Yesterday the second of two public outreach meetings for Coliseum City was held at Oakland City Hall. I was flying in during the afternoon, so I wasn’t able to make it. Thankfully, @greenkozi (the macinator) put together a Storify compilation of tweets related to the meeting. It should give you a good sense of what was being discussed during the meeting.
Unable to attend, I’ve focused over the last few days on the just-released Coliseum City Football Stadium Revenue Study. The 177-page document covers a variety of funding scenarios for the Raiders stadium, including public and private options. Some of the key takeaways:
- The full development could generate $22-26 million of annual tax revenue for the project, including ticket, sales, property, and hotel taxes.
- That tax revenue would support $120-140 million of public debt for the project.
- Ancillary development, even with three teams remaining at the Coliseum, looks rather modest.
- Economic impact for the both the stadium and ancillary development is estimated at $2.8 billion.
- Operating income (private) for the development is estimated at $49 million per year, which would support $300 million in debt. Combined with the public portion, a total of $420 million of debt could be supported. That would leave a nearly $700 million funding gap.
- The stadium would have a capacity of 50,000, including 75 suites, 4,700 club seats, 200 loge seats, and would cost $978 million to construct.
AECOM’s previous study from last summer had the stadium also at 50,000 including premium seats, a number that was debated. This confirms the number, though the stadium cost has jumped from $700 million to $978 million (and rising) in a matter of months.
A 50,000-seat stadium is a rather alarming figure. People should be asking why the team and market can’t support a larger stadium. 50,000 seats won’t bring in a Super Bowl, and any new stadium has already lost the prestige battle with Levi’s Stadium, which will have a Super Bowl, bowl game, Wrestlemania, and a number of other events. While this study has looked into a number of new development scenarios involving 1-3 new venues, there is no discussion of incorporating any part of the existing Coliseum, nor is there any mention of the existing Coliseum debt. The most cost-efficient route for the Raiders for a “new” venue would be to rebuild the old bowl of the Coliseum and refurbish Mt. Davis, while lopping off the upper deck. That could be done for less than half the cost being considered, while providing an opportunity for ancillary development with an A’s stadium or something else.
Maybe the NFL and the Raiders have considered this idea a nonstarter, so the JPA and BayIG aren’t going there. The aesthetics of the Coliseum aren’t great for transit-oriented development. But considering the growing funding gaps and the enormous obstacles to getting just the stadium built, it’s crazy that a renovated Coliseum isn’t under consideration. All they’d have to do is build roughly half a new stadium. There’s no situation where that’s more expensive than, oh, a whole new stadium. Seriously, am I missing something here?