Mayor Of Oakland’s Employees Forgets Infrastructure Financing Plan Earlier than Alameda County Assembly
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has pushed a political agenda with respect to the Howard Terminal Ballpark District Project – one that caused Major League Baseball to more than glance at Las Vegas as a relocation target for the Oakland A’s. But this time, her efforts and those of her staff and consultants, have combined to push the much-needed large scale events center and baseball stadium further behind in its completion.
To put it simply, one major Howard Terminal Ballpark District Project piece is missing from the presentation to the County, and it’s way too late to do anything about it. Moreover, it’s not something really new here, as I have noted that the City of Oakland has wasted two years in failing to form a fiscal agency to collect tax increment financing revenues, then form a plan for spending that money, which would then yield the “sources and uses” document that Oakland Athletics President Dave Kaval has called for more than once. It’s called the “ Infrastructure Financing Plan”.
The Infrastructure Financing Plan is not a term I created at all, but one that appears 56 times in the bill called SB 293 Skinner, the special legislation that Mayor Schaaf teamed up with Mr. Kaval and then Assemblyman and now California Attorney General Rob Bonta to get the California Legislature to pass and California Governor Gavin Newsom to sign into law October 11th, 2019.
SB 293 Skinner Is The Right Legislation To Use
SB 293 Skinner is what Dave Kaval has insisted the City of Oakland use, even as its consultants have some how convinced the unwitting Oakland City Administrator to follow a path leading toward an unnecessary crazy-quilt of overlaying districts, whereas SB 293 Skinner not only calls for one tax increment financing district, but allows the fiscal agency to use the TIF money from that zone in parts of Oakland outside of it, as formed in all of the community meetings and is to be spelled out in its Infrastructure Financing Plan.
But guess what, folks? There’s no Infrastructure Financing Plan!
In other words, all of the chickens associated with the wild-hair-I-do-not-have, arm-waving warnings I have tried to issue with how the Mayor is trying to “implement” (cough-cough) the development of Howard Terminal will come home to roots on October 26th. No, I don’t mean Alameda County will reject the City of Oakland’s request to join the Howard Terminal TIF Revenue Sharing Party, I mean the undone job Alameda County will rubber stamp that will cause the Oakland A’s to spend another year waiting for The City of Oakland to get its collective act together.
As far back as 2015, when SB 628 Bealle , the legislative father of all Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District bills that have appeared since, including SB 293 Skinner, was passed, this was true:
“This bill would additionally authorize the legislative body of a city or a county, defined to include a city and county, to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds, for which only the district is liable, “
That idea is baked into SB 293 Skinner:
This bill would establish alternative procedures for the formation of an infrastructure financing district by the City of Oakland under these provisions. The bill would require the City Council of the City of Oakland to initiate proceedings for the formation of the district by adoption of a resolution of intention to establish the district that, among other things, directs the preparation of an infrastructure financing plan.
See that, folks? So, again, where is the Howard Terminal Infrastructure Financing Plan? It would be a good idea to make it, if only to be able to show the following:
- How much of total tax increment financing revenue will be generated and under what scenarios.
- How much of the wish-list of Howard Terminal community directed projects will actually be done, at what cost, and from what combination of financial sources.
- How much of total tax increment financing revenue will be consumed by the Howard Terminal Ballpark Infrastructure Cost? (Remember, the plan was to have the A’s pay for it up-front, then be paid back by the Howard Terminal Fiscal Agency.
- What organizational form will the “ Howard Terminal Fiscal Agency” take, and who has been picked to run it?
- What will the County’s contribution yield? In other words, it will be giving its 17 percent of the share of property tax revenue to the Howard Terminal TIF. What will it get back?
The New Samoa Peninsula Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District Shows The Way For Oakland
Forming the answers to those questions regarding the formation of an Infrastructure Financing Plan is not weird rocket science, and is old hat in California. Just take a look at the work done in establishing the new Samoa Peninsula Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District that was established June 29th of this year 2021.
The Humboldt County Economic Development Division was the lead organization in preparing the Infrastructure Financing Plan for the Samoa Peninsula Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District. Have you seen Oakland’s Economic Development Office involved in any major aspect of Howard Terminal to date? Short answer: no. Why? Well, the Mayor of Oakland said it herself twice interviews with me, when she explained that Oakland did not have the staff with experience to do what she called “redevelopment” and deal with tax increment financing.
But Humboldt County sure as hell has. Moreover, I was and have been more than willing to help Oakland and the Mayor, but have been rebuffed and insulted by her at every turn – both on Howard Terminal and on The Raiders Stadium (where, after a request by Raiders Owner Mark Davis, I secured the involvement of Piper Jafray Investment Bankers, who blessed my stadium financing plan and emailed their interest. My website presenting the plan is still live and right here). I gave the whole contact information kit-and-kaboddle to the Mayor in 2015, who did absolutely zero-nothing.
I could care less who doesn’t like that I openly state my desire to help Oakland here, because the people who issue such complaints have zero-history or knowledge to bringing to bear on the matter of getting Howard Terminal back on track. And that’s the fact, jack. They can whine and cry all they want; Howard Terminal needs help. It needs a workgroup and Oakland doesn’t have one.
In the case of Humboldt County, the leaders were not encumbered with such insecurities as those that consistently plague Oakland. That organization established something called the “Samoa Peninsula Infrastructure Workgroup”. Formed February 13th, 2020, it brought together the Humboldt County Economic Development Staff, the County Fire Department, The California Center For Rural Policy, The Manila Community Services District, The City of Eureka and the City of Arcata. What did they do?
Well, according to the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, the Workgroup did this…
The District is participating on the Samoa Peninsula Infrastructure Workgroup with other public agencies to explore the most beneficial mechanism for obtaining funding to improve infrastructure on the Samoa Peninsula for economic development improvements and the betterment of the community members who live there and the economy of Humboldt County.
Where was Oakland’s Howard Terminal Financing workgroup during February of 2020? Answer: nowhere because we did not have one. What Oakland had was the community meetings to form that wish list, but no team of people, cities, and organizations, including the Oakland A’s, meeting to determine how to fund it, in addition to the A’s ballpark and infrastructure. Moreover, the City of Oakland could include the Port of Oakland and the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association in the workgroup and have some real fiscal planning fun.
Now, where we are is many who were involved in those community planning meetings feel their work will be tossed into the trash, and so far that’s how it looks. All the City’s consultants have shown are documents used to try and politically defend Howard Terminal, but not documents to advance the financing of Howard Terminal.
This is beyond awful.
Alameda County Will Approve An Incomplete Howard Terminal Project But Should Make Oakland Do Its’ Work
All of this can be turned around if Alameda County forces the City of Oakland to establish a workgroup and move toward the completion of an Infrastructure Financing Plan as the law requires. Right now, Oakland is purely and simply not in compliance with any EIDL law, and specifically SB 293 Skinner.
Time to go to work.
APPENDIX: What the Industrial Financing Plan Is Supposed To Include
Pursuant to Government Code Sections 53398.59 through 53398.74, the Infrastructure Financing Plan comprises the following information (from the Samoa Peninsula Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District IFP):
a) A map and legal description of the District, included herein as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
b) A description of the public facilities and other forms of development or financial assistance that is proposed in the area of the district, including those to be provided by the private sector, those to be provided by governmental entities without assistance under this chapter, those public improvements and facilities to be financed with assistance from the proposed district, and those to be provided jointly. The description shall include the proposed location, timing, and costs of the development and financial assistance. This information is included in Section 3 of this IFP.
c) If funding from affected taxing entities is incorporated into the financing plan, a finding that the development and financial assistance are of communitywide significance and provide significant benefits to an area larger than the area of the district. This information is included in Section 4 of this IFP.
d) A financing section (included in Section 5 of this IFP), which shall contain all of the following information:
a. A specification of the maximum portion of the incremental tax revenue of the county and of each affected taxing entity proposed to be committed to the district for each year during which the district will receive incremental tax revenue. The portion need not be the same for all affected taxing entities. The portion may change over time. The maximum portion of the County’s property tax increment to be committed to the District will be 75% throughout the duration of the District lifetime, which is projected to be forty five (45) years from the date on which the first issuance of bonds or acquisition of a loan is approved by the Public Financing Authority (“PFA”).
b. A projection of the amount of tax revenues expected to be received by the district in each year during which the district will receive tax revenues, including an estimate of the amount of tax revenues attributable to each affected taxing entity for each year. Section 5.3 of this IFP includes a projection of tax revenues to be received by the District by year over the course of forty five (45) years from the date on which the first issuance of bonds or acquisition of a loan is approved by the PFA. These projections are based on research and analysis of available data at the time of IFP preparation for purposes of illustration. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this document. Appendix C provides additional detail for the projected revenue analysis.
c. A plan for financing the public facilities to be assisted by the district, including a detailed description of any intention to incur debt. Section 5.3 of this IFP includes a plan for financing the public facilities to be assisted by the District. The PFA governing the District intends to incur debt only when it is financially prudent to do so. It is estimated at this time that 53.5 million (in present value dollars) will be contributed by the EIFD to public improvements through a combination of tax increment bond or loan 4 | P a g e
proceeds (multiple issuances may be necessary) and pay-as-you-go tax increment funding over the District lifetime.
d. A limit on the total number of dollars of taxes that may be allocated to the district pursuant to the plan. The total number of dollars or taxes that may be allocated to the District shall not exceed $200,000,000.
e. A date on which the district will cease to exist, by which time all tax allocation to the district will end. The date shall not be more than 45 years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 53398.81, or the issuance of a loan is approved by the governing board of a local agency pursuant to Section 53398.87. The District will cease to exist the earlier of: (i) forty five (45) years from the date on which the first issuance of bonds or acquisition of a loan is approved by the PFA, or (ii) June 30, 2072. This IFP assumes that the District will be formed in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and will begin receiving tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
f. An analysis of the costs to the county of providing facilities and services to the area of the district while the area is being developed and after the area is developed. The plan shall also include an analysis of the tax, fee, charge, and other revenues expected to be received by the county as a result of expected development in the area of the district. Appendix D to this IFP includes, as part of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, an analysis of the costs to the County for providing facilities and services to the area of the District. It is estimated that, at Year 10 of the District lifetime, annual costs to the County will be approximately $3.7 million.
g. An analysis of the projected fiscal impact of the district and the associated development upon each affected taxing entity. Appendix D to this IFP includes an analysis of the projected fiscal impact of the District and the associated development upon the County, as the only affected taxing entity that is contributing tax increment revenues to the District at this time. It is estimated that, at Year 10 of the District lifetime, the District will generate an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $1.72 million to the County.
e) If any dwelling units within the territory of the district are proposed to be removed or destroyed in the course of public works construction within the area of the district or private development within the area of the district that is subject to a written agreement with the district or that is financed in whole or in part by the district, a plan providing for replacement of those units and relocation of those persons or families consistent with the requirements of Section 53398.56. The PFA does not anticipate that any housing units will be removed as a result of any project identified in this IFP. However, if any relocation of dwelling units is deemed to be required in the future for a project financed by the District, the PFA will comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 53398.56.
f) The goals the district proposes to achieve for each project financed pursuant to Section 53398.52. Section 7 of this IFP summarizes the goals of each project to be financed by the District.
Oakland News Now Recent Posts
- Nvidia GM of embedded and edge computing discusses the future of robotics and autonomous machines November 10, 2021
- GM 1 World Series Oakland Athletics vs Minnesota Broncos November 10, 2021
- Max Holloway: ‘We Are Not Elevator Divas’ | UFC Vegas 42 November 10, 2021
- West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice Promotes COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots November 10, 2021
- Disney misses on both top and bottom in earnings, stock hit after hours November 10, 2021
- SoFi beats on top and bottom lines November 10, 2021
- It says a lot about the market that Rivian hit a $100 billion market cap today, Dan Nathan says November 10, 2021
- ‘It’s kind of reinventing the wheel’ – Karin Kneissl November 10, 2021
- Las Vegas Raiders Henry Ruggs Facing 5 Additional Charges By Eric Pangilinan November 10, 2021
- Nvidia CEO: The ‘omniverse is closer than people think’ November 10, 2021
- Free NFL Betting Picks | Week 10 Locks and NFL Best Bets | LINEUPS November 10, 2021
- Looted treasures return home to Benin – Eye on Africa • FRANCE 24 English November 10, 2021
- Will Smith’s Jaw ‘Nearly Dislocated’ After Seeing Willow Smith’s Shaved Head For FIRST Time! November 10, 2021
- Lori Lightfoot Testifies In Front Of Congress On Covid-19 Response In Chicago November 10, 2021
- Judge shouts at prosecutor in trial for Kyle Rittenhouse November 10, 2021
- Steelers Press Conference (Nov. 10): Alex Highsmith, Pressley Harvin III | Pittsburgh Steelers November 10, 2021
- JUST IN: President Biden Promotes Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill At Baltimore Port November 10, 2021
- Gavin Newsom Dismisses False Report He Had Negative Reaction To COVID-19 Booster Shot November 10, 2021
- COP26: Boris Johnson appeals to world leaders for help November 10, 2021
- Thousands of pelicans make pit-stop in Israel en route to Africa November 10, 2021
- Un niño pega su lengua a un poste congelado y tiene que ser rescatado November 10, 2021
- DJ Jazzy Jeff Details “Instant Chemistry” Working with Will Smith (Flashback) November 10, 2021
- Davante Adams was proud of Jordan Love November 10, 2021
- Kern County Sheriff’s Office discusses community tour November 10, 2021
- ‘Infrastructure needs to catch up,’ around electric vehicles: Volvo CEO November 10, 2021
- Local 5 assisting with Kaiser employee negotiations November 10, 2021
- Taliban policies are rolling back women’s rights in Afghanistan November 10, 2021
- Cops Oblivious to Astroworld Deaths as They Recorded Travis Scott Performing November 10, 2021
- Robinhood Crypto COO: ‘Here’s what I love about NFTs’ November 10, 2021
- Yair Rodriguez is Ready to Fight After Two Years Away From the Octagon | UFC Vegas 42 November 10, 2021
- The Breakfast Club FULL SHOW 11-10-21 November 10, 2021
- Blinken, Ukrainian Official Speak About Russia’s Controversial NordStream2 Pipeline November 10, 2021
- COP26: Kenya’s ‘land of plenty’ is dying of thirst November 10, 2021
- The Rush: Kap & Carm talk Bulls, Pippen & Justin Fields November 10, 2021
- LIVE: President Biden delivers remarks on the bipartisan infrastructure deal November 10, 2021
- Robinhood Crypto COO: ‘The idea of meme investing needs a little bit of attitude adjustment’ November 10, 2021
- ESPN most out of pocket/unnecessary headlines & draft profiles compilation November 10, 2021
- Full testimony | Woman who grew up in neighborhood where Arbery was killed November 10, 2021
- Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Eagles’ Matchup vs. Chargers | Eagles Play🔁Back November 10, 2021
- Free NBA Picks Today | T-WOLVES vs WARRIORS Prediction (11/10/21) NBA Best Bets and NBA Player Props November 10, 2021
Oakland News Online Links From Oakland’s Only News Aggregator Blog
Oakland News Now Archives
Oakland News Now Archives Select Month November 2021 (12591) October 2021 (8926) September 2021 (1111) August 2021 (843) July 2021 (725) June 2021 (431) May 2021 (393) April 2021 (463) March 2021 (320) February 2021 (315) January 2021 (356) December 2020 (319) November 2020 (349) October 2020 (444) September 2020 (445) August 2020 (496) July 2020 (462) June 2020 (391) May 2020 (301) April 2020 (289) March 2020 (239) February 2020 (221) January 2020 (262) December 2019 (161) November 2019 (183) October 2019 (226) September 2019 (173) August 2019 (231) July 2019 (239) June 2019 (194) May 2019 (137) April 2019 (224) March 2019 (164) February 2019 (142) January 2019 (181) December 2018 (147) November 2018 (168) October 2018 (173) September 2018 (192) August 2018 (183) July 2018 (176) June 2018 (125) May 2018 (28) April 2018 (18)