OKC Mayor David Holt answers readers' questions about new arena proposal
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt joined The Oklahoman's Steve Lackmeyer for a special live chat on Wednesday to answer questions about a proposal to ask voters to approve construction of a new arena.
Each week, Steve hosts a live chat, giving readers a chance to ask questions about Oklahoma City development and growth as well as an opportunity to ask direct questions of OKC newsmakers.
Here is a look at some of the questions and Holt's responses:
Q: I'm a "Yes," but what is the process for this? For the usual three city council votes it's going to have to start soon.
Holt: Thanks, Randall. What you are referencing about three council meetings has to do with ordinance changes and other specific items and is not applicable here. Generally, items for council consideration only appear on one council agenda with the exception of zoning cases, ordinance changes, economic development incentives, real estate sales and maybe something else I'm forgetting.
But election calls and agreements are only one council meeting. So, to answer your question, once we have a joint proposal that works for all parties concerned and secures a long-term relationship with major league sports while also keeping our facilities modern for all its many uses, whatever is related to that issue, including the call for an election, will go to the council.
More: How much is OKC's identity worth? NBA arena plans sparks debate among local leaders
For the actual calling of the election, the council is ultimately just being asked if they will allow the people of Oklahoma City to make the decision, which I think is a wonderful aspect of every Oklahoma City process. The people get to make the choice. That vote to formally allow the voters to decide has to occur by early to mid-October.
Q: The largest arena by capacity is United Center in Chicago at 20,917. Will the new arena break 20,000 capacity?
Holt: Seating capacity is actually not that big of an issue in modern arena planning. The real issue for teams is square footage because the real revenue drivers for users are happening outside of the bowl.
That's why it is so damaging for sports and concerts that our arena is dead-last of all NBA arenas in square footage. Some arenas are literally twice our size and most are 40-50 percent larger. I can't tell you what the seating capacity of a new arena will be, but the current capacity is not really an issue and hasn't really come up. What I do know will be different in the new arena is the square footage, which has to dramatically increase.
Q: What's the estimated total price for the new arena, and how is the payment broken down?
Holt: If I knew the project cost, I would have stated it last week. That's among the topics still getting worked out.
Q: Will this new facility be capable of handling NHL, too? Since the Thunder's arrival, has any other Big League sports team expressed interest in the Paycom Center?
Holt: As far as functionality, I can't imagine why not. Residents recently messaged me when the Arizona NHL team seemed to be in a state of flux, and of course the only answer was to remind them that our arena is not something I can sell to anyone, unfortunately. For us to have that opportunity, we have to build a new arena, and then we'll see what suitors present themselves.
But they're not knocking on the door of our current arena. And so, to answer your second question more directly, no is the answer. Maybe this is a good place to again point out that our arena is way down at the lower end of U.S. arenas and our market ranks in the 40s in a world where every league generally only has 30 teams. As much as we have grown and are rightfully proud of that, major league professional sports is an extremely exclusive club and we are at its fringes. We have to work harder than other markets to overcome our size, and building a new arena is certainly a necessary part of that.
Q: If the current Prairie Surf site is used, will there be a financial package offered to assist Prairie Surf in relocation?
A: We don't have a site yet. I fully get that it is fun to speculate, and it's not like I don't think about it, too, but in the three decades of making big public investments, our city has actually never had a formal site selection process before the funding commitment is made. The convention center moved several times after the MAPS 3 vote. I am committed to the new arena being downtown, which maybe we take for granted, but has been an issue in other cities, so I think it is important to say that here. Beyond that, it's just premature. Your question is several steps beyond where we are. But obviously, I've championed our film industry and PSM and will continue to.
Lackmeyer: I will be shocked if the arena is not built on the former Cox Convention Center site (now home to Prairie Surf Studios). The city does not have the money to provide long-term upkeep on this 52-year-old building and Prairie Surf understood at the start this was a temporary home.
Q: The Paycom Center opened with very few amenities. Now it seems every new venue has new gimmicks to enhance the fan experience. What do you envision?
Holt: Well, I’m no expert and it’s really important that those decisions ultimately be made in consultation with experts and with an intent of meeting modern NBA arena standards. But you’re absolutely right that even a layperson can tell in 30 seconds that there is a massive difference between our arena and a modern NBA arena. Our arena has about $200 million of total investment in a world where most NBA arenas would cost well north of $500 million today, and some are costing north of $1 billion.
My role is to make sure our community puts the resources together to bring us up to the modern standard. As I said last week, our arena is one of only two in the NBA that was built before our city had a team. We’ve actually never really had an NBA arena. We have every reason to believe that the user experience in this new arena will blow people away.
Q: I hope the new arena is to be equipped with the best ideas from the other arenas in the League. Will that be the plan?
Holt: For sure! We'll have the best national experts involved in the planning and design. As I said last week, this will raise the bar for our residents in so many ways. It will be our statement that we're truly ready to be a top 20 city. It's an incredible legacy this generation can leave.
Q: If the Thunder contribute to building the arena, how much "say" will they have in its management, and key decision-making?
Holt: The contribution does not change the fact that the city will own the new arena. We already have a great relationship with the Thunder and appreciate and rely upon their counsel all the time for arena management issues.
Q: If the current Thunder owners sell the team, what's to prevent the new owners from pulling stakes, and leaving OKC with a new but dormant facility?
Holt: That’s why you sign a long-term lease. As I said last week, our arena commitment will secure a long-term lease with the team, and though I can’t tell you the exact number of years yet, I can tell you it will be longer than our first one (which was 15 years). But in any case, if we build an arena like this, no NBA owners are going to want to leave that. It’s going to be fantastic and in the upper echelon.
Q: If you get the arena, will you finally consider bidding for the NBA All-Star Game?
Holt: That’s clearly a decision that would have to be made jointly with the team. As you may know, we have historically been below the NBA All Star game’s requirements for high-level hotel rooms. I’m always open to that conversation, of course, but we have to make that effort collaboratively and at the right time.
Q: It appears the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) will be making announcements this year on its proposed rail and bus rapid transit routes. Can these and an arena be funded with minimal/no new taxes?
Holt: The RTA is a separate government and its jurisdiction is different than ours, as it currently includes all the people of OKC, Edmond and Norman. I’m not sure specifically what you’re referencing, but the RTA has repeatedly told me their planning process won’t conclude until at least the third quarter of 2024. So I think everything related to their work is still pretty TBD. So all I can say with certainty today is that we can fund the new arena without raising tax rates above where they are today.
Q: While I do believe an arena replacement in the next decade is an important issue to address for the city, I think a far more important issue to address more near term is funding for the RTA. Why can't we have the RTA election BEFORE an arena election, or maybe on the same ballot while turnout is high? I'm concerned that waiting until after an arena election and possibly also a bond election, will decrease the likelihood of success for an RTA funding vote, and possibly push all regional transit objectives farther down the road at a time when we have momentum and are on the cusp of making real progress. An arena vote will always pass, you know that. An RTA vote is far more tenuous and timing sensitive. Please consider this slight-in-the-grand-scheme tweak to the election schedule.
Holt: Thanks, Shawn. I appreciate your service on MAPS 4 and constructive advocacy. This is a pretty simple answer. The RTA is flat-out not ready yet. They expect to have their plans in order by the latter part of 2024. The arena proposal is not only about to be ready, it is urgent, because we are now outside of a long-term lease with the Thunder. We can't simply say to everyone that we're going to hold on the arena for a year so RTA can finish its work. It just doesn't work that way. In my experience, over nearly two decades of community votes, the order of things often ends up being for very practical reasons. Things often just happen when they are ready to happen, and in this case, one thing is ready and the other isn't. But if you want to think about it politically, I actually have a very different take than yours, and I say that as someone who clearly wants all these investments in our future to eventually occur. I do not share your concerns at all and in fact think your order would be very problematic for RTA. And again, I think you know I want all these things to eventually occur. Anyways, happy to talk about my perspectives on the strategy of things some time, but in reality, this current order is really driven by practicality more than anything else.
Q: For those of us that support a new arena development, please give us a cliff's notes version of pitch points to convince others to vote for it.
Holt: First of all, do understand that some people just like to vote no. So make your best argument with everyone, but also understand that some people are always going to find a reason to vote no. However, for the strong majority of the city that is open to hearing the explanation, obviously my first choice is that they watch or read the relevant portion of my State of the City.
That speech is perhaps the most in-depth explanation that has ever been made regarding an arena investment. Lol I’m kidding but also sort of not. If the person doesn’t want to spend 30 minutes watching that part of my speech, here is the nutshell: Almost like clockwork, our city has committed to build a new arena every 30 years for a century, and it has been 30 years since our last such vote. We’ve done that because the arena is the centerpiece of our city’s quality of life investments. What happens in that arena defines how we see our quality of life and how others see us. Never since 1927 have we said “nah, we don’t want to keep making progress anymore.” So I think we would be doing this regardless of professional sports.
However, our new status as a big league city is raising the stakes and adding urgency. This time, for the first time, we have a major league professional sports team, and the competition is cutthroat. Our arena is the smallest in the NBA by square footage, the second-cheapest and trending towards being older than other arenas. Our team’s long-term lease ended earlier this year and we no longer have a long-term lease. There are 18 MSAs larger than OKC that don’t have an NBA team and several have or are building billion dollar arenas. There is unique urgency to get this done so we can secure a long-term lease with the Thunder and secure all that big league status has meant to our city for another generation. When the Thunder arrived, we were the 31st largest city in the US and had been in the 30s for a century. Just 15 years later, we have jumped to 20th. We know what this status has meant to our city on every level and we have to invest ourselves (just as we have every done every 30 years since 1927) to maintain that success and our momentum.
Q: To all the Facebook/Instagram/Twitter people out there who complain about things like "fix our roads", "help the homeless", "no public money for billionaires", etc., what do you have to say to them?
Holt: In the last five years, our community has approved nearly a billion dollars for core infrastructure (including $800M for streets), funding for more police officers, funding for a county jail, $1.1B for human needs (including homelessness) through MAPS 4, and $1B for public education infrastructure. The commitment to our city’s core needs over the last 5 years has been methodical, historic and unique. It has also positioned us to now address this specific quality of life initiative. As for your last comment, the arena is ours, we own it. Our residents have built three arenas since 1927 and we paid for all of them. There is no model in a market our size for anyone but us paying for our new arena.
Believe me, I’m familiar with all of the arenas in smaller markets, and this is how it works. Someone else paying for our arena simply isn’t going to happen. It didn’t happen when we built our own arena in 1937, 1972 or 2002 and it’s not going to happen today. My role as mayor is to live in reality, and then share that reality with our residents. But I am grateful that the Thunder ownership has committed to significantly contribute to the project. Obviously, that is a first in city history.
Q: The Thunder bring in millions of dollars of revenue to the city every game and every year. There have been studies completed that state it is just shifting money away from people who would spend that money on other things. What are your thoughts on that?
Holt: Here’s my shortest take on the impact of the Thunder, and it is in many ways my answer to the infinite variations of this question typically posed by opponents to progress (not saying that's you, you're just repeating what others have said) — The city before the Thunder and after the Thunder are two very different cities in every way imaginable. Our economy, our culture, our profile, our diversity and our population have all taken massive steps forward in the 15 years since the Thunder arrived. The progress of that 15 years matches the progress of the 75 years that preceded it. It would require clinically diagnosable denial to say anything different. To lose the Thunder is to lose all of that. My longer answer is in the lengthy treatment of the benefits of being a big league city that was included in my State of the City last week.
Q: My argument isn't an ROI (return on investment) to have the Thunder stay here, but it is about establishing a global name for OKC and the Thunder. What are your thoughts?
Holt: Oh gosh, yes, this has been a huge aspect of this experience, and it’s a direct driver of the population growth, economic opportunities, commercial developments, visitor economy, events and everything else that has happened since 2008 that had never occurred here before. Like it or not, American cities don’t really exist on the national or global stage unless they have a major league professional sports in the NFL, MLB or NBA (NHL and MLS are nice, too, but still a lower level of exposure).
Anyone who has traveled internationally the last 15 years knows what I’m talking about. Instead of a blank stare, now we get “Oh, Thunder!” when people hear where we are from. And you can buy a hat or t-shirt that says “OKC” on it in literally every city around the globe. That is priceless and impossible to achieve any other way. You know, just think about this on the question of the global profile – in the last four years, the British, French and Mexican ambassadors have all visited OKC. The number of times they visited between 1889 and 2019? Zero.
Q: I feel like it has been well known for a while that the new arena will go on the current Prairie Surf Media (Old Cox Convention Center) since the land is still owned by the city. A lot of people are asking about moving Prairie Surf and why it would have to move. What do you have to say to those people?
Holt: I think I answered about the possible site earlier as best I could. The simple answer is we don't have a site yet. Further, I'm a huge fan of PSM. And as Steve has previously reported, PSM will not be at the Cox Center in the long term in any case, because that has always been the publicly-stated plan since Day One. That has nothing to do with an arena.
But we don't have an arena site yet, so it's just speculation as to how all these things would interact with each other. I do have a high level of confidence that this community has a really good track record of figuring things out. That success is partly because we engage in methodical processes and don't pop off on online chats (no offense lol).
Q: Can you lay out a timeline for the new arena? I think you said the Thunder would be in by the end of the decade (2030), but if this is an extension of MAPS and MAPS 4 goes for eight years that started in 2021, how would that work? I would assume some sort of combination of owner's equity, TIF and funds that were approved but not used in MAPS4 for the arena would be used first while MAPS for the new arena collections come in, but wanted to make sure.
Holt: I have been willing to publicly set a goal of being in the new arena by the end of the decade because that is clearly the strong desire of everyone involved. If you look at the history of our large scale public facilities, that is actually a little aggressive, but I think we all believe it can be done. But I don’t know that we’re at a higher level of specificity yet on that. Your math is correct that we would need to be creative to move faster, because MAPS 4 will not end till 2028. But we are in the process of figuring that out and it is doable.
Q: When the new arena is built, what do you expect to happen to the old arena? For years we had two arenas across the street from each other and the city benefited greatly from having the men's and women's BIG 12 tournaments across the street. With the move of OU to the SEC and OSU staying in the Big 12, do you think there is a good purpose to keep both? If you were curious, KC has the Big 12 tourney until 2027 and Nashville has the SEC tourney until 2030.
Holt: Just to clarify, the simultaneous hosting of the Big 12 men’s and women’s only happened a couple times and that is not a model that has been pursued by any league lately. That was cool, but we shouldn’t make decisions based on that. To answer your question about what would happen to our current arena when it becomes our “old arena,” it’s still a little speculative. Keep in mind, the current arena becoming our “old arena” is the very last thing that would occur in this long game of dominos. We all may have thoughts and plans but it’s also always important, in my view, to stay somewhat open-minded about things that are so far off in the future.
Q: Besides basketball (either professional or college), what other benefits could come with the building of a new arena that wouldn't come with our existing arena?
A: Without a new arena, we will eventually fall out of the major concert business. Just a cold hard reality. That competition is as brutal and unforgiving as the one for pro sports. For a century, that desire alone to have great concerts was generally why our community agreed to build new arenas on three previous occasions and it's a darn good reason by itself.
Q: I believe we have an untreated mental health crisis occurring in OKC. We have a significant population of persons who have serious mental health issues and very limited free/affordable treatment options available. As a result, our homeless shelters, libraries, parks, courthouse and jail, to name a few, are becoming mental health hot spots. Our police and fire personnel, jail staff, court staff, etc... are being asked to be quasi mental health experts with predictably poor results. I think this issue requires a global solution including state and federal help, but what is the City doing to try to address this issue? Also, what, if any, help is the city receiving from the State and/or Federal Governments to assist? Thanks in advance for your response.
Holt: Thanks for the question. Lots to unpack, and maybe Steve will want to have someone like Terri White in a future chat, but I certainly can address the city role, because we finally have one. From 1889 to 2019, the city government played essentially no role in mental health. But with the passage of MAPS 4, we are now funding multiple mental health crisis centers. We also committed some of our ARPA dollars to the potential relocation of Griffin to OKC. So we’re doing more than ever before, and that seems appropriate, considering the things you pointed out.
Q: Why is transparency lacking from Mayor Holt and the city in regard to the arena? Three city council members have said on social media they’ve been left out of the discussion for funding the new arena. Is there a reason for them being left in the dark? The percent the Thunder are assisting in paying for the new arena has yet to be disclosed as well. Will it be 50% to 52% like arenas in Milwaukee and Sacramento were?
Lackmeyer: Let me answer this first because this question includes some inaccurate information. The majority of the council have indicated support for the arena proposal, so I'm going to assume you are referring to the three who are still uncertain – Jo Beth Hammon, James Cooper and Nikki Nice. What you say about Councilwoman Hamon is correct - she has discussed concerns via social media about transparency.
I was unable to reach Councilwoman Nikki Nice this morning. But I checked her social media and I found no such posts. Cooper confirms he did not post anything about transparency on social media.
James said when he learned a year ago from nice about trip to Milwaukee with thunder owners, city leaders, and about how the Bucks had created a game changer known as a community benefits package to go along with it. "I jumped on it. I took it to Mayor Holt. and I've had ongoing discussions with David at once. councilwoman and council staff went on a teams call with the Bucks to learn more about what is possible here. I'm trying to find out what is possible.”
Holt: Steve is correct. That question is false. Only one council member made such a statement. And that council member has never contacted me with any suggestions for the proposal. I think that the council member has reached out to the city manager’s staff and and I think staff has taken those suggestions. I can't promise those suggestions will be incorporated, because this is a democratic process and not everyone gets what they want.
But as far as listening to people and being transparent, I have fully explained my reasoning in two (lengthy!) speeches and I receive feedback through a seemingly infinite number of mediums. I not only read it all, I usually engage with the person. Heck, that's what we're doing right now!
The level of transparency on this issue is beyond any process I could imagine. First of all, I brought it up publicly a whole year ago so we could have public feedback. Our pursuits of professional sports in 2005 and 2008 had mere weeks of public opportunity for debate.
The city council in 2005 had a few days to weigh in and the council in 2008 had two weeks. This time, it's going to end up being 18 months. And we still have ahead of us a public council vote and hearing where literally any resident can speak. And then we actually have a vote of the people, which doesn't actually occur in most cities. I honestly could not imagine a more transparent process.
Some people are just opposed and maybe they think that because we're still pursuing this that we didn't hear them. Those who are just simply opposed to moving forward in any way with a new arena have certainly been heard, but they haven't persuaded me or anyone else in this process.
Regarding the part of your question about ownership contribution, those specific comparisons are a lot more complicated than they may appear on their face. For example, in Milwaukee, you’re counting the literal philanthropic donation of $100 million from a former owner. That’s not replicable in this situation. The amount of the Thunder ownership’s contribution is not yet decided so I can’t answer the question yet, but I can say that no one needs to get fixated on arbitrary percentages. I have one interest and one interest only – what is best for OKC?
What is best for OKC is to have a major league professional sports team. That is what I am fixated on. If I add conditions to that goal that would cause me to fail in my goal, I am spiting only myself and my city. I’m certainly not proving anything to anyone else.
I’m never going to prioritize a rigid and arbitrary condition over pragmatism. If you take a position that ends major league professional sports in OKC, that is not a “win” for our city. I would encourage our residents to keep our eyes on the prize, which is making this investment in our quality of life for concerts and other events, and for securing a long-term relationship with major league professional sports. Having said that, I’m pleased we can already tell you it won’t raise taxes and that the team will contribute.
Those are already big wins and obviously better deals than we have ever had before (we raised taxes when we built our current arena, and no one helped us pay for it). I think we’re already on a great path here to a win-win for all.
Q: Will there be any publicly available information on the financial contribution to this project from the Thunder organization?
Holt: Certainly. That will be part of the proposal when that is ready before the end of summer.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: OKC Mayor David Holt details what's next with NBA arena proposal
