EXCLUSIVITY
2,500 feet
The report describes an exclusivity radius around each kiosk location that restricts the City from authorizing competing outdoor advertising within that area.
Report pp. 6, 16, 23 ↗PUBLIC SPACE. PUBLIC QUESTIONS.
Our streets.
What’s the
return?
A long commitment deserves a close look. Explore the terms of Inglewood’s 2025 WOW advertising agreement, as described in an August 2026 financial report.
Look at the dealTHE AUTHORIZED SCALEREPORT P. 6 ↗
UP TO
108
DIGITAL DISPLAY FACES
On up to 60 kiosk structures.
Public sidewalks. Public medians.
Authorized capacity, not a count of installed screens.
BASED ON THE AUGUST 2026 REPORT
Prepared by Capitol Matrix Consulting
Prepared for Neighbors for a Beautiful Inglewood
01 THE COMMITMENT
A deal that could
span generations.
40YEARS
The report describes a 20-year initial term plus two automatic 10-year renewals. Only WOW can decline those renewals.
Forty years is the default term, subject to the agreement’s provisions.
Report pp. 6, 23HOW THE TERM ADDS UP
The first 20 years
The agreement begins with a 20-year initial term. Select a renewal period to see how the default term reaches 40 years.
Widths represent duration. Contract years are shown, not calendar dates.
THE CITY’S OBLIGATIONS
Keeping the
ads in view.
According to the report, the City must remove trees and other obstructions that block billboard views, at the City’s expense.
Report pp. 6, 16–17, 23 ↗02 THE RETURN
Forty percent.
Of what?
The stated percentage is only part of the story. The report says the City’s 40% share applies to advertising revenue after specified deductions.
A simplified explanation of the report’s revenue definition. Minimum payments, separate repair deductions, and contractual exceptions also matter. Report pp. 6, 15, 23 ↗
How the terms changed
2015 → 2025| Term | Original 2015 agreement | 2025 kiosk agreement |
|---|---|---|
| Base revenue share | 50% Higher rates above specified thresholds | 40% No threshold rate |
| Operating-cost deduction cap | 20% of gross advertising revenue | 25% of gross advertising revenue |
| Separate electricity deduction | None | Uncapped, according to the report |
| Upfront payments | $3.1 million in total | None reported |
The earlier agreement covered larger billboard formats; the new agreement covers kiosks. These are contract-term comparisons, not equivalent advertising inventories. Later amendments changed some 2015 terms. Report pp. 5–6, 15, 22–24 ↗
03 THE BUDGET CONTEXT
The return has to
meet the scale.
$8.7M
Projected operating gap.
The report identifies an $8.7 million gap between ongoing General Fund revenues and planned expenditures in the City’s adopted FY 2025–26 budget.
Report pp. 7, 13 ↗Adopted budget figures, as reported by CMC
$8.7M operating gap
Both bars start at zero and use the same scale. Rounded figures from the report’s Figure 1.
The context behind the gap
This is an annual operating-budget gap, not the City’s entire financial position. The report also describes about $170 million in undesignated General Fund balances and an $11.1 million transfer of prior-year balances in the adopted budget.
It separately identifies about $659 million in four major long-term liability categories as of September 30, 2024. Those liabilities are not a bill due all at once, and the report does not establish that the City is bankrupt.
Report pp. 7, 10–13 ↗04 THE EVIDENCE
Read the report.
Ask the questions.
Start with the contract terms. Then examine the assumptions behind the revenue estimates.
Two calculations need clarification.
The report’s central revenue claims deserve a reconciliation before being used as definitive headlines.
01 The minimum payment and the forecast
Pages 6 and 23 describe a minimum of $1,000 per month per active display face. At 108 active faces receiving that amount for an entire year, the arithmetic is:
108 × $1,000 × 12 = $1,296,000 a year
That exceeds the report’s $600,000–$1.1 million full-buildout revenue estimate on page 17. The relationship between the minimum, operating assumptions, deductions, and any rent exceptions needs to be explained.
Why it matters: the widely repeated “less than 0.5%” figure depends on an estimate that does not visibly reconcile with the stated minimum. This calculation is a consistency check, not a new revenue forecast.
Compare report pp. 6, 17, 23 ↗02 The revenue base in the breakeven table
Page 19 describes about $58 million in annual venue-related City tax revenue. Its table shows that a 1.26% decline offsets $300,000 in kiosk revenue.
$300,000 ÷ 1.26% ≈ $23.8 million
The table therefore appears to use a smaller revenue base. Page 20 refers to “exposed venue revenue,” but the bridge from $58 million to roughly $23.8 million is not shown. That denominator needs clarification before using the “1–5% decline” claim.
The report explicitly says it is not predicting a particular decline or the loss of a specific event. Potential effects on sponsorships and event hosting should remain identified as risks.
Report pp. 19–20 ↗