Alameda County Supervisors Approve Non-binding Agreement to Study Howard Terminal Infrastructure Financing District

East Oakland Stadium Alliance

Over the course of the meeting, numerous facts about the City of Oakland's financing proposal and the project's ongoing negotiations were revealed for the first time publicly - in the hours-long discussion among representatives from the County and City. Below are several of the most contentious items discussed, reported by Hyphenated Republic In a detailed summary and analysis of the meeting:  "The County’s analysis revealed that as both a percentage of property tax and unrestricted taxes, the County would pay a larger proportion of its project revenues to the IFD than the City." "County Administrator Susan Muranishi also revealed that the City’s analysis hadn’t factored in potential increased service provision costs caused by the development—a figure that Urban Century had calculated for the City but not for the County." "The meeting was also the first public discussion of the Schaaf administration's plan for assuming public debt to cover off-site infrastructure critical to the construction of the stadium. Schaaf told the body that the City is seeking state and federal sources to cover over $351 MM in off-site infrastructure necessary for the project. But even if the City were to receive the funding, she admitted, there would still be an estimated $150 MM patch required. Schaaf said on Tuesday she intends to cover the gap with a “limited obligation bond” serviced with anticipated increased taxes directly from the project." "Such bonds, according to state law would require first a council vote to pursue the bond, and then a ballot measure requiring 2/3 public vote to issue it. City spokesperson Karen Boyd confirmed to this publication that the bond Schaaf proposed at the meeting would require a ballot measure. " "The public also learned that the City and the A’s remain far apart on critical issues… Kaval seemed to undermine months worth of positive claims about negotiations by Schaaf when he revealed that the A’s and City were “still apart” on many of the issues that have dogged the City’s negotiation with Fisher’s company." Hyphenated Republic reports that Board President Keith Carson voted "no" on the non-binding, and largely symbolic, resolution. Supervisor Carson "complained with increasing bitterness about how the City of Oakland had roped the County into a position as lone spoiler on Howard Terminal. Carson also complained that vital decisions during a pandemic involving health, safety and housing were being back-burnered by the push on Howard Terminal." Explaining his no vote, the Supervisor stated, “There’s been no effort to say that there are alternatives in case we don’t get [county participation]. It’s if we don’t get your money, it ain’t gonna happen, and you’re the ones who have the albatross around your neck, you caused the A’s to leave. That bothers me, because a prudent elected official would have options for that.” Read the full articles below to learn more about our community's concerns with the Howard Terminal project, and subscribe for more media excerpts, industry highlights and other critical information about the status of the coalition and the ballpark proposal. If you’d like to get in touch, please email us at AllianceOakland@gmail.com. Thanks for listening.   Sincerely, East Oakland Stadium Alliance