportsVenu.pdf

I think it's pretty funny that Milwaukee is skeptical about "actual" benefit from the MAPS Projects

Wisconsin Dems and Reps to meet to discuss who wants less to vote for $500m in Bucks subsidies | Field of Schemes (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/06/22/9348/wisconsin-dems-and-reps-to-meet-to-discuss-who-wants-less-to-vote-for-500m-in-bucks-subsidies/)

Bucks arena plan includes $8m in hidden city subsidies, garnishing wages of tax debtors | Field of Schemes (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/06/10/9256/bucks-arena-plan-includes-8m-in-hidden-city-subsidies-garnishing-wages-of-tax-debtors/)

Economist Victor Matheson tells Huffington Post sports reporter Travis Waldron (formerly of ThinkProgress — when did that happen?) that Gov. Scott Walker’s bogus claims of economic benefits from a Bucks arena are bogus: “[Walker’s projections] are predicated on the idea that no other real estate could occur there, and it’s not entirely clear why that should be the case. Just because the NBA isn’t there doesn’t mean you can’t redevelop apartments or commercial space. Cities have been developing for centuries without NBA teams.”

Wisconsin county says no way, no how to Bucks arena taxes | Field of Schemes (http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/08/14/5735/wisconsin-county-says-no-way-no-how-to-bucks-arena-taxes/)

The Racine County Board unanimously voted yesterday to oppose any new or existing multicounty taxes going to help pay for a new Bucks arena, noting — in the resolution, mind you — that Racine pays for its own marina and zoo without taxing neighboring county, as Milwaukee can damn well do the same. (Okay, the resolution probably doesn’t say “damn well.”)

There is serious talk about the possibility of relocation if Milwaukee doesn't do something on the arena issue.


Edens and Lasry are doing the right thing currently by rallying the troops on the ground to get the grassroots support that is needed to get the motion to pass. These new owners are energetic and it can be infectious. We’ve seen the affect that Chris Hansen has had on our people locally. Their goal is to have a plan in place within a year. "The one-year target will be May 15, the anniversary of when the NBA approved Edens and Lasry’s purchase of the Bucks." according to the Milwaukee Business Journal.

That deadline is more than just a personal goal, though. While it's been reported that Milwaukee has until 2017 to get an arena deal in place, that is not correct. In fact, Milwaukee would need to have an arena operable by 2017, not just a plan in place. The Milwaukee Business Journal goes on to say that Lasry and Edens "are working under an NBA deadline to produce a home court that meets current league standards by fall 2017."


Sources: Could the Milwaukee Bucks be moving for the 2016 Season? - Sonics Rising (http://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/6/5/5778430/sources-could-the-milwaukee-bucks-be-moving-2016-season)

While Seattle is cautious about the Bucks possible relocation, Louisville & Virginia Beach also appear on the radar:

Why Louisville Should Top The List For An NBA Franchise - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2012/12/18/why-louisville-should-top-the-list-for-an-nba-franchise/)

Sources: NBA Possibly Exploring Expansion to Seattle and Louisville - Sonics Rising (http://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/7/23/5927745/nba-expansion-seattle-louisville)

Oklahoma City is blessed with MAPS. Our city should continue to build from what MAPS has accomplished. Is there more to be done with the Chesapeake Energy Arena to ensure that the Thunder are secure?

OKC should begin a one cent tax NOW for buliding of an arena in 15 more years. Why wait, one cent banked for a new NBA arena would ensure the franchise would not relocate.

OKC should begin a one cent tax NOW for buliding of an arena in 15 more years. Why wait, one cent banked for a new NBA arena would ensure the franchise would not relocate.

I think this has been discussed but part of the reasons for other cities having to build new arenas is their existing ones don't have certain amenities that are required to meet NBA standards. The Peake currently does so there is no reason to build a new arena.

Bold strategy Mil, worked out well for Seattle.

The real way to build a $500 million dollar arena is to spend a billion. 1/2 to the arena the other half for the arts. It suddenly becomes a lot more popular.

I think this has been discussed but part of the reasons for other cities having to build new arenas is their existing ones don't have certain amenities that are required to meet NBA standards. The Peake currently does so there is no reason to build a new arena.

I think what he's saying is we need to start raising money for it now because the peake will be outdated by the time the money is there. If a new basketball arena was on the maps4 ballot the peake will be 30 years old by the time the new one is built. That's about the life cycle. I'd love to build a state of the art beautiful 500million dollar arena (look at the kings new one), however there are def bigger priorities right now.

I think it's pretty funny that Milwaukee is skeptical about "actual" benefit from the MAPS Projects

Realistically the Milwaukee numbers are probably a decent look at what is more directly linked to MAPS, it is something that should be considered by a city in their position who needs to know what can they really should expect without other major influence. There have been many projects not too far from MAPS's goals but funded by debt that had unreal expectations for project returns that never came close to making the numbers work and have caused huge pressure on those cities general fund to cover the shortfall to service the debt, leading to cuts in police/fire/education/other services. Does their numbers account for everything that resulted from MAPS, probably not but Milwaukee is unlikely to have a shale gas boom during their projects timeline either.

The number OKC gives is more likely a bit overhyped, with the actual answer coming somewhere in between because at least some of that number was going to be spent somewhere around the metro regardless, unless business or people were going to moving to a different major city, which well could have happened but that is getting into a fuzzy area that it is harder to conclusively prove in a budget report. Should we consider part of that number OKC claims to the improvements made by Project 180 & i40 being expanded, could a project like 180 be more financially beneficial than a stadium?

Though all of that is more just on the budget side, there are less tangible things as well, like what is the National/International PR and local lifestyle value of a NBA basketball team worth (which given how long their team has been on the treadmill of mediocrity for a while it easily could be less than the Thunder has been for us). How much does it really change migration patterns of current or perspective citizens? Then how do you factor in the starting position of the downtowns, sure any can use improvement, but theirs looks much healthier than ours was pre-MAPS.

I think what he's saying is we need to start raising money for it now because the peake will be outdated by the time the money is there. If a new basketball arena was on the maps4 ballot the peake will be 30 years old by the time the new one is built. That's about the life cycle. I'd love to build a state of the art beautiful 500million dollar arena (look at the kings new one), however there are def bigger priorities right now.

Why will the Peake need replaced after 30 years? From what I understand, many of the arenas that have been built recently have been built because the old arena lacked a certain amenity that the NBA required and couldn't be retrofitted and/or was a relocation of a team from the suburbs to downtown. Madison Square Garden was built in 1968 and is still in use today.

OKC should begin a one cent tax NOW for buliding of an arena in 15 more years. Why wait, one cent banked for a new NBA arena would ensure the franchise would not relocate.

Well that wild be insane. No offense, but time value of money. I was actually just about to say that these other cities are probably looking at MAPS and would only do it if they could structure it as revenue-backed bonds. That would be smart. OKC actually loses a ton by collecting funds first then starting construction. I am shocked that somebody is proposing to make it even worse. The millions you save now will be worth half that (at best) in 15 years.

MAPS concept was "pay as you go" collect.

D. C. Sooners' idea does have some merit; it shouldn't be dismissed as far-fetched. If you were to make MAPS a permanent tax that targets future Capital building & Improvement funds (like the OKC Zoo) then the money would be there when you decided to build; along with the interest it accumulates (accrued).

Now a greater concern would be 'what to build' if you had money already banked.

What about the idea of making MAPS a permanent sales tax; would that we legal?

Why will the Peake need replaced after 30 years? From what I understand, many of the arenas that have been built recently have been built because the old arena lacked a certain amenity that the NBA required and couldn't be retrofitted and/or was a relocation of a team from the suburbs to downtown. Madison Square Garden was built in 1968 and is still in use today.

New York's Madison Square Garden is an exception:

Although built in 1968, Madison Square Garden has gone through about 2 renovations. Its original cost in 1968 was $123 million which is equivalent to $800 million today.

Remember when we built the current Peake, it possessed the 'bare bones minimum' to get up to the next level. The 2010 upgrades completed cost about as much as the original arena price tag itself. Who knows, the Peake may eventually need to be tweaked.

New York's Madison Square Garden is an exception:

Although built in 1968, Madison Square Garden has gone through about 2 renovations. Its original cost in 1968 was $123 million which is equivalent to $800 million today.
This is what was torn down to build MSG:

http://i.imgur.com/GbwpBhb.jpg?1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Station_(1910%E2%80%931963)#

Why will the Peake need replaced after 30 years? From what I understand, many of the arenas that have been built recently have been built because the old arena lacked a certain amenity that the NBA required and couldn't be retrofitted and/or was a relocation of a team from the suburbs to downtown. Madison Square Garden was built in 1968 and is still in use today.

Almost EVERY arena, ballpark, stadium outlives it's original design. There are exceptions to every rule; Fenway, Wrigley, MSG. But just being iconic doesn't save you from the wrecking ball. Just ask Chicago Stadium and Boston Garden. I would like to see how many of the stadiums torn down, especially in baseball, were due to being built as cheaply as possible? I know that almost every single one of the "multi-purpose" round stadiums that were built, starting in the late 60's, has been torn down and replaced by TWO stadiums. The only three that remain, I believe, are Anaheim, Qualcomm in San Diego, and Oakland Coliseum. After the Rams left, Anaheim's Stadium was renovated to baseball-only. The Chargers are threatening to move if they don't get a new stadium, and Oakland Coliseum is looking like it will be torn down in the near future.

Why will the Peake need replaced after 30 years? From what I understand, many of the arenas that have been built recently have been built because the old arena lacked a certain amenity that the NBA required and couldn't be retrofitted and/or was a relocation of a team from the suburbs to downtown. Madison Square Garden was built in 1968 and is still in use today.

LOL. What a terrible example.

They poured a BILLION dollars into MSG from 2011-2013 to modernize it after a $200 million renovation in 1991.

The life cycle is 30 years for a stadium, whether that's renovation or rebuild. Since there is nothing inherently special about the peake (as opposed to fenway, wrigley, lambeau) I'd rather build a new one that is iconic and is true gem for the city.

Sacramento's new arena is insane.
https://www.google.com/search?q=golden+1+center&biw=1366&bih=657&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fBGTVcixDYmrgwSlhJ-oBA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoBA#imgrc=_

MAPS concept was "pay as you go" collect.

D. C. Sooners' idea does have some merit; it shouldn't be dismissed as far-fetched. If you were to make MAPS a permanent tax that targets future Capital building & Improvement funds (like the OKC Zoo) then the money would be there when you decided to build; along with the interest it accumulates (accrued).

Now a greater concern would be 'what to build' if you had money already banked.

What about the idea of making MAPS a permanent sales tax; would that we legal?

You mean turning MAPS into a blank check with no sunset? Hmm...

You missed the point. I know that MAPS is "pay as you go." There are important reasons that infrastructure is usually financed differently than cellular minutes in developing nations.

Almost EVERY arena, ballpark, stadium outlives it's original design. There are exceptions to every rule; Fenway, Wrigley, MSG. But just being iconic doesn't save you from the wrecking ball. Just ask Chicago Stadium and Boston Garden. I would like to see how many of the stadiums torn down, especially in baseball, were due to being built as cheaply as possible? I know that almost every single one of the "multi-purpose" round stadiums that were built, starting in the late 60's, has been torn down and replaced by TWO stadiums. The only three that remain, I believe, are Anaheim, Qualcomm in San Diego, and Oakland Coliseum. After the Rams left, Anaheim's Stadium was renovated to baseball-only. The Chargers are threatening to move if they don't get a new stadium, and Oakland Coliseum is looking like it will be torn down in the near future.

The multi-purpose tear downs has more to do with they tended to be poor fan experiences for both events and the money now is in the premium seats and suites, which the market for had greatly expand between when the original 50s - 70s era football/baseball stadiums and pre 90s basketball/hockey arenas were built, the ones that did not have elaborate mechanisms to reconfigure large portions of the seats could have continued on with much cheaper renovations if it were only structural reasons and owner were not highly successful getting public money by threatening to move.

LOL. What a terrible example.

They poured a BILLION dollars into MSG from 2011-2013 to modernize it after a $200 million renovation in 1991.

The life cycle is 30 years for a stadium, whether that's renovation or rebuild. Since there is nothing inherently special about the peake (as opposed to fenway, wrigley, lambeau) I'd rather build a new one that is iconic and is true gem for the city.

Sacramento's new arena is insane.
https://www.google.com/search?q=golden+1+center&biw=1366&bih=657&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fBGTVcixDYmrgwSlhJ-oBA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoBA#imgrc=_

The more you look at all the basketball and hockey stadiums, they more they all look bland (no matter how iconic cities try to make them) and modest renovations of existing facilities in good locations seems like a better idea.

Realize that many of you think that OKC will not need a new arena (Peake will be over 23 years old) after 2025? Cities recognize the intangibles associated with a major professional sports franchise.

Chesapeake Energy Arena had renovations in the neighborhood of $90 completed in 2010. How much life do you think we have on our arena and just how operational & functional will the Chesapeake Energy Arena be after 2025?


Note: MAPS lastest initiatives have 7 years collection time. If a MAPS IV is successful; it should expire around 2024.

The more you look at all the basketball and hockey stadiums, they more they all look bland (no matter how iconic cities try to make them) and modest renovations of existing facilities in good locations seems like a better idea.

A billion dollars is modest. Lol. What world are you living on? Mid 2020s you'll start to hear the thunder org wanting a new arena. They'll want more suites and a nicer arena in general. When renovation price tags start to rival building new, the push will be for new. Just watch.

A billion dollars is modest. Lol. What world are you living on? Mid 2020s you'll start to hear the thunder org wanting a new arena. They'll want more suites and a nicer arena in general. When renovation price tags start to rival building new, the push will be for new. Just watch.

We finally agree on something.

A billion dollars is modest. Lol. What world are you living on? Mid 2020s you'll start to hear the thunder org wanting a new arena. They'll want more suites and a nicer arena in general. When renovation price tags start to rival building new, the push will be for new. Just watch.

The NY remodel is not the normal remodel, they were effectively entirely demolishing the entire old interior & bowl structure and building a new arena inside the old walls (which had upgrades too) and keeping the ceiling.

Like Snowman acknowledged; many of the remodels required a complete demolition of the interior.

New arenas constructed today are in the $500 million range; you can bet that when the Peake is retired it will be more like $700 - $1 billion for a new arena come 2025. Yes, the Thunder will eventually want a new arena. What will they contribute to make that arena possible since they will be the primary tenant?

The NY remodel is not the normal remodel, they were effectively entirely demolishing the entire old interior & bowl structure and building a new arena inside the old walls (which had upgrades too) and keeping the ceiling.

Solider field normal? 632 million (810 in today money)
Lambeau field? 295 in '03, 130 for south end zone expansion in '11, another 140 million this year.

So what exactly is "normal" for a professional stadium renovation? When the peake's time comes, it will be just as much to just build new then keep renovating a meh arena.

So build something special when the time comes.

I'm sure the thunder and the city will split it 50/50.

At some point, the Thunder will need a new arena. But I disagree that that will be 2025. That would be just 15 years after the most recent renovation. It's only 10 years from now. Currently the Thunder has a perfectly nice NBA arena. It has everything that the big boys have -- luxury suites, player amenities, HD television broadcast equipment, modern electronics, etc. The fact that we got a hell of a deal on it (got the land for dirt cheap, built when construction costs were low) doesn't make it a sub-par arena.

I'm thinking we are probably going to get to about 2040 before we really have to worry about building a new arena. Now that's impossible to truly predict, because it might get hit by a tornado tomorrow or there might be some problem with the structure where we can't fit in the anti-gravity court and laser backboards when they get invented. But the reason we had a huge number of new stadiums and arenas built in recent years is because the old ones didn't have luxury suites. So an arena that was renovated in 1995 (like the Key Arena in Seattle) was a victim of horrible timing. It's like somebody who bought one of those projection screen TVs a few months before HDTVs came out.

Until the Chesapeake has some sort of structural problem come up, or some brand new thing appears that the Chesapeake can't be retrofitted to incorporate, I think we are safe.

I'd like to see them start planning a regional light rail system and collect for that in advance. As long as it could be written into the tax that its revenues could not be used for other purposes, it could be a prudent way to go.

At some point, the Thunder will need a new arena. But I disagree that that will be 2025. That would be just 15 years after the most recent renovation. It's only 10 years from now. Currently the Thunder has a perfectly nice NBA arena. It has everything that the big boys have -- luxury suites, player amenities, HD television broadcast equipment, modern electronics, etc. The fact that we got a hell of a deal on it (got the land for dirt cheap, built when construction costs were low) doesn't make it a sub-par arena.

I'm thinking we are probably going to get to about 2040 before we really have to worry about building a new arena. Now that's impossible to truly predict, because it might get hit by a tornado tomorrow or there might be some problem with the structure where we can't fit in the anti-gravity court and laser backboards when they get invented. But the reason we had a huge number of new stadiums and arenas built in recent years is because the old ones didn't have luxury suites. So an arena that was renovated in 1995 (like the Key Arena in Seattle) was a victim of horrible timing. It's like somebody who bought one of those projection screen TVs a few months before HDTVs came out.

Until the Chesapeake has some sort of structural problem come up, or some brand new thing appears that the Chesapeake can't be retrofitted to incorporate, I think we are safe.

This x100

The Chesapeake won't need completely replaced until something new catches on that it can't be retrofitted with or until there are actual structural issues with the arena. There should be no need to build a new arena simply to have a new arena.

If the Thunder does ask for a new arena, it won't be 2025. I agree that 2040 is a more realistic proposition. In regards to other cities that replaced their arenas after around 30 years, its important to look a little deeper and ask why they replaced them. It's different for different cities, but every time it was to meet a standard that the Peake already meets.

You guys need to look up the time value of money....


Bond these things out. MAPS isn't a bad model but it should be a revenue source (a remarkably predictable one) that we tie to a separate bond issuance, and start all the projects at once.

The problems I've seen from revenue-backed bonds are when a certain project is predicted to affect an increase in revenue collections from an existing tax that won't be changed. I see no downside toward introducing a bond measure to the MAPS model...

Not very knowledgeable on the way bonds are financed; however, the MAPS model has proven that many of these projects will be debt free upon completion.

The only draw back--when the bids come in that far exceed the projected budget.