A’s stadium project hits snag when Alameda County stalls financing vote
OAKLAND >> The A’s quest to build a waterfront ballpark and village at Howard Terminal hit another snag this week after Alameda County said it’s not ready to deliver a vote next month that’s considered critical to the project’s financing.
The revelation put a pause on the city’s effort to wrap up a deal to keep the A’s ballpark plan on track. The team has threatened to leave Oakland — possibly for Las Vegas — if it can’t move to the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal in three years when the lease to play in the Coliseum expires.
The city this spring asked the county’s Board of Supervisors
to join it in forming an infrastructure financing district that would use a portion of property tax growth revenue to pay for the sidewalks, streets and other capital improvements needed to prepare the Howard Terminal site for development, as well as public park space and some affordable housing.
Without the county’s share of tax revenue, Oakland officials have said, not enough money would be generated from the city’s share alone to cover the infrastructure costs.
But county leaders have been hesitant to go along, and during a meeting in June the supervisors said they wanted staff to further explore the financial terms being negotiated between the city and the A’s. They indicated the earliest they might vote would be in September.
Now that vote will at least be delayed, if taken at all.
In two letters sent to Oakland city leaders this month, County Administrator Susan Muranishi said the county isn’t prepared to proceed until the city and the A’s reach a consensus on who should pay for what.
“It remains challenging for the County to evaluate the merits of participation in the City’s proposed IFD while the project remains uncertain, and its status continues to change, including key deal points and environmental approvals,” Muranishi said in a letter sent to the city on Friday. “The County must take the time it needs to review the City’s proposal responsibly and thoroughly, including the retention of legal and financial experts.”
Even if the county agrees to participate, she added, “it remains unclear that the A’s will complete a deal with Oakland.
Muranishi did not indicate when the county plans to take up the issue, though she did say it would “welcome ongoing updates from the City as your negotiations with the A’s progress to help inform the timing of our next steps.”
In a letter sent to the county on Friday, City Administrator Edward Reiskin emphasized that Oakland needs to know where the county stands for it to complete any deal with the A’s.
“In order for the City and Port to complete negotiations with the A’s and bring forward a package of final documents, including the Final EIR, for consideration by the Council and Port Board, it is essential that all parties have an understanding of the County’s intentions with regards to the IFD,” Reiskin wrote. “The County’s participation in the IFD will be key to the viability of the project’s overall financial plan.”
Reiskin said the fact that an environmental impact report for the project still is being worked on shouldn’t hold up the supervisors’ consideration of what would be a non-binding “declaration of the County’s intent to contribute its share of the incremental property taxes that will be generated from development of the Waterfront Ballpark District at Howard Terminal.”
As for Muranishi’s concern that the team and city are still “far apart” in negotiations — a point that A’s president Dave Kaval reiterated on Saturday — Reiskin pointed out that the A’s staff, attorneys and consultants have met regularly since July 20 with the city to discuss plans, cost estimates and progress in the final environmental impact report. Meanwhile, the A’s have continued to complete applications and pay all the required fees to move the project forward.
Kaval said the A’s “need assurances that this project is going to have all the approvals available
to be successful.” As part of an effort to help bridge the divide, Kaval noted he hosted county Supervisor Dave Haubert at the A’s game against the Seattle Mariners this week.
“We’ve been speaking to them (county officials), we’re trying to do our part,” Kaval said. “At the end of the day, it’s a binary decision. They will be involved or not. Right now, getting the letter yesterday, I was startled to receive that. It appears it’s a no.”
In their non-binding financial term sheet released in April, the A’s asked the city to create two infrastructure financing districts.
One would finance improvements such as sidewalks, streets and soil cleanup to prep the 55acre Howard Terminal site for the ballpark and a village of 3,000 homes, offices, hotels, a performing arts center, open space and parks.
The other district, which would include a 11/2-mile area near the terminal including Jack London Square, would finance off-site improvements such as pedestrian bridges and traffic upgrades to make it easier for A’s fans and others to reach the site.
From the two tax districts, the A’s were counting on getting reimbursed $855 million in bond money over 45 years for all the infrastructure work they would pay upfront.
Although city officials agreed to create a district for the Howard Terminal site, they rejected the idea of creating a second one, saying it would be fiscally irresponsible since it could not be considered to be entirely generated from the project.